Shism and the Qurn

At present, the Shs, who differ from the Sunn majority concerning the legitimacy of the political and spiritual succession to Muammad, comprise about ten percent of the Islamic community. Like the Sunns, they enjoy a rich tradition of scholarship in Islamic sciences, including both adth collection and classification as well as qurnic exegesis. Just as their conception of the legitimate leadership of the Muslim community evolved differently from that of their Sunn counterparts, so, too, did their understanding of the Qurn itself. The following, therefore, will discuss, first, the attitude of the Sha towards the Qurn and then provide an overview of the principles and methods of Sh exegesis. It will conclude with a presentation of some of the major Sh exegetes and their works. ^ Back to top The attitude of the Sha to the Qurn One of the bones of contention between Sunn and Sh Islam concerns the integrity of the Qurn. The Sha (q.v.) disputed the canonical validity of the Uthmnic codex, the textus receptus, of the Qurn (see collection of the qurn; codices of the qurn ) and cast doubt on the quality of its editing, alleging political tendentiousness on the part of the editors namely, the three first caliphs (see caliph ), particularly the third of them, Uthmn b. Affn (r. 23-35/644-56). Sh (mainly Imm) criticism of the qurnic text was most severe in the first centuries of Islam (see politics and the qurn; textual criticism of the qurn ). The editors were accused of falsification (tarf) of the qurnic text by both the omission of some phrases and the addition of others (see revision and alteration ). Moreover, the claim that the Qurn had been falsified is one of the principal arguments to which early Sh tradition resorted to explain the absence of any explicit reference to the Sha in the Qurn. In Sh qurnic commentaries many traditions are found accusing the Companions of the Prophet (q.v.) of violating the integrity of the qurnic text. In one of these traditions, cited in the commentary (tafsr) ascribed to the Imm asan al-Askar (d. 260/873-4), it is stated that Those whose ambitions overcame their wisdom (alladhna ghalabat ahwuhum uqlahum, i.e. the aba) falsified (arraf) the true meaning of God's book and altered it (wa-ghayyarhu) (Askar, Tafsr, 95; cf. Kohlberg, Some notes, 212 and n. 37). A treasure trove of such traditions is Kitb al-Qirt (known also as Kitb al-Tanzl wa-l-tarf) by Amad b. Muammad al-Sayyr (fl. late third/ninth century), of which an annotated edition is in preparation by M.A. Amir-Moezzi and E. Kohlberg. A similar tradition which, however, does not blame the Companions of the Prophet for the falsification is found in the Qurn commentary of al-Ayysh (d. ca. 320/932): Had the book of God not been subject to additions and omissions, our righteousness would not have been hidden from any [person] of wisdom (lawl annahu zda f kitb Allh wa-nuqia minhu m khafiya aqqun al dh ijan; Ayysh, Tafsr, i, 25). In a similar tradition it is stated: The [Qurn] contained the names of [various] persons, but these names have been removed (knat fhi asmu l-rijl faulqiyat; ibid., i, 24). The commentator does not attempt to validate this general claim with examples of texts that, in his opinion, have been altered. Just how unspecific these traditions are can be demonstrated by an account ascribed to Imm Jafar al-diq (d. 148/765), cited in relation to verse q 2:79: On leaving the house of the [caliph] Uthmn, Abdallh b. Amr b. al- met the Commander of the Faithful [Al; see al b. ab lib ] and said to him: O Al, we have spent the night on a matter with which we hope God will strengthen this community. Al answered him: I know how you spent the night: you have falsified, altered and changed (arraftum wa-ghayyartum wa-baddaltum) nine hundred letters/words (arf); falsified three hundred letters/words, changed three hundred letters/words and altered three hundred letters/words. [And then Al added this verse, q 2:79]: Woe to those who write the book (q.v.) with their hands and then say, this is from God (fa-waylun lilladhna yaktubna l-kitba bi-aydhim thumma yaqlna hdh min indi llhi; ibid., i, 66). It is obvious that the figures quoted here are not to be taken at face value, just as the three different verbs used to describe the editorial activity ( arrafa, ghayyara and baddala) in no way indicate discrete falsification techniques (see forgery; corruption ).
1

Numerous Sh utterances refer to the nature of the original text of the Qurn prior to its alleged corruption by the Sunns. In a well-known tradition, which appears in the writings of most early Imm commentators, Imm Muammad al-Bqir (d. ca 114/732) declares: The Qurn was revealed [consisting of] four parts: One part concerning us [the Sha], one part concerning our enemies, one part commandments (q.v.) and regulations ( fari wa-akm; see virtues and vices, commanding and forbidding; boundaries and precepts; law and the qurn ) and one part customs and parables ( sunan wa-amthl; see parable ). And the exalted parts of the Qurn refer to us (wa-lan karim al-Qurn; ibid., i, 20 and 21 where a tripartite division is suggested; cf. also the following sources, in which allusion is made to division into either three or four parts: Sayyr, Qirt, tradition no. 11; Furt, Tafsr, 1, 2; Kulayn, Kf, ii, 627-8; Goldziher, Richtungen, 288). Other accounts refer to the length of the original Qurn. It is believed to have contained 17,000 verses (q.v.; Sayyr, Qirt, tradition no. 16). q 33 is given as an example of a text that in the original Qurn was two and two-third times longer than Srat al-Baqara (The Cow, q 2; ibid., tradition no. 418; see sras ), which in turn was longer than the version in the Uthmnic codex (ibid., tradition no. 421). The discrepancy between the qurnic text and the Sh viewpoint is not necessarily one that a correct interpretation can remedy. This discrepancy results from a textual gap between the incomplete qurnic text found in the possession of the Sunns and the ideal text that, according to Sh belief, is no longer in anyone's possession but will be revealed by the Mahd in the eschatological era (see eschatology ). Later, beginning in the fourth/tenth century, in the wake of the political and social changes that Shism underwent, a tendency to moderation became apparent, and some of the criticism became muted. ImmSh scholars among them Muammad b. al-Numn, better known as al-Shaykh al-Mufd (d. 413/1022), al-Sharf al-Murta (d. 436/1044), Ab Jafar al-s (d. 460/1067), one of the eminent Imm-Sh exegetes, and Ab Al l-Fal b. asan al-abars (d. 548/1153) held that although the text of the Qurn as we have it is incomplete, it does not contain any falsifications. In other words, what is found in the Uthmnic codex is the truth but not the whole truth since it does not include all the revelations made to Muammad (see revelation and inspiration ). (On the various positions taken by Imm-Shs on this question, see Kohlberg, Some notes.) Despite the moderate views expressed by these and other Sh scholars, the opinion that the Qurn was falsified has been perpetuated throughout the history of Shism and persists to this day. Prominent scholars in Iran during the afavid period including Muammad b. Murta al-Kshn, known as Musin al-Fay (d. 1091/1680), Hshim b. Sulaymn al-Barn (d. 1107/1693 or 1109/1697), and Muammad Bqir alMajlis (d. 1110/1699 or 1111/1700) revived the debate about the integrity of the Qurn, basing their anti-Sunn polemics upon traditions extant in the early Sh corpus of tafsr and adth (see adth and the qurn ). One of the most radical works ever written on this matter is the Fal al-khib f tarf kitb rabb al-arbb by the eminent Sh scholar usayn Taq Nr l-abars (d. 1320/1902). In this work Nr brought together a great number of traditions referring to the question of the falsification of the Qurn. A recurrent tradition on which Nr bases his argument in favor of tarf draws an analogy between the Shs and the Jews (a notion that in itself is very common in Sh literature): Just as the Jews and the Christians (see jews and judaism; christians and christianity; people of the book ) altered and falsified the book of their prophet [sic; see prophets and prophethood ] after him, this community [i.e. the Muslims] shall alter and falsify the Qurn after our Prophet may God bless him and his family for everything that happened to the Children of Israel (q.v.) is bound to happen to this community (inna l-yahd wa-l-nar ghayyar waarraf kitb nabiyyihim badahu fa-hdhihi l-umma ayan l budda wa-an yughayyir l-Qurn bada nabiyyin all llh alayhi wa-ahlihi li-anna kulla m waqaa f ban Isrl l budda wa-an yaqaa f hdhihi l-umma; Nr, Fal, 35; whence Brunner, The dispute, 439; see community and society in the qurn ). It should be stressed, however, that Nr's extreme anti-Sunn tone was criticized even by the Sh scholars of his day. Nevertheless, the question of tarf never ceased to be a burning issue in Sh-Sunn discourse, to the point that there is hardly a new book on the general subject of the qurnic sciences whose
2

author can afford not to include a long chapter dealing with tarf (Brunner, The dispute, 445; see traditional disciplines of qurnic study ). Significant as it may be, the claim of forgery i.e. that issues relating to the Sha were deliberately omitted from the Qurn is not the sole argument used by Sh authors to explain the absence of any explicit mention of the ahl al-bayt/Sha in the Qurn (see people of the house ). Two additional arguments are (a) the Qurn contains hidden meanings, which the exegete should decipher (see polysemy ) and (b) the Qurn teaches principles while tradition expounds their details. The most common approach explaining the absence of references to the Sha in the Qurn asserts that it is in the nature of the Qurn to speak in symbols and codes (see metaphor; similes; symbolic imagery ) and according to this approach it should come as no surprise that the Qurn does not mention the Sha explicitly: those who know how to read between the lines can decipher the passages that allude to the Sha. This is the principle underlying the broad attempt to interpret many obscure qurnic verses (mubhamt) as well as some quite clear ones, as referring to the Sha. Even a cursory reading of the early Sh tafsrs reveals how wholeheartedly this approach was embraced by Sh commentators. The other approach that the Qurn teaches principles while tradition expounds their details is expressed, for example, in the answer al-Bqir gave to one of his disciples concerning the reason Al is not mentioned in the Qurn: Say to them [i.e. to those who put this question to you]: God revealed to his messenger [the verses about] prayer (q.v.) and did not [explicitly] mention three or four [prayers] until this was interpreted by the messenger. So also he revealed [the verses about] the pilgrimage (q.v.), but did not reveal the injunction encircle [the Kaba (q.v.)] seven times. So too is the meaning of the verse [ q 4:59] Obey God and obey the messenger and those in authority (q.v.) among you. This verse was revealed in relation to Al, asan and usayn (Ayysh, Tafsr, i, 276; see obedience; kings and rulers ). According to this tradition, the reason Al and his disciples are not mentioned explicitly in the Qurn is that the Qurn, by its very nature, restricts itself to general principles; it presents religious laws and general rulings yet does not go into details, a prerogative reserved for the interpreter. This tripartite argumentation in no way suggests that these were three separate approaches to the problem, each exclusive of the other. Rather, the three together demonstrate the problems that Sh exegetes faced and the attempts they made to resolve them. ^ Back to top Principles and methods of Sh exegesis Sh exegetes, perhaps even more than their Sunn counterparts, support their distinctive views by reference to qurnic proof-texts (see exegesis of the qurn: classical and medieval ). A major distinction is that the Sh exegetes attempt to find in the Qurn explicit references to such themes as the imms' (see imm ) supernatural and mystical qualities, their authority to interpret the Qurn and other religious scriptures, or such major Sh doctrines as the duty of loyalty (q.v.) to the imms (walya) and dissociation from their enemies (bara). A fundamental principle of Sh exegetical tradition is that the authority to interpret the Qurn is reserved for Al and his descendants, the imms. In a well-known adth, cited in both Sunn and Sh sources, Muammad is said to have declared: There is one among you who will fight for the [correct] interpretation of the Qurn just as I myself fought for its revelation, and he is Al b. Ab lib (inna f-kum man yuqtilu al tawl al-Qurn kam qtaltu al tanzlihi wa-huwa Al ibn Ab lib; Ayysh, Tafsr, i, 27; Shahrastn, Milal, 189; and cf. Gimaret and Monnot, Livre, i, 543, and n. 231, where further sources are cited; also Poonawala, Isml tawl, 209-10). This idea of Al and (implicitly) also his descendants being presented by the Prophet himself as interpreters of the Qurn is also deduced from other traditions, the most
3

famous of which is the tradition about the two weighty things (adth al-thaqalayn), i.e. the two things that Muammad is reported to have bequeathed to his believers. There are significant differences between the Sunn and Sh exegetical traditions regarding both the identity of these two things and the interpretation of the adth. According to one version, they are the book of God (kitb Allh) and the Prophet's practice ( sunnat nabiyyihi, Ibn Isq-Guillaume, 651; see sunna ). Other versions of this tradition, recorded in both Sunn and Sh works, mention as the thaqaln the Qurn and the family of the Prophet (q.v.; ahl al-bayt). The explanation given in Sh sources as to the discrepancy between the two versions of this tradition is that while in Sunn exegesis the practice of the Prophet is considered a tool for interpreting the Qurn (and is therefore mentioned in conjunction with the book itself), in Sh tradition the family of the Prophet plays the equivalent role: only through the mediation of the imms, the descendants of the Prophet, are both the exoteric (hir) and the esoteric (bin) meanings of the qurnic text revealed to believers. The thaqaln are further viewed as being forever intertwined with each other (lan yaftariq) or, in the words of al-s (d. 460/1067): This tradition proves that [the Qurn] exists in every generation, since it is unlikely that [Muammad] would order us to keep something which we cannot keep, just as the family of the Prophet, and those we are ordered to follow, are present at all times (s, Tibyn, i, 3-4). The distance from here to the creation of the metaphor describing the imms as the speaking book of God ( kitb Allh al-niq) is short indeed (see e.g. Burs, Mashriq, 135; Ayoub, The speaking Qurn, 183, n. 17; Poonawala, Isml tawl, 200). The authority of the imms as interpreters of the Qurn is reiterated in many traditions other than the adth al-thaqalayn. One tradition defining the many functions of the imms includes their role as interpreters of the Qurn: We know how to interpret the book [i.e. the Qurn] and how to speak clearly (narifu tawl al-kitb wa-fal al-khib; Ayysh, Tafsr, i, 28). These as well as numerous other traditions have but one purpose to make clear that those qualified to interpret the Qurn are the imms, and that this right was bestowed upon them directly by God. In the absence of the imms, the duty of the text's interpreters is restricted to preserving traditions in their name and making these available to believers (see teaching and preaching the qurn ). The interpreters are thus no more than a vehicle and, at least theoretically, are not authorized to pronounce their own views (ibid., i, 27; Qumm, Tafsr, ii, 397). Among Shs, as among other religious circles and groups operating on the fringes of society, allegory, typology and secret codes became favorite methods of interpreting the Qurn. Nevertheless, only heterodox factions such as the Nuayrs and the Druze (see druzes ) went so far as to view the inner meaning of the Qurn as the exclusive, binding authority. At times such techniques derive from an elitist outlook, one which maintains that religious secrets (q.v.; see also hidden and the hidden ) should be concealed from the masses and be the unique privilege of the elect. Sometimes it derives from an existential necessity: religious and ideological minorities may find themselves in danger as a consequence of overt and careless expression of ideas unpalatable to the ruling majority (see heresy; theology and the qurn ). And indeed, the fact that many Sh factions throughout their history flourished under Sunn rule required the use of survival techniques both in everyday life and when committing their religious doctrines to writing. Sh scholars had to walk a fine line: on the one hand, they wished to give whenever possible expression to their real intentions; on the other hand, they had to make sure that the expression of such ideas did not arouse the wrath of their Sunn opponents. This is one of the clearest manifestations of the doctrine of precautionary dissimulation (q.v.; taqiyya). An illustration of the allegorical approach (tawl) of Sh Qurn exegesis may be seen in the interpretation of the night journey of Muammad referred to in the first verse of q 17 (Srat al-Isr, The Night Journey; see ascension ). Although aware of the conventional interpretation of this verse as referring to an actual journey during which the Prophet was borne from Mecca (q.v.) to Jerusalem (q.v.), Isml as well as Nuayr authors interpreted this passage as a symbol of the spiritual progress of the imms or other persons within the divine realm. (For the Isml approach, see e.g. al-Q l-Numn, Ass al-tawl, 337; for the
4

Nuayr interpretation, see the epistle of the Nuayr author Ab Abdallh al-usayn b. Hrn al-igh [fl. fourth/tenth century] in Bar-Asher and Kofsky, The Nuayr-Alaw religion, 89-97.) Ismls tend to employ allegory to, inter alia, interpret Muslim law. Thus, for example, the pillars of Islam are given in Isml writings symbolic meanings: the five obligatory prayers correspond to the five divine ranks (udd) in the Isml hierarchical system; almsgiving (q.v.; zakt) means that those with knowledge should provide reliable mentors to guide the people (see knowledge and learning ); fasting (q.v.; awm) entails observing silence and not betraying religious secrets to the uninitiated; pilgrimage to Mecca, the house of God (see house, domestic and divine ), symbolizes an audience with the imm, since God's knowledge resides with him (Poonawala, Isml tawl, 218, paraphrasing Kitb al-Iftikhr, 240 f., by the prominent Isml d Ab Yaqb al-Sijistn [d. ca. 361/971]). It is worth mentioning that this tendency, prevalent in Ismlism, is shared by Ghult groups such as the Nuayrs and the Druzes. A significant difference, however, should be noted. Moderate allegorists e.g. Imm Sh and most Ismls maintained that the allegorical interpretation that extracts the true meaning of the Qurn does not aim to invalidate the plain meaning of the text (see e.g. Bar-Asher, Scripture and exegesis, 122-4). Heterodox groups, in contrast, often held that allegory was the only correct interpretation and thus belittled and even ignored the revealed meaning of the texts. This distinction became especially glaring with regard to legal matters. Consistent allegorical interpretation led its practitioners, more often than not, to adopt antinomian attitudes toward the religious precepts of the Qurn, and once a law assumed a symbolic meaning its literal meaning, according to these circles, was no longer binding. A blatant antinomian interpretation of the pillars of Islam is offered e.g. by the fourth epistle of the Druze canon (al-Kitb al-Marf bi-l-naq al-khaf; an unpublished critical edition of this epistle is offered by Bryer, The origins, ii, 31-50; cf. De Sacy, Expos, ii, 673). Sh Qurn exegesis is further characterized by a radical anti-Sunn bias. Many qurnic verses whose apparent meanings have a negative connotation or refer generally and vaguely to evil or to evildoers (see good and evil; evil deeds; oppression ) are taken, through allegorical or typological interpretation, to refer to specific historical luminaries of Sunn Islam. Negative qurnic terms such as baghy (insolence; see insolence and obstinacy; arrogance; pride ), fash (indecency; see adultery and fornication; chastity; modesty ), munkar (dishonor), al-fujjr (the wicked), al- mufsidn f l-ar (corrupters on earth; see corruption; oppression ), al-shayn (Satan; see devil ), al-maghb alayhim (those against whom [God] is wrathful; see anger ), al-lln (those who are astray; see error; astray ) and the like are interpreted as referring to the enemies of the Sha in general or to specific persons among them, in particular the first three caliphs, two of Muammad's wives (isha and afa [q.v.], the daughters of the first and the second caliphs, respectively; see also wives of the prophet; isha bint ab bakr ), the Umayyads and the Abbsids. In an utterance attributed to al-Bqir he goes so far as to state that every occur- rence in the Qurn of the words Satan says is [to be understood as referring to] the second [namely the caliph Umar b. alKhab] (wa-laysa f-l-Qurn [shay] wa-qla al-shayn ill wa-huwa al-thn; Ayysh, Tafsr, ii, 240). In another tradition, cited in the same source, a more general formulation of this idea is also attributed to this imm. To Muammad b. Muslim (d. 150/767), one of his disciples, the imm said: Whenever you hear God [in the Qurn] mentioning someone of this nation in praise, it refers to us [i.e. the Sha]; and when you hear God denigrating people who flourished in the past, it refers to our enemies (idh samita llha dhakara aadan min hdhihi l-umma bi-khayrin fa-nanu hum wa-idh samita llha dhakara qawman bi-sin mimman ma fa-hum aduwwun; ibid., i, 24; see chastisement and punishment; punishment stories; reward and punishment ). Secret language in Sh exegesis is evident on two levels. The first level, the exegetes believe, is found in the Qurn itself; it underlies such obscure or general qurnic expressions as al- jibt wa-l-ght (see idols and images; jibt ), al-fash wa-l-munkar and many others. The second level is added by the Qurn commentator himself. When tracing the exegete's method of unraveling the meaning of obscure expressions one often discovers that the exegete not only avoids disclosing the secrets of the text but actually further conceals them. The commentator never claims explicitly that expressions such as those just mentioned refer
5

to Ab Bakr, Umar or other enemies of the Sha; rather, he resorts to code words such as the first (alawwal) and the second (al-thn), abtar, fox (usually applied to Ab Bakr because of his cunning and fraudulence (li-ilatihi wa-makrihi, Majlis, Bir, lith., 4, 378; 9, 65) and zurayq, shiny-eyed or blueeyed (referring to Umar; e.g. Furt, Tafsr, 69; see also pre-islamic arabia and the qurn ). This physical feature was considered unfortunate by the ancient Arabs (q.v.) and finds an echo in q 20:102, according to which the wicked will rise on the day of resurrection (q.v.) with shiny (or blue) eyes (q.v.; for these and other derogatory appellations, see Goldziher, Spottnamen, 295-308; Kohlberg, Some Imm Sh views, esp. 160-7; Bar-Asher, Scripture, 113-20). In other words, the transition from the covert stratum in the Qurn to the overt stratum of the interpretation is not direct but undergoes a further process of encoding. The underlying assumption is that every Sh is familiar with these code words which are an integral part of his religious-cultural upbringing. In other cases Sh exegesis is designed to support the Sh doctrine of the immate and concepts derived from it, examples being ima (see impeccability ), or the immunity of prophets and imms from sin (see sin, major and minor ) and error; the intercession (q.v.; shafa) of prophets and imms on behalf of their communities; bad (the appearance of new circumstances that cause a change in an earlier divine ruling); and, in the case of the Isml, Druze and Nuayr factions, such additional concepts as the cyclical creation (q.v.) of the world and the transmigration of souls (q.v.). Another current feature of early Sh (mainly Imm) exegesis is the use of variant readings (qirt) of the qurnic text or, in certain cases, the addition of words believed to have been omitted from it (see readings of the qurn ). Such textual alterations are based on the assumption that the qurnic text is flawed and incomplete. Scholars who held the view that the Qurn is corrupt believed that the Mahd will eventually reveal the true text and uncover its original intention. Examples of these alterations are the common textual substitution of aimma (imms) for umma (nation or community) or slight changes to the word imm itself. The implication of these variants is that the institution of the immate and other principles associated with it originate in the Qurn. For example, for q 3:110 most early Sh exegetes read: You are the best leaders [leg. aimmatin rather than ummatin, nation] ever brought forth to humankind (kuntum khayra aimmatin ukhrijat lil-ns); or in q 2:143: Thus we appointed you midmost leaders (wa-kadhlika jaalnkum aimmatan wasaan), etc. (For the first verse, cf. Qumm, Tafsr, i, 110; Ayysh, Tafsr, i, 218; for the second, cf. Qumm, Tafsr, i, 63.) Prominent among the other type of alterations is the insertion of certain words generally proclaimed to be missing from the Uthmnic codex of the Qurn. These are primarily (a) the words f Al (concerning Al) in various qurnic verses, among them q 2:91: Believe in what God has revealed to you [+ concerning Al] (min bi-m anzala llh [+ f Al]) or q 4:166: But God bears witness to what he has revealed to you [+ concerning Al] (lkinna llh yashhadu bi-m anzala ilayka [+ f Al]); or (b) the words l Muammad (the family of Muammad) or occasionally l Muammad aqqahum ([deprived] of their rights) as the object of a verb from the root -l-m (to do an injustice to/to usurp), which appear often in the Qurn. Sh commentators believe that this addition stresses that the injustice (see justice and injustice ) referred to by words and verbs derived from the root -l-m alludes specifically to the injustice perpetrated against the family of the Prophet and his offspring, i.e. the Sha. The same method is applied with regard to other doctrines. The insertion of the words f walyat Al (concerning the [duty of] loyalty to the house of Al) in several places in the Qurn is intended to provide scriptural authority to the doctrine of walya, as the addition of the words il ajalin musamman (for a given time) to the muta verse ( q 4:24), is meant to emphasize the temporary nature of muta marriage (see marriage and divorce; temporary marriage; sex and sexuality ). Less known is the addition of the word muta in q 24:33: wa-l-yastafifi lladhna l yajidna nikan [+ bi-l-muta] att yughniyahumu llhu min falihi, And let those who find not the means to enter into a [+ muta] marriage be abstinent till God enriches them of his bounty (Sayyr, Qirt, tradition no. 372; see abstinence ). The differentiation between variant readings and additions by the commentators or their sources inheres primarily in terminology. In many places where the commentator introduces a Sh version of a qurnic
6

verse, he does so by using typical formulas. The Sh version is preceded by such utterances as (a) nazala Jibrl [or Jibrl] bi-hdhihi l-ya hkadh al Muammad, thus the verse was revealed to Muammad by [the angel] Gabriel (q.v.; see e.g. Ayysh, Tafsr, ii, 353; and for similar versions, ibid., i, 63; Qumm, Tafsr, ii, 111); or followed by (b) hkadh nazalat, thus [the verse] was revealed (see e.g. Qumm, Tafsr, i, 142, 297; ii, 21); at other times it is stated that the version cited was the reading of one of the imms (e.g. Ayysh, Tafsr, i, 217, 218; Qumm, Tafsr, i, 389). At times even stronger expressions are used to stress that certain passages in the canonical text are incorrect. These include statements formulated in the negative such as (a) al khilf m anzala llh, [the version in the textus receptus] contradicts the form in which it was revealed (see e.g. Qumm, Tafsr, i, 10, which cites q 3:110 or q 25:74 as examples of such verses); or (b) fm urrifa min kitb Allh, [This verse] is one of those falsified [or altered] in the book of God (Qumm, Tafsr, ii, 295). In the absence of such a firm declaration it is difficult to decide whether the alteration is a mere commentary or whether the exegete is in fact suggesting an alternative reading to the canonical text despite the absence of such typical expressions as those mentioned above. On the basis of such a rejection of the Sunn text one might have expected the Sha to insert these alternative versions and additions into the text of the Qurn or at least to implement them when the text is read on ritual occasions (see ritual and the qurn; recitation of the qurn ). In reality, however, almost no action was taken by the Sha to canonize their variant readings. One exception is a late attempt reflected in a manuscript of the Qurn, said to have been discovered in the city of Bankipore, India, in which, besides the Sh alternative versions to some of the qurnic verses, two apocryphal sras were also included: srat al-walya, the sra of divine friendship (i.e. between God and Al; see friends and friendship; clients and clientage ) and srat al-nrayn, the sra of the two lights (i.e. Muammad and Al; on this issue, noted by scholars as early as the nineteenth century, see Amir-Moezzi, Le guide divin, 200-27; The divine guide, 7991, 198-206; see light ). This behavior of the Sha reveals a paradox. On the one hand, Shs are certain that the true version of the Qurn is that known to them; on the other hand, not only do they not reject the canonical codex, they actually endorse it (see e.g. Goldziher, Richtungen, 281). This contradiction is typical of the Sha: on the one hand an uncompromising position of superiority was adopted on the theoretical-doctrinal level; on the other hand the constant fear of persecution from the hostile Sunn environment brought about, on the practical level, a pragmatic attitude that included the adoption de facto of the Uthmnic codex. This tension and paradox is reflected in the many Sh exegetical traditions in which Sh qirt are mentioned. In some of them one finds the following situation: A disciple of the imm is reading from the (canonical) Qurn in the presence of the imm, who tells him that it was revealed in a different version. The imm then proceeds to read the true (i.e. the Sh) version. As, however, against such accounts, which underrate the importance of the Uthmnic codex, an opposing tendency is sometimes revealed: Someone is reading from the Qurn in the presence of one of the imms, and inserts in his reading the Sh version of the verse. At this point he is stopped by the imm, who instructs him to read according to the version followed by the people (i.e. the textus receptus) until such time as the righteous savior (al-qim) shall come with the correct version of the Qurn, identical with the one that Al possessed and bequeathed to his daughter, Fima (q.v.), whence its title muaf Fima, the codex of Fima (see muaf ). Other methods of Sh exegesis are based on the word and letter order and calculations of the numerical value of letters (see numerology ). In his interpretation of q 108 (Srat al-Kawthar), al-Sijistn presents a transposition of the words and letters of the sra, thus reading into it the Sh tenet of waya, the rank of plenipotentiary among the imms (Poonawala, Isml tawl, 218-9). The technique of numerical calculation of letters is primarily applied to the mysterious letters (q.v.; fawti al-suwar) appearing at the head of twenty-nine sras. For example, the letters alif, lm, mm, d (the total numerical value of which is 161) at the head of q 7 (Srat al-Arf, The Heights; see people of the heights ) allude, according to an account attributed to al-Bqir, to the year 161 of the hijr calendar (777 c.e.), a year which had been
7

(incorrectly) predicted as the one in which the fall of the Umayyad dynasty would occur (Ayysh, Tafsr, ii, 7-8). It should further be noted that Sh, and particularly Isml, exegesis is characterized by the use of a secret script designed to encrypt information mainly names of persons that the author wishes to conceal for precautionary reasons. Numerous examples of this practice are found in the Kitb al-Kashf by the d, Jafar b. Manr al-Yaman (fl. first half of fourth/tenth century), and Mizj al-tasnm by the Yamamite Isml Sulaymn d, Isml b. Hibat Allh (d. 1184/1770). ^ Back to top Major Sh exegetes and their works The earliest Imm-Sh Qurn commentaries known to us are from the end of the third/ninth century. These include the works of Furt b. Furt b. Ibrhm al-Kf (Tafsr Furt al-Kf), al-Ayysh (Tafsr) and al-Qumm (Tafsr), all of whom flourished in the last decades of the third/ninth century and the beginning of the fourth/tenth century, that is, prior to the Great Occultation (al-ghayba al-kubr) of the twelfth imm, which occurred in the year 329/941. Somewhat later is Muammad b. Ibrhm b. Jafar al-Numn (d. ca. 360/971), to whom is ascribed a treatise constituting a sort of introduction to the Qurn (Majlis, Bir, xc, 1-97). Other compositions are the two commentaries ascribed to the sixth and eleventh imms, respectively: aqiq al-tafsr al-qurn, a small exegetical treatise of a f character (see fism and the qurn ) attributed to Imm Jafar al-diq and Tafsr al-Askar, a comprehensive commentary of a legendarymythical nature on the first two sras of the Qurn attributed to Imm asan al-Askar (d. 260/874; on which see Bar-Asher, al-Askar). The most outstanding tafsrs of the post-ghayba period are al-s's Tibyn, al-abars's Majma and the Raw al-jinn wa-r al-jann, a Qurn commentary in Persian by Ab l-Fut usayn b. Al al-Rz (fl. first half of the sixth/twelfth century). Some very comprehensive Imm-Sh tafsr works, which are mainly compilations of early sources, were composed in afavid Iran. The most prominent among these are Tawl al-yt al-hira f fail al-itra al-hira by Sharaf al-Dn Al l-usayn l-Astarbd (fl. tenth/sixteenth century), Kitb al-f f tafsr al-Qurn by Musin al-Fay and Kitb al-Burhn f tafsr al-Qurn by Hshim b. Sulaymn al-Barn. Representative of modern Imm-Sh Qurn exegesis are abab's Mzn and Min way al-Qurn by Muammad usayn Fal Allh. Needless to say, exegetical material other than Qurn commentaries per se proliferates in all genres of Imm-Sh literature. (For a detailed survey of Sh tafsr works, see ihrn, Dhara, iii, 302-7; iv, 231-346.) Isml doctrinal writings include a vast amount of exegetical material but little is known of specific Isml exegetical works. Among the few that have come down to us are Kitb Ass al-tawl by the d alQ l-Numn b. ayyn Maghrib (d. 363/973) and Kitb al-Kashf by Jafar b. Manr al-Yaman. (For other Isml exegetical works, see Poonawala, Biobibliography, index, s.v. tafsr and tawl.) The Zayd exegetical tradition remains largely unexplored and most Zayd works of tafsr are still in manuscript form. The Zayd imms al-Qsim b. Ibrhm Rass (d. 246/860), al-Nir lil-aqq al-Ursh (d. 304/917) and Ab l-Fat Nir b. usayn al-Daylam (d. 444/1052) are among those credited with a tafsr (ihrn, Dhara, iv, 255, 261; Abrahamov, Anthropomorphism). A Qurn commentary is also ascribed to Ziyd b. Mundhir Ab l-Jrd, the eponym of the Zaydi-Jrd sub-sect, the Jrdiyya (ihrn, Dhara, iv, 251). The work is not extant; excerpts of it are, however, incorporated in al-Qumm's Tafsr (Bar-Asher, Scripture, 46-56, 244-7). Another outstanding Jrd scholar who is credited with a tafsr is Amad b. Muammad Hamadhn, better known as Ibn Uqda (d. 333/947; cf. ihrn, Dhara, iv, 251). Finally, there is the tafsr by Shawkn (d. 1250/1834), one of the best known and most prolific authors of the late Zaydiyya. There is no evidence that Qurn commentaries were written by members of Ghult groups (such as the Druzes and the Nuayrs), although the Qurn is widely cited and often commented on in their sacred writings. See also persian literature and the qurn .
8

Meir M. Bar-Asher ^ Back to top Bibliography

Primary:

al-Astarbd, Sharaf al-Dn Al al-usayn, Tawl al-yt al-hira f fail al-itra al-hira, Qumm 1407/1986 Ayysh, Tafsr Barn, Burhn al-Burs, Rajab b. Muammad, Mashriq anwr al-yaqn f asrr amr al-muminn, Beirut n.d. M. Fal Allh, Min way al-Qurn, Beirut 1405-10/1985-90 Furt b. Furt b. Ibrhm al-Kf, Tafsr Furt al-Kf, Najaf 1354/1935 new ed. M. Kim, Tehran 1410/1990 al-asan al-Askar (attrib.), Tafsr al-Askar, Qumm 1409/1988 Ibn Hibat Allh, iy al-Dn Isml, Mizj al-tasnm [Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gttingen 31], ed. R. Strothman, Gttingen 1948 Ibn Isq-Guillaume; Jafar b. Manr al-Yaman, Kitb al-Kashf, ed. R. Strothmann, London 1952 Jafar al-diq (attrib.), aqiq al-tafsr al-qurn, ed. A. Zayr, Beirut 1413/1993 al-Kashn, Muammad b. Murta, Kitb al-f f tafsr al-Qurn, Beirut 1389/1979 Kulayn, Kf al-Majlis, Muammad Bqir, Bir al-anwr, Iran 1305-15/1887-98 (lith.) ed. J. al-Alaw et al., 110 vols., Tehran 1956-72, Beirut 1403/19832 al-Numn, Muammad b. Ibrhm b. Jafar (attrib.), Tafsr, in Majlis, Bir, ed. Beirut, xc, 1-97 Nr al-abars, usayn Taq, Fal al-khib f tarf kitb rabb al-arbb, [Tehran] 1298/1881 (lith.) al-Q al-Numn b. ayyn Maghrib, Ass al-tawl, ed. A. Tamer, Beirut 1960 Qumm, Tafsr, Najaf 1387/1967 al-Rz, Ab l-Fut usayn b. Al, Raw al- jinn wa-r al-jann, Tehran 1349 Sh. al-Sayyr, Amad b. Muammad, Kitb al-Qirt (or Kitb al-Tanzl wa-l-tarf), ed. M.A. Amir-Moezzi and E. Kohlberg (forthcoming) Shahrastn, Milal, ed. F. Muammad
9

trans. D. Gimaret and G. Monnot, Livre des religions et des sectes, 2 vols., Paris/Louvain 1986, i, 543 Shawkn, Tafsr al-Sijistn, Ab Yaqb, Kitb al-Iftikhr, ed. I.K. Poonawala, Beirut 2000 abars [abris], Majma abab, Mzn al-ihrn, gha Buzurg, al-Dhara il tanf al-sha, Najaf 1355-95/1936-75 s, Tibyn
Secondary:

B. Abrahamov, Anthropomorphism and interpretation of the Qurn in the theology of al-Qsim ibn Ibrhm. Kitb al-mustarshid, Leiden/New York/Cologne 1996 M.A. Amir-Moezzi, Le guide divin dans le shiisme originel. Aux sources de l'sotrisme en Islam, Paris 1992, 200-27 trans. D. Streight, The divine guide in early Shiism. The sources of esotericism in Islam, New York 1994, 79-91, 199-206 id. and C. Jambet, Qu'est-ce que le sh'isme? Paris 2004, 89-97 (on the Qurn), 139-78 M. Ayoub, The speaking Qurn and the silent Qurn. A study of the principles and development of Imm Sh tafsr, in Rippin, Approaches, 177-98 M.M. Bar-Asher, The Qurn commentary ascribed to the Imm asan al-Askar, in jsai 24 (2000), 358-79 id., Scripture and exegesis in early Imm Shiism, Jerusalem/Leiden 1999 id., Variant readings and additions of the Imm-ia to the Quran, in ios 13 (1993), 39-74 id. and A. Kofsky, The Nuayr-Alaw religion. An enquiry into its theology and liturgy, Leiden 2002, 89-97 R. Brunner, Die Schia und die Koransflschung, Wrzburg 2001 id., The dispute about the falsification of the Qurn between Sunns and Shs in the 20th century, in S. Leder et al. (eds.), Studies in Arabic and Islam. Proceedings of the 19th Congress, Union Europenne des Arabisants et Islamisants (Halle 1998 ), Leuven/Paris 2002, 437-46 D.R.W. Bryer, The origins of the Druze religion. An edition of amza's writings and an analysis of his doctrine, 2 vols., DPhil. diss., U. Oxford 1971, ii, 31-50 J. Eliash, The iite Qurn. A reconsideration of Goldziher's interpretation, in Arabica 16 (1969), 15-24 Goldziher, Richtungen, 263-309
10

id., Spottnamen der ersten Chalifen bei den Schiiten, in id., Gesammelte Schriften, ed. J. Desomogyi, 6 vols., Hildesheim 1967-73, iv, 295-308 E. Kohlberg, Authoritative scriptures in early Imami Shism, in E. Patlagean and A. Le Boulluec (eds.), Les retours aux critures. Fondamentalismes prsents et passs, Louvain-Paris 1994, 295-312 id., Some Imm Sh views on the aba, in jsai 5 (1984), 143-75 repr. in id., Belief and law in Imm Shism, Aldershot 1991, chap. 9 id., Some notes on the Immite attitude to the Qurn, in S.M. Stern, A. Hourani, and V. Brown (eds.), Islamic philosophy and the classical tradition. Essays presented to Richard Walzer, Oxford 1972, 209-24 B.T. Lawson, Note for the study of a Sh Qurn, in jss 36 (1991), 279-95 H. Modarressi, Early debates on the integrity of the Qurn, in si 77 (1993), 5-39 I.K. Poonawala, Biobibliography of Isml literature, Los Angeles 1977 id., Isml tawl of the Qurn, in Rippin, Approaches, 199-222 W. al-Q, al-Kaysniyya f l-trkh wa-l-adab, Beirut 1974 S. de Sacy, Expos de la religion des Druzes, 2 vols, Paris 1838 W. St. Clair Tisdall, The Shah additions to the Koran, in mw 3 (1913), 227-41 [Print Version: Volume 4, page 593, column 1] Citation: Bar-Asher, Meir M. "Shism and the Qurn." Encyclopaedia of the Qurn. General Editor: Jane Dammen McAuliffe, Georgetown University, Washington DC. Brill, 2010. Brill Online. University Of South Africa. 25 May 2010 <http://0-www.brillonline.nl.oasis.unisa.ac.za/subscriber/entry?entry=q3_COM-00181>

11