God guarantees the safety of the prophet but not the Qur’an


al-Salamu `Aleykum wa-Rahmatullah,

The Imami Shia write arguments to prove the Imamah of `Ali (ra) but they also write in defense of the theory of Imamah and try to push away all objections. What you will see in this thread is but one of many contradictions between what they write to prove it and what they write to defend it.

THE FIRST TRUTH: ALLAH GUARANTEES THE SAFETY OF THE PROPHET (SAWS) IF HE ANNOUNCES IMAMAH.

The Imami Shia scholars have spoken of this matter during their talk on the event of Ghadeer. In brief, Allah ordered the Prophet (SAWS) to deliver the news of the Imamah of `Ali (ra) to the Muslims, but he (SAWS) was reluctant and afraid, he feared that they would harm him and they would reject the religion. The Prophet (SAWS) did not announce this matter until Allah promised him safety from the people and protection of their harm as stated in authentic Shia narrations which interpret the following verse:

{O Messenger, announce that which has been revealed to you from your Lord, and if you do not, then you have not conveyed His message. And Allah will protect you from the people. Indeed, Allah does not guide the disbelieving people.} [al-Ma’idah:67]

We conclude from this point, that the Imami Shia scholars believe that Allah told his Prophet (SAWS) to announce the Imamah of `Ali (ra) loudly, in front of all Muslims and that he would prevent the hypocrites and conspirators from harming him.

THE SECOND TRUTH: ALLAH DOES NOT GUARANTEES THE SAFETY OF THE QUR’AN IF IT ANNOUNCES IMAMAH.

The Imami scholars have stated many times that Allah intentionally kept the matter of Imamah unclear in his holy book, so that the enemies of Islam would not be enraged and as a result they would tamper with the Qur’anic text and corrupt it, in order to get rid of the Imamah which prevents them from assuming seats of power and authority.

The first case: Making Imamah unclear by not mentioning the name of the Imam explicitly.

حعفر مرتضى العاملي في كتابه (الصحيح من سيرة النبي الأعظم ( ص ) ) ( 32 / 21 ) :[ ولعله لأجل ذلك لم يذكر اسم الإمام علي ” عليه السلام ” في القرآن . . حفظاً للقرآن من أن يحرفه من هو أشر وأضر ممن رمى القرآن بالنبل وهو يقول : تهددني بجبار عنيد * فها أنا ذاك جبار عنيد إذا ما جئت ربك يوم حشر * فقل : يا رب مزقني الوليد نعم ، إنه من أجل ذلك وسواه لم يذكر اسم الإمام علي ” عليه السلام ” في القرآن بصراحة ].
al-`Allamah al-Muhaqqiq Ja`far Murtada al-`Amili says in his book “al-Sahih min Seerat al-Nabi al-A`zam” 32/21:

[Maybe it’s because of this that the name of Imam `Ali (as) was not explicitly mentioned in the Qur’an (…) to safeguard the Qur’an from being corrupted by ones who are worse than he who shot it with an arrow while saying:
((Are you threatening me with ‘obstinate tyrant’? * I am the obstinate tyrant! * On the Day of Judgment, tell Allah: ‘al-Waleed tore me up’.))
It was because of this and other matters that the name of `Ali (as) was not explicitly mentioned in the Qur’an.]

To explain what was being said, he was referring to al-Waleed bin Yazid bin `Abdul-Malik bin Marwan, and it is said that this man opened the Qur’an once and read the following verse:

{ And they requested victory from Allah, and disappointed, [therefore], was every obstinate tyrant.} [Ibrahim:15]

So he did not like this verse, he then placed the Qur’an somewhere and shot it with an arrow while saying:

تهددني بجبار عنيد فها أنا ذاك جبار عنيد

إذا ما جئت ربك يوم حشر فقل يا رب مزقني الوليد
((Are you threatening me with ‘obstinate tyrant’? * I am the obstinate tyrant! * On the Day of Judgment, tell Allah: ‘al-Waleed tore me up’.))

In brief al-`Amili is saying that if Allah mentioned the name of `Ali (ra) clearly then those who are even worse than al-Waleed would have corrupted and destroyed the Qur’an.

الخميني في كتابه ( كشف الأسرار ) ص131: [ لو كانت مسألة الإمامة قد تم تثبيتها في القرآن ، فإن أولئك الذين لا يعنون بالإسلام والقرآن إلا لأغراض الدنيا والرئاسة كانوا يتخذون من القرآن وسيلة لتنفيذ أغراضهم المشبوهة ، ويحذفون تلك الآيات من صفحاته ، ويسقطون القرآن من أنظار العالمين إلى الأبد، ويلصقون العار – وإلى الأبد- بالمسلمين والقرآن ، ويثبتون على القرآن ذلك العيب الذي يأخذه المسلمون على كتب اليهود والنصارى ].
Shia grand Ayatullah Imam al-Khomeini says in “Kashf al-Asrar” pg131:

[If the matter of Imamah was established in the Qur’an, then those who only seek worldly things such as leadership through Islam and the Qur’an would have taken the book as a means to achieve their goals, they would erase such verses from its pages, and remove the Qur’an from the sight of the people forever, and they would attach eternal disgrace to the Muslims and the Qur’an, they would mistreat the Qur’an as the Muslims say the Jews and Christians mistreated their books.]

مصطفى الخميني في كتابه ( تفسير القرآن الكريم ) ( 2 / 331-332 ) :[ وحيث اقتضت السياسة الإسلامية والتقية الإلهية كتمان أمر الولي المطلق بالاسم الصريح في الكتاب الإلهي ، حتى يكمل الكتاب التدويني بالتطابق مع الكتاب التكويني ، ويعلم الأصل الثالث لكافة أبناء الهداية وأفراد البشر ، فكأنه تكفل ببيانه وتوضيحه على الوجه الآخر الأحسن ، رعاية لجميع الجهات والجوانب ، ومحافظة على أصل الإسلام من أعدائه ، وصيانة للكتاب الإلهي عن الانحراف والتحريف والتوهين والتكذيب ].
Shia scholar Mustafa al-Khomeini says in his book “Tafseer al-Qur’an al-Kareem” 2/331-332:

[Islamic politics and Godly Taqiyyah have decreed that the name of the absolute ruler not be mentioned explicitly in the Godly book (…) it is as if he took responsibility of clarifying it through other, better means, out of care for all sides of this matter, and to protect the foundation of Islam from its enemies, and to maintain the Godly book from being corrupted and falsified.]

علي السيستاني ص 143 :[ 536 . السؤال : ما الحكمة من عدم ذكر اسم الإمام علي في القرآن الكريم ؟

الجواب : يمكن أن تكون الحكمة فيه أن الضغائن التي أوجبت الصاق تهمة الهجر والهذيان بالرسول الأكرم صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم – والعياذ بالله – لم يبعد أن توجب التشكيك في صحة ما أنزل من القرآن في علي – عليه السلام – لو كان تصريح باسمه الشريف فتكون النتيجة أسوأ مما هو عليه الآن من الضلال العام ].
Their Grand Ayatullah Sayyed `Ali al-Sistani says in his book of “Istifta’at” pg143:

[Question #536: What is the wisdom behind not mentioning the name of Imam `Ali in the holy Qur’an?

Answer: It could be that the grudges that caused some to accuse the Prophet (SAWS) of hallucinating and of being delirious -I seek refuge in Allah- these grudges could also cause someone to cast doubts on what was revealed in the Qur’an concerning `Ali (as), if his noble name was explicitly mentioned then the result would be even worse [for that person] from just general misguidance.]

We clearly see the Shia scholars accusing the first three Caliphs (ra) of attempting to distort the book of Allah if it had the name of `Ali (ra), out of hatred for him and thirst for power.

May Allah save us from the evil devilish thoughts of the Shia scholars.

The second case: Making Imamah unclear by including it between other verses to make the context vague.

Shia scholars claim that the verses proving the Wilayah of `Ali (ra) have been placed by Allah in the middle of other verses with completely different context so that people wouldn’t distort them, such as the verse of `Ali giving the ring while in Ruku` which is included between verses talking about being loyal and supportive of believers and not being friendly with Jews and Christians, or the verse of purity and the event of the cloak being placed between verses talking about the mothers of believers and so on…

Below the Shia scholar and Grand Ayatullah Nasir Makarim al-Shirazi talks about the verse of completion of religion and how it
was placed in the middle of general verses talking about rulings of Halal and Haraam concerning meat.

ناصر مكارم الشيرازي في تفسيره ( الأمثل في تفسير كتاب الله المنزل ) ( 3 / 602 ) :[ ثانيا : هناك احتمال بأن يكون سبب حشر موضوع واقعة ” غدير خم ” في آية تشمل على موضوع لا صلة لها به مطلقا ، مثل موضوع أحكام الحلال والحرام من اللحوم ، إنما هو لصيانة الموضوع الأول من أن تصل إليه يد التحريف أو الحذف أو التغيير .. وهي تدل بوضوح على الحساسية المفرطة التي كانت لدى نفر من الناس تجاه قضية الخلافة بعد النبي ( صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم ) حيث لم يتركوا وسيلة إلا استخدموها لإنكار هذا الامر . فلا يستبعد – والحالة هذه – أن تتخذ اجراءات وقائية لحماية الأدلة والوثائق الخاصة بالخلافة من أجل إيصالها إلى الأجيال المتعاقبة دون أن تمسها يد التحريف أو الحذف ، ومن هذه الإجراءات حشر موضوع الخلافة – المهم جدا – في القرآن بين آيات الأحكام الشرعية الفرعية لإبعاد عيون وأيدي المعارضين والعابثين عنها ].

Grand Ayatullah Nasir Makarim al-Shirazi says in “al-Amthal fi Tafseer Kitab Allah” 3/602:

[Secondly: it is possible that the topic of the event of “Ghadeer Khum” was pushed into a verse that talks about a completely unrelated matter, such as the rulings of Halal and Haraam meat. It is only to guard the first topic from the hands of corruption and deletion (…) it clearly shows the sensitivity that a group of people had towards the successorship after the Prophet (SAWS), where they didn’t leave any method unless they used it to disprove this matter. So it is not far -and it is the case- that there would be preventive methods to preserve the proofs and documents pertaining to Khilafah so it could reach the later generations without Tahreef(corruption). From these methods is to push the matter of Khilafah -which is very important- in the Qur’an between the verses of general rulings to lead the eyes of the opposition away from it.]

علي الميلاني ينقل تصريح آيتهم العظمى عبد الحسين شرف الدين في كتابه ( نفحات الأزهار ) ( 20 / 67 ):[ والسيد شرف الدين العاملي ذهب إلى أن النكتة هي أنه لو جاءت الآية بلفظ المفرد ، فإن شانئي علي وأهل البيت وسائر المنافقين لا يطيقون أن يسمعوها كذلك ، وإذ لا يمكنهم حينئذ التمويه والتضليل ، فيؤدي ذلك إلى التلاعب بألفاظ القرآن وتحريف كلماته أو نحو ذلك مما يخشى عواقبه على الإسلام ].

Their Ayatullah `Ali al-Milani reports the statement of their grand Ayatullah `Abdul-Hussein Sharaf-ul-Deen in his book “Nafahat al-Azhar” 20/67:

[al-Sayyed Sharaf-ul-Deen al-`Amili had the opinion that if the verse [verse of Wilayah] came in the singular form, then the haters of `Ali and Ahlul-Bayt and the rest of the hypocrites wouldn’t tolerate to hear it as such, that way they couldn’t hide the truth and misguide the people, so it would lead them to corrupt the text of the Qur’an or the like, the consequences of this would be fearsome for Islam]

He means the verse in which the Shia claim that `Ali (ra) gave Zakat while bowing down, it should have been in the singular form because `Ali (ra) is just one man but Allah placed it in the plural form out of fear (I seek refuge in Allah) that the haters of `Ali (ra),
might corrupt it and change it.

آيتهم العظمى جعفر السبحاني قال في كتابه ( مفاهيم القرآن ) ( 10 / 171 ):[ ولكن يبقى هنا سؤال آخر ، وهو أنه إذا كانت الآية ، آية مستقلة فلماذا جاءت في المصحف جزءا من آية أخرى ، ولم تكتب بصورة آية تامة في جنب الآيات الأخرى ؟
الجواب : التاريخ يطلعنا بصفحات طويلة على موقف قريش وغيرهم من أهل البيت عليهم السلام ، فإن مرجل الحسد ما زال يغلي والاتجاهات السلبية ضدهم كانت كالشمس في رابعة النهار ، فاقتضت الحكمة الإلهية أن تجعل الآية في ثنايا الآيات المتعلقة بنساء النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم من أجل تخفيف الحساسية ضد أهل البيت ، وإن كانت الحقيقة لا تخفى على من نظر إليها بعين صحيحة ، وأن الآية تهدف إلى جماعة أخرى غير نساء النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم كما بيناه قبل قليل ].

Their grand Ayatullah Ja`far al-Subhani said in his book “Mafaheem al-Qur’an” 10/171:

[Here remains one question, if the verse [of purification] was a single independent verse, then why did it  reach us in the Qur’an as a part of another verse? and it wasn’t written as an independent verse next to the others?

Answer: History within its pages informs us of the position that the Quraysh and others had towards Ahlul-Bayt (as), there was great jealousy and the negativity towards them was as clear as day light. The Godly wisdom decreed that the verse be placed in the middle of the verses of the Prophet’s (SAWS) wives, so that the tension against Ahlul-Bayt can be reduced, although the truth cannot be hidden for anyone who looks at it with correct vision, that the verse is meant for another group, other than the wives as we previously clarified.]

عالمهم محسن الخزازي عن فيلسوفهم مرتضى المطهري وذلك في كتابه ( بداية المعارف الإلهية في شرح عقائد الإمامية ) ( 2 / 72-73 ):[ وأما لما أشار إليه البعض الآخر كالأستاذ الشهيد المطهري – قدس سره – من أنها نزلت في حق الخمسة الطاهرة ، ولكن وضعت بين الآيات المذكورة ، لمصلحة حفظ الإسلام عن تبليغات سوء المنافقين وتمردهم وإعراضهم ، لان النبي – صلى الله عليه وآله – كان خائفا من التمرد الصريح عن الإسلام والقرآن الكريم ، لا من أن يذهبوا إلى التأويل مع قيام القرينة الداخلية والخارجية على المعنى المراد فجعلت الآية المذكورة وأشباهها كآية إكمال الدين في ضمن الآيات الأخر ، لأن يتمكن المخالف من التأويل ، ولا يضطر إلى الإعراض الصريح ، والتمرد الواضح ، فالجملة حينئذ تكون معترضة بين الآيات الأخرى كما لا يخفى ].

Shia scholar Muhsin al-Khizari reports the statement of their philosopher Murtada al-Mutahhari in his book “Bidayat al-Ma`arif al-Ilahiyyah fi Sharh `Aqaed al-Imamiyyah” 2/72-73:

[As for what others pointed out such as the teacher and martyr al-Mutahhari may Allah sanctify his secret that it was revealed regarding the five pure ones, but was placed between the mentioned verses for the benefit of preserving Islam from the hypocrites and their mutiny and rejection, because the Prophet (SAWS) was afraid from a clear rebellion against Islam and the Qur’an, he wasn’t afraid that they’d just go for false interpretation although the proofs for the intended meaning are available from inside and outside the [Qur’anic] text, and other similar verses such as that of the completion of religion between other verses, it is so that the opposition can give their interpretation without necessarily rejecting the explicit text, and doing a clear rebellion]

It is also good to note that other Shia scholars such as al-Majlisi and al-Milani have a slightly different belief, that the verses were arranged by the companions themselves and they have intentionally placed the aforementioned verses in strange irrelevant locations to misguide the people.

Enough of the blasphemy of the Shia scholars, what we have shown is enough for the intelligent reader to reach a conclusion, after observing the following facts:

First Shia declaration:
Allah almighty tells the Prophet (SAWS): Announce the Wilayah explicitly and loudly and I guarantee your safety from the evil hands of the hypocrites and conspirators.

Second Shia declaration:
Allah almighty tells the holy Qur’an: Beware! never announce the Wilayah explicitly and loudly because I shall not guarantee your safety from the evil hands of the hypocrites and conspirators.

I leave the conclusion to the intelligent reader and those Shia with a shred of dignity and “`Aql”.

Salam `Aleykum,

One thought on “God guarantees the safety of the prophet but not the Qur’an

Comments are closed.