Allamah Tabataba'I view on Qur'an distortion and displacement of verses

[Jaane Rabb]

Salaam,

I've just read Allamah's view on distortion with the Qur'an and displacement of a couple of verses which has left me perplexed as to his definition of 'distortion'.

Firstly, he states that the initial compilation was by Zayd ibn Thabit under the rule of Abu Bakr. Allamah believes that the Qur'an has not been distorted based on reason and credibility. The definition that he [or the article] gives of distortion is 'dropping a part of it, or adding something extraneous to it'.

Now come to the displacement of verses part. He apparently believed that two verses in the Qur'an were displaced so as to disguise them.

- 5:3 ["Today those who disbelieve have despaired of [harming] your religion; so fear them not, but fear Me! Today I perfected your religion for you, and completed My bounty upon you, and approved Islam as your religion..."]

- 33:33 ["...People of the House, Allah only willeth to remove all impurity from you, and purify you such [thorough] purification."]

How to reconcile between the two views? If verses have been displaced, surely that's 'giving a misleading or false account' of the events, meaning distortion?

Secondly, if the falsifiers were going to displace the verses to hide the true meaning and get away with it, why not just exclude them from the mushaf altogether?

Article link: https://www.al-Islam.org/shining-sun-memory-allamah-tabatabai-Sayyid-Muhammad-husayn-husayni-tehrani/7-historical-discourses#Qur'an-has-not-been-distorted

Fi Amanillah

[Simon the Canaanite]

There are many mistakes in his tafsir.

 

In Mustādrak Sāfinat ʿal-Biḥār, volume 1, page 315, in the subject (word) of philosophy, by ʿal-Shāyḵḫ Ali ʿal-Nāmazi ʿal-Shāroūdi.

He said: “The contemporary philosopher, ʿal-Ṭābaṭabāʾī, the promoter (1) of philosophy, the author of Tāfsīr ʿal-Mizān which he made a lot of mistakes in: such as believing in the belief of mājūs, in the ‘marriage’ between brothers and sisters from the children of Adam - see (for it) the beginning of Sūrat An-Nisāʼ, and check to investigate in what the truth is [in this matter], Ġhāwaṣ Biḥār Anwār Kālimat ʿal-Anwār ʿal-ilāhiyah in ʿal-Biḥār (2), the chapter of the marriage of the children of Adam, and how the offspring began.”

(1) promoter: as in, the advocate - person that promotes something.
(2) He meant, Biḥār ʿal-Anwār, and the aforementioned chapter can be found in volume 11, page 218.

Tāfsīr ʿal-Mīzān, volume 4, page 137 (and volume 7, page 199 in the English version), by Mūḥāmmad Ḥusāyn ʿal-Ṭābaṭabāʾī.

He said: “Second: Marriage of the first generation after Adam and his wife (I.e., of their immediate children), was done between brothers and sisters (I.e., Adam’s sons married his daughters), because they were the only human males and females at that time. There was no harm in this; because it is a legislative matter and it depends on the discretion of Allāh; He may allow it one day and disallow it another day.”

And this belief is very wrong, because it goes to say that all humans (including the holy, such as: Prophets) were born out of zinā and incest. Nāūḏhubillah.

And Ahlul Bāyt opposed it, as mentioned before in Biḥār ʿal-Anwār.

Edited September 7, 2019 by Simon the Canaanite

[Jaane Rabb]

25 minutes ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

He said: “Second: Marriage of the first generation after Adam and his wife (I.e., of their immediate children), was done between brothers and sisters (I.e., Adam’s sons married his daughters), because they were the only human males and females at that time. There was no harm in this; because it is a legislative matter and it depends on the discretion of Allāh; He may allow it one day and disallow it another day."

I'm aware of his view on that. I suppose it's based off a hadith attributed to Imam Ridha in Biharul Anwar [vol. 11, p. 226]:

"Eve bore the twins in separate wombs, and the second twins in separate wombs, and they married each other, and then after this it became prohibited"

Edited September 7, 2019 by Jaane Rabb

[Jaane Rabb]

@Ibn al-Hussain It seems you touched upon Tabataba'I and displacement of verse 33:33 below. Would love your input please.
 

 

[Ibn al-Hussain]

8 hours ago, Jaane Rabb said:

How to reconcile between the two views? If verses have been displaced, surely that's 'giving a misleading or false account' of the events, meaning distortion?

This is a very extensive topic that you'll have to read up on in Jam' al-Qur'an and Tahreef - there are many scholarly opinions on how the Qur'an was collected and also varying opinions on what constitutes Tahreef, which type of Tahreef is okay and most definitely occurred, and which type of Tahreef did not occur. Someone can argue that if the verse was misplaced and supposedly gives a false reading of an event, then that is why we are not to stick to the Qur'an alone as was mentioned by the Prophet (p) to begin with, and as has been mentioned in numerous traditions - that the Imams are the true mufassirin of the Qur'an.

[Simon the Canaanite]

11 hours ago, Jaane Rabb said:

I'm aware of his view on that. I suppose it's based off a hadith attributed to Imam Ridha in Biharul Anwar [vol. 11, p. 226]:

"Eve bore the twins in separate wombs, and the second twins in separate wombs, and they married each other, and then after this it became prohibited"

ʾal-Allāmah ʾal-Mājlesī commented on that saying:

“Bāyan: These two traditions are [said] for taqqīyā, for the popularity of that [belief] between the ʾaāmah (Sunnis).”

بَيَانْ: هَذَانِ الْخَبَرانِ مَحْمُولَانِ عَلَى التَّقِيَّةِ لِاشْتِهَارِ ذَلِكَ بَيْنَ الْعَامَّةِ

.However, Ṭābaṭabāʾī didn’t base his theory over this ḥādith - he tried to base it over holy verses

[Jaane Rabb]

9 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

Jam' al-Qur'an

Thanks, I'll read up on that book.

If we are to say there has been tahreef with the Qur'an, and concede that the hadith corpus has its issues (forgeries, contradictions, bias, relying on fallible reports that grade narrators, etc), and the fact we don't have access to the divine explainer, then what exactly is our point of reference for ascertaining the truth?

Just based out on this principle I'm inclined to throw out any notion of tahreef e Qur'an otherwise I'd feel completely lost with not having a single corrupt free source to use as a criteria.

Afterall, if everything at our disposal has been tampered with then what are we left with if not more guesswork and opinions (as if the current differences weren't enough!?).

Lastly, I'd very much be interested in your opinion on 33:33. If there's one thing I feel Tabataba'I is right about is that the Qur'an is capable of explaining itself (even though it would appear he throws that philosophy out the window at times). Having read a few Quranic translations without extraneous influence I'm inclined to believe the whole of 33:33 is in reference to the wives and that no one is being made infallible in this verse as per Shia understanding. I use 2:185 to get to that understanding (though your mention of 5:6 is also sound).

[Muhammed Ali]

18 hours ago, Jaane Rabb said:

- 5:3 ["Today those who disbelieve have despaired of [harming] your religion; so fear them not, but fear Me! Today I perfected your religion for you, and completed My bounty upon you, and approved Islam as your religion..."]

- 33:33 ["...People of the House, Allah only willeth to remove all impurity from you, and purify you such [thorough] purification."]

Those verses do actually fit into those locations. 

33:33 shows contrast between the Ahlul Bayt and the wives. If it was elsewhere that stark contrast would be as pronounced.

5:3 shows the extend to which the religion has been perfected. I.e the religion cares about details such as the food that we may eat. If the religion can specify what food we eat, then would it neglect succession?

 

If some were to criticise this great scholar about misplacement then what about all those ulama who think the Qur'an was compiled by people in a haphazard manner? 

 

Edited September 7, 2019 by Muhammed Ali

[Jaane Rabb]

12 hours ago, Muhammed Ali said:

5:3 shows the extend to which the religion has been perfected. I.e the religion cares about details such as the food that we may eat. If the religion can specify what food we eat, then would it neglect succession?

So you take "Today I have perfected your religion..." in relation to the commands given regarding food consumption?

I agree, the religion wouldn't neglect mention of succession. So is there a clear verse for this?