Meir M Bar-Asher. Encyclopaedia of the Qur’an. Editor: Jane Dammen McAuliffe. Volume 4, Brill Academic Publishers, 2003.
The Attitude of the Shiʿa to the Qurʿan
One of the bones of contention between Sunni and Shiʿi Islam concerns the integrity of the Qurʿan. The Shiʿa (q.v.) disputed the canonical validity of the ʿUthmanic codex, the textus receptus, of the Qurʿan and cast doubt on the quality of its editing, alleging political tendentiousness on the part of the editors — namely, the three first caliphs, particularly the third of them, ʿUthman b. ʿAffan (r. 23-35/644-56). Shiʿi (mainly Imami) criticism of the qurʿanic text was most severe in the first centuries of Islam. The editors were accused of falsification (taḥrif) of the qurʿanic text by both the omission of some phrases and the addition of others. Moreover, the claim that the Qurʿan had been falsified is one of the principal arguments to which early Shiʿitradition resorted to explain the absence of any explicit reference to the Shiʿa in the Qurʿan.
In Shiʿi qurʿanic commentaries many traditions are found accusing the Companions of the Prophet (q.v.) of violating the integrity of the qurʿanic text. In one of these traditions, cited in the commentary (tafsir) ascribed to the Imam Ḥasan al-ʿAskari (d. 260/873-4), it is stated that “Those whose ambitions overcame their wisdom (alladhina ghalabat ahwaʿuhum ʿuqulahum, i.e. the ṣaḥaba) falsified (ḥarrafu) the true meaning of God’s book and altered it (wa-ghayyaruhu)” (ʿAskari, Tafsir, 95; cf. Kohlberg, Some notes, 212 and n. 37).A treasure trove of such traditions is Kitab al-Qiraʿat (known also as Kitab al-Tanzil wa-l-taḥrif) by Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Sayyari (fl. late third/ninth century), of which an annotated edition is in preparation by M.A. Amir-Moezzi and E. Kohl berg. A similar tradition — which, however, does not blame the Companions of the Prophet for the falsification — is found in the Qurʿan commentary of al-ʿAyyashi (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” (lawla annahu zida fi kitab Allah wanuqiṣa minhu ma khafiya ḥaqquna ʿala dhi ḥijan; ʿAyyashi, Tafsir, i, 25). In a similar tradition it is stated: “The [Qurʿan] contained the names of [various] persons, but these names have been removed” (kanat fihi asmaʿu l-rijal fa-ulqiyat; 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 Imam Jaʿfar al-Ṣadiq (d. 148/765), cited in relation to verse Q 2:79: “On leaving the house of the [caliph] ʿUthman, ʿAbdallah b. ʿAmr b. al-ʿAṣ met the Com mander of the Faithful [ʿAli] and said to him: ‘OʿAli, we have spent the night on a matter with which we hope God will strengthen this community.’ʿAli answered him: ‘I know how you spent the night: you have falsified, altered and changed (ḥarraftum wa-ghayyartum wa-baddaltum) nine hundred letters/words (ḥarf); falsified three hundred letters/words, changed three hundred letters/words and altered three hundred letters/words. [And thenʿAli 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 lilladhina yaktubna l-kitaba bi-aydihim thumma yaquluna hadha min ʿindi llahi; 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 (ḥarrafa, ghayyara and baddala) in no way indicate discrete falsification techniques.
Numerous Shiʿi utterances refer to the nature of the original text of the Qurʿan prior to its alleged corruption by the Sunnis. In a well-known tradition, which appears in the writings of most early Imami commentators, Imam Muḥammad al-Baqir (d. ca 114/732) declares: “The Qurʿan was revealed [consisting of] four parts: One part concerning us [the Shiʿa], one part concerning our enemies, one part commandments (q.v.) and regulations (faraʿiḍ wa-aḥkam) and one part customs and parables (sunan wa-amthal). And the exalted parts of the Qurʿan refer to us” (wa-lana karaʿim al-Qurʿan; 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: Sayyari, Qiraʿat, tradition no. 11; Furat, Tafsir, 1, 2; Kulayni, Kafi, ii, 627-8; Goldziher, Richtungen, 288). Other accounts refer to the length of the original Qurʿan.It is believed to have contained 17,000 verses (q.v.; Sayyari, Qiraʿat, tradition no. 16). Q 33 is given as an example of a text that in the original Qurʿan was two and two-third times longer than Surat al-Baqara (“The Cow,” Q 2; ibid., tradition no. 418), which in turn was longer than the version in the ʿUthmanic codex (ibid., tradition no. 421).
The discrepancy between the qurʿanic text and the Shiʿi viewpoint is not necessarily one that a “correct” interpretation can remedy. This discrepancy results from a textual gap between the incomplete qurʿanic text found in the possession of the Sunnis and the ideal text that, according to Shiʿi belief, is no longer in anyone’s possession but will be revealed by the Mahdi in the eschatological era.
Later, beginning in the fourth/tenth century, in the wake of the political and social changes that Shiʿism underwent, a tendency to moderation became apparent, and some of the criticism became muted. Imami-Shiʿi scholars — among them Muḥammad b. al-Nuʿman, better known as al-Shaykh al-Mufid (d. 413/1022), al-Sharif al-Murtaḍa (d. 436/1044), Abu Jaʿfar al-Ṭusi (d. 460/1067), one of the eminent Imami-Shiʿi exegetes, and AbuʿAli l-Faḍl b. Ḥasan al-Ṭabarsi (d. 548/1153) — held that although the text of the Qurʿan as we have it is incomplete, it does not contain any falsifications. In other words, what is found in the ʿUthmanic codex is the truth but not the whole truth since it does not include all the revelations made to Muḥammad. (On the various positions taken by Imami-Shiʿis on this question, see Kohlberg, Some notes.)
Despite the moderate views expressed by these and other Shiʿi scholars, the opinion that the Qurʿan was falsified has been perpetuated throughout the history of Shiʿism and persists to this day. Prominent scholars in Iran during the Ṣafavid period — including Muḥammad b. Murtaḍa al-Kashani, known as Muḥsin al-Fayḍ (d. 1091/1680), Hashim b. Sulayman al-Baḥrani (d. 1107/1693 or 1109/1697), and Muḥammad Baqir al-Majlisi (d. 1110/1699 or 1111/1700) — revived the debate about the integrity of the Qurʿan, basing their anti-Sunni polemics upon traditions extant in the early Shiʿi corpus of tafsir and ḥadith.
One of the most radical works ever written on this matter is the Faṣl al-khiṭab fi taḥrif kitab rabb al-arbab by the eminent Shiʿi scholar Ḥusayn Taqi Nuri l-Ṭabarsi (d. 1320/1902). In this work Nuri brought together a great number of traditions referring to the question of the falsification of the Qurʿan. A recurrent tradition on which Nuri bases his argument in favor of taḥrif draws an analogy between the Shiʿis and the Jews (a notion that in itself is very common in Shiʿi literature): “Just as the Jews and the Christians altered and falsified the book of their prophet after him, this community [i.e. the Muslims] shall alter and falsify the Qurʿan 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-yahud wa-l-naṣara ghayyaru wa-ḥarrafu kitab nabiyyihim baʿdahu fa-hadhihi l-umma ayḍan la budda wa-an yughayyiru l-Qurʿan baʿda nabiyyina ṣalla llahʿalayhi wa-ahlihi li-anna kulla ma waqaʿa fi bani Israʿil la budda wa-an yaqaʿa fi hadhihi l-umma; Nuri, Faṣl, 35; whence Brunner, The dispute, 439). It should be stressed, however, that Nuri’s extreme anti-Sunni tone was criticized even by the Shiʿi scholars of his day. Nevertheless, the question of taḥrif never ceased to be a burning issue in Shiʿi-Sunni discourse, to the point that “there is hardly a new book on the general subject of the qurʿanic sciences whose author can afford not to include a long chapter dealing with taḥrif” (Brunner, The dispute, 445).
Significant as it may be, the claim of forgery — i.e. that issues relating to the Shiʿa were deliberately omitted from the Qurʿan — is not the sole argument used by Shiʿi authors to explain the absence of any explicit mention of the ahl al-bayt /Shiʿa in the Qurʿan. Two additional arguments are (a) the Qurʿan contains hidden meanings, which the exegete should decipher and (b) the Qurʿan teaches principles while tradition expounds their details.
The most common approach explaining the absence of references to the Shiʿa in the Qurʿan asserts that it is in the nature of the Qurʿan to speak in symbols and codes and according to this approach it should come as no surprise that the Qurʿan does not mention the Shiʿa explicitly: those who know how to read between the lines can decipher the passages that allude to the Shiʿa. This is the principle underlying the broad attempt to interpret many obscure qurʿanic verses (mubhamat) as well as some quite clear ones, as referring to the Shiʿa. Even a cursory reading of the early Shiʿi tafsirs reveals how wholeheartedly this approach was embraced by Shiʿi commentators.
The other approach — that the Qurʿan teaches principles while tradition expounds their details — is expressed, for example, in the answer al-Baqir gave to one of his disciples concerning the reasonʿAli is not mentioned in the Qurʿan:
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 Kaʿba (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 ʿAli, Ḥasan and Ḥusayn (ʿAyyashi, Tafsir, i, 276.
According to this tradition, the reasonʿAli and his disciples are not mentioned explicitly in the Qurʿan is that the Qurʿan, 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 Shiʿi exegetes faced and the attempts they made to resolve them.
Principles and Methods of Shiʿi Exegesis
Shiʿi exegetes, perhaps even more than their Sunni counterparts, support their distinctive views by reference to qurʿanic proof-texts. A major distinction is that the Shiʿi exegetes attempt to find in the Qurʿan explicit references to such themes as the imams’ supernatural and mystical qualities, their authority to interpret the Qurʿan and other religious scriptures, or such major Shiʿi doctrines as the duty of loyalty (q.v.) to the imams (walaya) and dissociation from their enemies (baraʿa).
A fundamental principle of Shiʿi exegetical tradition is that the authority to interpret the Qurʿan is reserved for ʿAli and his descendants, the imams. In a well-known ḥadith, cited in both Sunni and Shiʿi sources, Muḥammad is said to have declared: “There is one among you who will fight for the [correct] interpretation of the Qurʿan just as I myself fought for its revelation, and he is ʿAli b. Abi Ṭalib” (inna fi-kum man yuqatilu ʿala ta ʿwil al-Qur ʿan kama qataltu ʿala tanzilihi wa-huwa ʿAli ibn Abi Ṭalib; ʿAyyashi, Tafsir, i, 27; Shahrastani, Milal, 189; and cf. Gimaret and Monnot, Livre, i, 543, and n. 231, where further sources are cited; also Poonawala, Ismaʿili taʿwil, 209-10). This idea of ʿAli and (implicitly) also his descendants being presented by the Prophet himself as interpreters of the Qurʿan is also deduced from other traditions, the most famous of which is “the tradition about the two weighty things” (ḥadith al-thaqalayn), i.e. the two things that Muḥammad is reported to have bequeathed to his believers. There are significant differences between the Sunni and Shiʿi exegetical traditions regarding both the identity of these two “things” and the interpretation of the ḥadith. According to one version, they are the book of God (kitab Allah) and the Prophet’s practice (sunnat nabiyyihi, Ibn Isḥaq-Guillaume, 651). Other versions of this tradition, recorded in both Sunni and Shiʿi works, mention as the thaqalan the Qurʿan and the family of the Prophet (q.v.; ahl al-bayt). The explanation given in Shiʿi sources as to the discrepancy between the two versions of this tradition is that while in Sunni exegesis the practice of the Prophet is considered a tool for interpreting the Qurʿan (and is therefore mentioned in conjunction with the book itself), in Shiʿi tradition the family of the Prophet plays the equivalent role: only through the mediation of the imams, the descendants of the Prophet, are both the exoteric (ẓahir) and the esoteric (baṭin) meanings of the qurʿanic text revealed to believers. The thaqalan are further viewed as being forever intertwined with each other (lan yaftariqa) or, in the words of al-Ṭusi (d. 460/1067): “This tradition proves that [the Qurʿan] exists in every generation, since it is unlikely that [Muḥammad] 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” (Ṭusi, Tibyan, i, 3-4). The distance from here to the creation of the metaphor describing the imams as “the speaking book of God” (kitab Allah al-naṭiq) is short indeed (see e.g. Bursi, Mashariq, 135; Ayoub, The speaking Qurʿan, 183, n. 17; Poonawala, Ismaʿili taʿwil, 200).
The authority of the imams as interpreters of the Qurʿan is reiterated in many traditions other than the ḥadith al-thaqalayn. One tradition defining the many functions of the imams includes their role as interpreters of the Qurʿan: “We know how to interpret the book [i.e. the Qurʿan] and how to speak clearly” (naʿrifu taʿwil al-kitab wa-faṣl al-khiṭab; ʿAyyashi, Tafsir, i, 28).
These as well as numerous other traditions have but one purpose — to make clear that those qualified to interpret the Qurʿan are the imams, and that this right was bestowed upon them directly by God. In the absence of the imams, the duty of the text’s interpreters is restricted to preserving traditions in their name and making these available to believers. The interpreters are thus no more than a vehicle and, at least theoretically, are not authorized to pronounce their own views (ibid., i, 27; Qummi, Tafsir, ii, 397).
Among Shiʿis, as among other religious circles and groups operating on the fringes of society, allegory, typology and secret codes became favorite methods of interpreting the Qurʿan. Nevertheless, only heterodox factions such as the Nuṣayris and the Druze went so far as to view the inner meaning of the Qurʿan as the exclusive, binding authority. At times such techniques derive from an elitist outlook, one which maintains that religious secrets 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. And indeed, the fact that many Shiʿi factions throughout their history flourished under Sunni rule required the use of survival techniques both in everyday life and when committing their religious doctrines to writing. Shiʿi 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 Sunni opponents. This is one of the clearest manifestations of the doctrine of precautionary dissimulation (q.v.; taqiyya).
An illustration of the allegorical approach (taʿwil) of Shiʿi Qurʿan exegesis may be seen in the interpretation of the night journey of Muḥammad referred to in the first verse of Q 17 (Surat al-Israʿ, “The Night Journey”). 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.), Ismaʿili as well as Nuṣayri authors interpreted this passage as a symbol of the spiritual progress of the imams or other persons within the divine realm. (For the Ismaʿili approach, see e.g. al-Qaḍi l-Nuʿman, Asas al-taʿwil, 337; for the Nuṣayri interpretation, see the epistle of the Nuṣayri author AbuʿAbdallah al-Ḥusayn b. Harun al-Ṣaʿigh [fl. fourth/tenth century] in Bar-Asher and Kofsky, The Nuṣayri-ʿAlawi religion, 89-97.)
Ismaʿilis tend to employ allegory to, inter alia, interpret Muslim law. Thus, for example, “the pillars of Islam” are given in Ismaʿili writings symbolic meanings: the five obligatory prayers correspond to the five divine ranks (ḥudud) in the Ismaʿili hierarchical system; almsgiving (q.v.; zakat) means that those with knowledge should provide reliable mentors to guide the people; fasting (q.v.; ṣawm) entails observing silence and not betraying religious secrets to the uninitiated; pilgrimage to Mecca, the house of God, symbolizes an audience with the imam, since God’s knowledge resides with him (Poonawala, Ismaʿili taʿwil, 218, paraphrasing Kitab al-Iftikhar, 240 f., by the prominent Ismaʿili daʿi Abu Yaʿqub al-Sijistani [d. ca. 361/971]). It is worth mentioning that this tendency, prevalent in Ismaʿilism, is shared by Ghulat groups such as the Nuṣayris and the Druzes. A significant difference, however, should be noted. Moderate allegorists — e.g. Imami Shiʿi and most Ismaʿilis — maintained that the allegorical interpretation that extracts the true meaning of the Qurʿan 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 Qurʿan, 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-Kitab al-Maʿruf bi-l-naqḍ al-khafi; an unpublished critical edition of this epistle is offered by Bryer, The origins, ii, 31-50; cf. De Sacy, Exposé, ii, 673).
Shiʿi Qurʿan exegesis is further characterized by a radical anti-Sunni bias. Many qurʿanic verses whose apparent meanings have a negative connotation or refer generally and vaguely to evil or to evildoers are taken, through allegorical or typological interpretation, to refer to specific historical luminaries of Sunni Islam. Negative qurʿanic terms such as baghy (insolence), faḥshaʿ (indecency), munkar (dishonor), al-fujjar (the wicked), al-mufsidun fi l-arḍ (corrupters on earth), al-shayṭan (Satan), al-maghḍubʿalayhim (those against whom [God] is wrathful), al-ḍallun (those who are astray) and the like are interpreted as referring to the enemies of the Shiʿa in general or to specific persons among them, in particular the first three caliphs, two of Muḥammad’s wives (ʿAʿisha and Ḥafṣa [q.v.], the daughters of the first and the second caliphs, respectively, the Umayyads and the ʿAbba-sids. In an utterance attributed to al-Baqir he goes so far as to state that “every occurrence in the Qurʿan of the words ‘Satan says’ is [to be understood as referring to] ‘the second’ [namely the caliphʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭab]” (wa-laysa fi-l-Qurʿan [shayʿ] wa-qala al-shayṭan illa wa-huwa al-thani; ʿAyyashi, Tafsir, ii, 240). In another tradition, cited in the same source, a more general formulation of this idea is also attributed to this imam. To Muḥammad b. Muslim (d. 150/767), one of his disciples, the imam said: “Whenever you hear God [in the Qurʿan] mentioning someone of this nation in praise, it refers to us [i.e. the Shiʿa]; and when you hear God denigrating people who flourished in the past, it refers to our enemies” (idha samiʿta llaha dhakara aḥadan min hadhihi l-umma bi-khayrin fa-naḥnu hum wa-idha samiʿta llaha dhakara qawman bi-su ʿin mimman maḍa fa-hum ʿaduwwuna; ibid., i, 24).
Secret language in Shiʿi exegesis is evident on two levels. The first level, the exegetes believe, is found in the Qurʿan itself; it underlies such obscure or general qurʿanic expressions as al-jibt wa-l-ṭaghut, al-faḥshaʿ wa-l-munkar and many others. The second level is added by the Qurʿan 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 to Abu Bakr, ʿUmar or other enemies of the Shiʿa; rather, he resorts to code words such as “the first” (al-awwal) and “the second” (al-thani), ḥabtar, “fox” (usually applied to Abu Bakr “because of his cunning and fraudulence” (li-ḥilatihi wa-makrihi, Majlisi, Biḥar, lith., 4, 378; 9, 65) and zurayq, “shiny-eyed” or “blue-eyed” (referring to ʿUmar; e.g. Furat, Tafsir, 69). 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 Gold-ziher, Spottnamen, 295-308; Kohlberg, Some Imami Shiʿi views, esp. 160-7; Bar-Asher, Scripture, 113-20). In other words, the transition from the covert stratum in the Qurʿan to the overt stratum of the interpretation is not direct but undergoes a further process of encoding. The underlying assumption is that every Shiʿi is familiar with these code words which are an integral part of his religious-cultural upbringing.
In other cases Shiʿi exegesis is designed to support the Shiʿi doctrine of the imamate and concepts derived from it, examples being ʿiṣma, or the immunity of prophets and imams from sin and error; the intercession (q.v.; shafaʿa) of prophets and imams on behalf of their communities; badaʿ (the appearance of new circumstances that cause a change in an earlier divine ruling); and, in the case of the Ismaʿili, Druze and Nuṣayri 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 Shiʿi (mainly Imami) exegesis is the use of variant readings (qiraʿat) of the qurʿanic text or, in certain cases, the addition of words believed to have been omitted from it. Such textual alterations are based on the assumption that the qurʿanic text is flawed and incomplete. Scholars who held the view that the Qurʿan is corrupt believed that the Mahdi will eventually reveal the true text and uncover its original intention. Examples of these alterations are the common textual substitution of aʿimma (imams) for umma (nation or community) or slight changes to the word “imam” itself. The implication of these variants is that the institution of the imamate and other principles associated with it originate in the Qurʿan. For example, for Q 3:110 most early Shiʿi exegetes read: “You are the best leaders [leg. aʿimmatin rather than ummatin, nation] ever brought forth to humankind” (kuntum khayra aʿimmatin ukhrijat lil-nas); or in Q 2:143: “Thus we appointed you midmost leaders” (wa-kadhalika jaʿalnakum aʿimmatan wasaṭan), etc. (For the first verse, cf. Qummi, Tafsir, i, 110; ʿAyyashi, Tafsir, i, 218; for the second, cf. Qummi, Tafsir, i, 63.)
Prominent among the other type of alterations is the insertion of certain words generally proclaimed to be missing from the ʿUthmanic codex of the Qurʿan. These are primarily (a) the words fi ʿAli (concerningʿAli) in various qurʿanic verses, among them Q 2:91: “Believe in what God has revealed to you [+ concerning ʿAli]” (aminu bi-ma anzala llah [+ fi ʿAli]) or Q 4:166: “But God bears witness to what he has revealed to you [+ concerning ʿAli]” (lakinna llah yashhadu bi-ma anzala ilayka [+ fiʿAli]); or (b) the words al Muḥammad (the family of Muḥammad) or occasionally al Muḥammad ḥaqqahum ([deprived] of their rights) as the object of a verb from the root ẓ-l-m (to do an injustice to/to usurp), which appear often in the Qurʿan. Shiʿi commentators believe that this addition stresses that the injustice referred to by words and verbs derived from the root ẓ-l-m alludes specifically to the injustice perpetrated against the family of the Prophet and his offspring, i.e. the Shiʿa. The same method is applied with regard to other doctrines. The insertion of the words fi walayat ʿAli (concerning the [duty of] loyalty to the house of ʿAli) in several places in the Qurʿan is intended to provide scriptural authority to the doctrine of walaya, as the addition of the words ila ajalin musamman (for a given time) to the mutʿa verse (Q 4:24), is meant to emphasize the temporary nature of mutʿa marriage. Less known is the addition of the word mutʿa in Q 24:33: wa-l-yastaʿfifilladhina la yajiduna nikaḥan [+bi-l-mutʿa] ḥatta yughniyahumu llahu min faḍlihi, “And let those who find not the means to enter into a mutʿa] marriage be abstinent till God enriches them of his bounty” (Sayyari, Qiraʿat, tradition no. 372.
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 Shiʿi version of a qurʿanic verse, he does so by using typical formulas. The Shiʿi version is preceded by such utterances as (a) nazala Jibril[ or Jibraʿil] bihadhihi l-aya hakadhaʿala Muḥammad, “thus the verse was revealed to Muḥammad by [the angel] Gabriel” (q.v.; see e.g. ʿAyyashi, Tafsir, ii, 353; and for similar versions, ibid., i, 63; Qummi, Tafsir, ii, iii); or followed by (b) hakadha nazalat, “thus [the verse] was revealed” (see e.g. Qummi, Tafsir, i, 142, 297; ii, 21); at other times it is stated that the version cited was the reading of one of the imams (e.g. ʿAyyashi, Tafsir, i, 217, 218; Qummi, Tafsir, 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) ʿala khilaf ma anzala llah, “[the version in the textus receptus ] contradicts the form in which it was revealed” (see e.g. Qummi, Tafsir, i, 10, which cites Q 3:110 or Q 25:74 as examples of such verses); or (b) fima ḥurrifa min kitab Allah, “[This verse] is one of those falsified [or altered] in the book of God” (Qummi, Tafsir, 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 “Sunni” text one might have expected the Shiʿa to insert these alternative versions and additions into the text of the Qurʿan or at least to implement them when the text is read on ritual occasions. In reality, however, almost no action was taken by the Shiʿa to canonize their variant readings. One exception is a late attempt reflected in a manuscript of the Qurʿan, said to have been discovered in the city of Bankipore, India, in which, besides the Shiʿi alternative versions to some of the qurʿanic verses, two apocryphal suras were also included: surat al-walaya, “the sura of divine friendship (i.e. between God and ʿAli)” and surat al-nurayn, the sura of the two lights (i.e. Muḥammad and ʿAli; on this issue, noted by scholars as early as the nineteenth century, see Amir-Moezzi, Le guide divin, 200-27; The divine guide, 79-91, 198-206).
This behavior of the Shiʿa reveals a paradox. On the one hand, Shiʿis are certain that the true version of the Qurʿan 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 Shiʿa: 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 Sunni environment brought about, on the practical level, a pragmatic attitude that included the adoption de facto of the ʿUthmanic codex. This tension and paradox is reflected in the many Shiʿi exegetical traditions in which Shiʿi qiraʿat are mentioned. In some of them one finds the following situation: A disciple of the imam is reading from the (canonical) Qurʿan in the presence of the imam, who tells him that it was revealed in a different version. The imam then proceeds to read the “true” (i.e. the Shiʿi) version. As, however, against such accounts, which underrate the importance of the ʿUthmanic codex, an opposing tendency is sometimes revealed: Someone is reading from the Qurʿan in the presence of one of the imams, and inserts in his reading the Shiʿi version of the verse. At this point he is stopped by the imam, 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-qaʿim) shall come with the correct version of the Qurʿan, identical with the one that ʿAli possessed and bequeathed to his daughter, Faṭima (q.v.), whence its title muṣḥaf Faṭima, “the codex of Faṭima”.
Other methods of Shiʿi exegesis are based on the word and letter order and calculations of the numerical value of letters. In his interpretation of Q 108 (Surat al-Kawthar), al-Sijistani presents a transposition of the words and letters of the sura, thus reading into it the Shiʿi tenet of waṣaya, the rank of plenipotentiary among the imams (Poonawala, Ismaʿili taʿwil, 218-9). The technique of numerical calculation of letters is primarily applied to the mysterious letters (q.v.; fawatiḥ al-suwar) appearing at the head of twenty-nine suras. For example, the letters alif, lam, mim, ṣad (the total numerical value of which is 161) at the head of Q 7 (Surat al-Aʿraf, “The Heights”) allude, according to an account attributed to al-Baqir, to the year 161 of the hijri calendar (777 C.E.), a year which had been (incorrectly) predicted as the one in which the fall of the Umayyad dynasty would occur (ʿAyyashi, Tafsir, ii, 7-8).
It should further be noted that Shiʿi, and particularly Ismaʿili, 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 Kitab al-Kashf by the daʿi, Jaʿfar b. Manṣur al-Yaman (fl. first half of fourth/tenth century), and Mizaj al-tasnim by the Yamamite Ismaʿili Sulaymanidaʿi, Ismaʿil b. Hibat Allah (d. 1184/1770).
Major Shiʿi Exegetes and Their Works
The earliest Imami-Shiʿi Qurʿan commentaries known to us are from the end of the third/ninth century. These include the works of Furat b. Furat b. Ibrahim al-Kufi (Tafsir Furat al-Kufi), al-ʿAyyashi (Tafsir) and al-Qummi (Tafsir), 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-kubra) of the twelfth imam, which occurred in the year 329/941. Somewhat later is Muḥammad b. Ibrahim b. Jaʿfar al-Nuʿmani (d. ca. 360/971), to whom is ascribed a treatise constituting a sort of introduction to the Qurʿan (Majlisi, Biḥar, xc, 1-97). Other compositions are the two commentaries ascribed to the sixth and eleventh imams, respectively: Ḥaqaʿiq al-tafsir al-qurʿani, a small exegetical treatise of a Ṣufi character attributed to Imam Jaʿfar al-Ṣadiq and Tafsir al-ʿAskari, a comprehensive commentary of a legendary-mythical nature on the first two suras of the Qurʿan attributed to Imam Ḥasan al-ʿAskari (d. 260/874; on which see Bar-Asher, al-ʿAskari). The most outstanding tafsirs of the post-ghayba period are al-Ṭusi’s Tibyan, al-Ṭabarsi’s Majmaʿ and the Rawḍ al-jinan wa-ruḥ al-janan, a Qurʿan commentary in Persian by Abu l-Futuḥ Ḥusayn b. ʿAli al-Razi (fl. first half of the sixth/twelfth century). Some very comprehensive Imami-Shiʿitafsir works, which are mainly compilations of early sources, were composed in Ṣafavid Iran. The most prominent among these are Taʿwil al-ayat al-ẓahira fi faḍaʿil al-ʿitra al-ahira by Sharaf al-DinʿAli l-Ḥusayni l-Astarabadi (fl. tenth/sixteenth century), Kitab al-Ṣafi fi tafsir al-Qurʿan by Muḥsin al-Fayḍ and Kitab al-Burhan fi tafsir al-Qurʿan by Hashim b. Sulayman al-Baḥrani. Representative of modern Imami-Shiʿi Qurʿan exegesis are Ṭabaṭabaʿi’s Mizan and Min waḥy al-Qurʿan by Muḥammad Ḥusayn Faḍl Allah. Needless to say, exegetical material other than Qurʿan commentaries per se proliferates in all genres of Imami-Shiʿi literature. (For a detailed survey of Shiʿitafsir works, see Ṭihrani, Dhariʿa, iii, 302-7; iv, 231-346.)
Ismaʿili doctrinal writings include a vast amount of exegetical material but little is known of specific Ismaʿili exegetical works. Among the few that have come down to us are Kitab Asas al-taʿwil by the daʿi al-Qaḍi l-Nuʿman b. Ḥayyun Maghribi (d. 363/973) and Kitab al-Kashf by Jaʿfar b. Manṣur al-Yaman. (For other Ismaʿili exegetical works, see Poonawala, Biobibliography, index, s.v. tafsir and taʿwil.)
The Zaydi exegetical tradition remains largely unexplored and most Zaydi works of tafsir are still in manuscript form. The Zaydi imams al-Qasim b. Ibrahim Rassi (d. 246/860), al-Naṣir lil-Ḥaqq al-Uṭrush (d. 304/917) and Abu l-Fatḥ Naṣir b. Ḥusayn al-Daylami (d. 444/1052) are among those credited with a tafsir (Ṭihrani, Dhariʿa, iv, 255, 261; Abrahamov, Anthropomorphism). A Qurʿan commentary is also ascribed to Ziyad b. Mundhir Abu l-Jarud, the eponym of the Zaydi-Jarudi sub-sect, the Jarudiyya (Ṭihrani, Dhariʿa, iv, 251). The work is not extant; excerpts of it are, however, incorporated in al-Qummi’s Tafsir (Bar-Asher, Scripture, 46-56, 244-7). Another outstanding Jarudi scholar who is credited with a tafsir is Aḥmad b. Muḥammad Hamadhani, better known as Ibn ʿUqda (d. 333/947; cf. Ṭihrani, Dhariʿa, iv, 251). Finally, there is the tafsir by Shawkani (d. 1250/1834), one of the best known and most prolific authors of the late Zaydiyya.
There is no evidence that Qurʿan commentaries were written by members of Ghulat groups (such as the Druzes and the Nuṣayris), although the Qurʿan is widely cited and often commented on in their sacred writings.