Is Bismillah Part of the Quran?

[Bolani Muslim]

My friend admits that Shia scholars of the  past and some of the  present believe in tahrif. His claim though is that according to Ahl Sunnah that "Malik and Abu Hanifa are kuffar for rejecting bismillah as an ayah in fatiha". What counter should I give him?

[Husayn]

There are some who take the opinion that the Bismilah isn't a part of each surah, but no scholar of Ahlul Sunnah claims that it is not an essential part of the Qur'an itself, that was revealed by Allah (swt) and taught by the Prophet (saw).

This is an example of Shiis trying to twist things to make themselves seem normal.

It's the typical mentality of deviant sects - "Yeah, OK, maybe we do believe this, but look, so do you!"

[Farid]

The two views cannot be compared.

No Sunni scholar believes that the Basmallah was a fabrication that was added into the Qur'an due to bad intentions.

No Sunni scholar believes that the Basmallah was removed from the Qur'an in order to hide the verse that Allah revealed.

Each party simply believes that the other made a mistake.

Extreme Shias that believe in tahreef believe that this is an intentional alteration that was made to change the meanings of the Qur'an. This cannot be said about the Basmallah.

[Hani]

Whether it is or isn't part of every Surah, does not mean "Tahreef", nothing was corrupted and everyone agrees to write it in the Mushaf.

Next they're gonna claim that writing the page numbers on every Qur'anic page is Tahreef..

[MuslimAnswers]

^

Are there not mass-transmitted Qiraats which altogether omit the recitation of the Bismillah? So how can anyone say that a difference based upon the established recitations themselves constitutes Tahreef? This is impossible and shows a very shallow understanding of Islam, close to that of the Orientalists.

Of course, for the Shias, since the community of Muslims itself is not trusted at all, then their issues are quite bigger with regards to how to derive Islam.

[Al-Hassan]

بِسْم الله الرحمن الرحيم

السلام عليكم to all

The two views cannot be compared.

No Sunni scholar believes that the Basmallah was a fabrication that was added into the Qur'an due to bad intentions.

No Sunni scholar believes that the Basmallah was removed from the Qur'an in order to hide the verse that Allah revealed.

Each party simply believes that the other made a mistake.

Extreme Shias that believe in tahreef believe that this is an intentional alteration that was made to change the meanings of the Qur'an. This cannot be said about the Basmallah.

We have to first acknowledge the various forms of Tahrif that can take place to scriptures. The tampering of the context which results in the distortion of the meaning is one form of Tahrif, but this not the only form.

Another form of Tahrif can be caused from the compilation of the scriptures in terms of disagreeing on where the speech of the author is limited to in the whole context of the scriptures. For the case of this discussion, disagreeing on where Allah'sس speech is limited to in the context of the entire Noble Quran(regardless if it's on one word, Ayah or an entire Surah) is a form of Tahrif.

With that said, I say this second type of Tahrif is which has occurred over the differences on the Bismillah. That is, if we were to say that the original Tanzil was in one form then there cannot be differences on whether an Ayah has been divinely revealed by Allahس or not, as with the case of Surat Al-Fatiha and the Bismillah being included in Allah's speech with the rest of the Ayat of the Surah. Saying that it is still added in the beginning of each chapter as an opening phrase even if there is a difference on whether it should be the first Ayah or not does reconcile this issue. For example assuming a hypothetical scenario, it's no different than for a certain group to come out and affirm that "Alif Lam Meem"; while it is the first Ayah in Surat Al-Baqarah, however it is not an Ayah in Surat Al-'Imran, yet still added before the Surah with the Bismillah as an opening phrase placed by the prophetصand not by Allahس. Hence stating that Allahس revealed the first Ayah of Surat Al-Imran to be "Allahu La'ilaha Hayo Al-Qayoom". In other words, what would be the state of those who advocates that "Alif Lam Meem" in Al-'Imran is not the first Ayah of the Surah, but instead, "Allahu La'ilaha Hay Al-Qayoom" would be the first Ayah and therefore indirectly affirming that Allahس did not place it as part of his speech with the rest of the Ayat in the Surah and instead, the prophet ص added it as an opening phrase before the Surah? Or another scenario where one states that Surat At-Tawbah has a Bismillah when in reality, all Muslims agree that it doesn't.  Assuming also they have their own justifications for their positions. Nevertheless, I can't see how the disagreement of the Bismillah being the first Ayah of Al-Fatiha in essence is any different.

Whether it is or isn't part of every Surah, does not mean "Tahreef", nothing was corrupted and everyone agrees to write it in the Mushaf.

Next they're gonna claim that writing the page numbers on every Qur'anic page is Tahreef..

I would say that this is an invalid comparison since there is no disagreement happening on whether the page numbers of the Mushaf are a part of Allah'sس Divine Speech in the Quran or not.

[Hani]

al-Salam `Aleykum,

Welcome to the forum, Please contact us if you have any complaints.

As a side note: Just to address the page number issue, some of the Salaf did consider that adding anything to the Mushaf, whether Tafseer or notes or titles to be forbidden and therefore a form of Tahreef. They wouldn't consider it forbidden if they didn't consider it a form of tampering and corruption.

Just a quick curious question dear brother: Are you by any chance trying to equate the issue of the Basmallah above to the position of the Imamiyyah who believed in Tahreef based on their narrations?

What do you think is the difference between both cases?

(Meaning between the Basmallah issue and between let's say the companions crossing out `Ali's Imamah from the Qur'an)

Awaiting your answer to the question InshaAllah.

[Farid]

Wa alaykum alsalam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh,

Welcome to the boards brother Al-Hassan. Inshallah you have an educational and entertaining time here.

I might respond to your post later on, even though I surprised that you are suggesting that not including basmallah is a form of tahreef.

You do know that Ibn Al-Junaid, one of the greatest classical scholars of Twelver fiqh believed that the basmallah is not from the Qur'an, right?

[Al-Hassan]

وعليكم السلام

Thank you.

Just a quick curious question dear brother: Are you by any chance trying to equate the issue of the Basmallah above to the position of the Imamiyyah who believed in Tahreef based on their narrations?

What do you think is the difference between both cases?

(Meaning between the Basmallah issue and between let's say the companions crossing out `Ali's Imamah from the Qur'an)

Awaiting your answer to the question InshaAllah.

No. They are not the same nor equivalent. Both are two distinct forms of Tahrif and one is more extreme than the other(i.e the position of some of the Imamiyyah believing in the textual distortion of the Quran being more extreme than the Sunnis disagreeing over the Bismillah being part of Al-Fatiha). At the same time though, regardless of their difference in form or extremeness, from the way I see it, both at the end of the day in essence will still conflict with Ayah 9, Surat Al-Hijr. This will probably need a detailed explanation to fully grasp what I'm trying to say so I'll elaborate more and be more clear at the same time. Moreover, Ayah 9 of Surat Al-Hijr states the following:

"Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur'an and indeed, We will be its guardian."

According to the Ayah we understand from it that the Tanzeel of the Noble Quran which Allah س revealed will be protected by Him until the final hour. In other words, ideally no form of Tahrif can take place to the speech of Allah. That is, no alterations on it's text such as omissions/additions can take place on it. Furthermore, all Imami scholars agree that any form of addition of words to Allah's speech to the Quran that would lead to alter the meaning can never take place. As for those who believed in the deletion of verses or Tahrif Bil Tartib, they justified their position by stating that the current Imamع of our time is the preserving it(hence, it's not entirely lost forever). Nevertheless, the consensus held by the Madhab is contrary to that and that the only correct opinion is that no tampering of the verses have occurred to the Quran.

At the same time, just as Allah affirmed that he will protect the context of his Divine speech from physical alterations(i.e omissions or deletions) He will also keep it intact in it's original form where the Muslims will not fall in disagreement on the boundaries of His speech. That is, going back to the Bismillah we know that Allah revealed Al-Fatiha at one time, so it's either Allah included the Bismillah as part of His speech in the Surah and making it the first Ayah, or He did not include it. However, both conflicting opinions cannot be both accepted or reconciled. So if we were to say that when Allah revealed Surat Al-Fatiha to the prophetص, He included the Bismillah as the first Ayah of the Surah and instructed the prophet to teach it in that form to the Muslims, then ideally in order for for the condition in Ayat 9 iof Surat Al-Hijr to be met, the Muslims from the time of the prophetص and the later generations after them will preserve that one form of Surat Al-Fatiha with the Bismillah being it's first Ayah and no differences can take place on it. However, if we were to say that Allahس revealed Al-Fatiha to the prophetص with the Bismillah and instructed him to teach the Muslims  to recite it as it is the way He revealed it with the inclusion of the Bismillah, yet in the later generations two groups of people come out with two conflicting opinions on how Allah originally revealed it(i.e where one says that Allah originally instructed the prophet to include the Bismillah as an Ayah in the Surah like Ahmad bin Hanbal while another group states the opposite where Allah did not instruct the prophet to include it as part of His speech in the Surah like Abu Hanifa), then it cannot be said that the condition of Ayat 9 in Surat Al-Hijr is met, since the original Divine instructions on how the form of the Surah should be would not have been preserved for the people in the later generations to know so that they can reconcile their difference over it. Finally, this is considering if both conflicting opinions are accepted within the school at the same time.

Wa alaykum alsalam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh,

Welcome to the boards brother Al-Hassan. Inshallah you have an educational and entertaining time here.

I might respond to your post later on, even though I surprised that you are suggesting that not including basmallah is a form of tahreef.

You do know that Ibn Al-Junaid, one of the greatest classical scholars of Twelver fiqh believed that the basmallah is not from the Qur'an, right?

I am aware brother. However, I do not see how his opinion on the Bismillah is critical here considering that from an Imami viewpoint, the consensus that the Madhab holds on the Bismillah is that it is the first Ayah of Al-Fatiha as well as a separate Ayah for every other Surah except for Surat at-Tawbah. Hence, his position on the Bismillah as well as the opinion of the other Imami scholars who advocated for the belief of Tahrif to have occurred to the text of the Quran, are Shadh positions that are their own mistakes in their ijtihad. This however is not the same case as with the conflicting positions held by Sunni scholars on the Bismillah which are acknowledged and deemed as valid and correct positions to be held by Sunnis and fall within the boundaries of Sunnism. For example: http://youtu.be/TP31j-zmnKY

Had the Imammiya held a consensus that both; the position of Ibn Al-Junaid on his rejection of the Bismillah and the current Imami position not rejecting it, then in such case, I would see that you would have made a valid point. However, there is only one valid opinion on the Bismillah for the Imammiya as stated above.

Hopefully I was clear.

[Hadrami]

Nevertheless, the consensus held by the Madhab is contrary to that and that the only correct opinion is that no tampering of the verses have occurred to the Quran.

No tampering of Quran which is kept by your current imam or the one we have now?

[Husayn]

No. They are not the same nor equivalent. Both are two distinct forms of Tahrif and one is more extreme than the other(i.e the position of some of the Imamiyyah believing in the textual distortion of the Quran being more extreme than the Sunnis disagreeing over the Bismillah being part of Al-Fatiha). At the same time though, regardless of their difference in form or extremeness, from the way I see it, both at the end of the day in essence will still conflict with Ayah 9, Surat Al-Hijr. This will probably need a detailed explanation to fully grasp what I'm trying to say so I'll elaborate more and be more clear at the same time. Moreover, Ayah 9 of Surat Al-Hijr states the following:

"Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur'an and indeed, We will be its guardian."

Tahreef refers to the physical distortion of the text of the Qur'an, be it deleting verses, modifying them, re-arranging them.

Differing interpretations regarding the same text can never be called tahreef.

However, both conflicting opinions cannot be both accepted or reconciled.

Yes, they actually can.

All the differing opinions have their evidence and are based on ijtihad with pure intentions (accepted).

And all of the differing opinions agree that there is no tahreef (reconciled).

However, if we were to say that Allahس revealed Al-Fatiha to the prophetص with the Bismillah and instructed him to teach the Muslims  to recite it as it is the way He revealed it with the inclusion of the Bismillah, yet in the later generations two groups of people come out with two conflicting opinions on how Allah originally revealed it(i.e where one says that Allah originally instructed the prophet to include the Bismillah as an Ayah in the Surah like Ahmad bin Hanbal while another group states the opposite where Allah did not instruct the prophet to include it as part of His speech in the Surah like Abu Hanifa), then it cannot be said that the condition of Ayat 9 in Surat Al-Hijr is met, since the original Divine instructions on how the form of the Surah should be would not have been preserved for the people in the later generations to know so that they can reconcile their difference over it.

The mushaf is exactly the same as revealed to Rasul Allah (saw) and as standardised under 'Uthman (ra).

No matter which opinion regarding the Basmalah you take - the Qur'an is still preserved according to the Ayah.

Had the Imammiya held a consensus that both; the position of Ibn Al-Junaid on his rejection of the Bismillah and the current Imami position not rejecting it, then in such case, I would see that you would have made a valid point. However, there is only one valid opinion on the Bismillah for the Imammiya as stated above.

So the best that you can claim is that the Ithna 'Asharis agreed with the Shafi'is and Hanbalis.

The Qur'an was preserved by Ahlul Sunnah through mutawatir chains of narrations. The Ithna 'Asharis can hold whatever opinion they like on the text of the Qur'an - it is still going to be based on Sunni texts (which actually makes the Ithna 'Ashari opinion hypocritical).

[Farid]

Had the Imammiya held a consensus that both; the position of Ibn Al-Junaid on his rejection of the Bismillah and the current Imami position not rejecting it, then in such case, I would see that you would have made a valid point. However, there is only one valid opinion on the Bismillah for the Imammiya as stated above. 

Brother, the very fact that Ibn Al Junaid rejects that the basmallah is a part of the Qur'an, shows that there is no consensus.

If you like, you can use words like "the majority" or "the correct opinion", but you cannot argue that there is a consensus.

You should also be aware that there are authentic hadiths that are clear proofs that the basmallah is only for the Fatiha and not the rest of the Suwar.

This is narrated by Al Halabi and Misma' Al Basri from Al Sadiq.
It is also natrated by Mohammed bin Muslim from Al Baqir.
They all narrated that the Imam made the basmallah mandatory in Fatiha only, but not other verses.
These narrations are all authentic too.

How can anyone suggest that such strong proofs are invalid because of a so-called "consensus"?

[Hani]

I recall a funny quote by al-Majlisi's student where he said that the Shaadh opinion was by those who don't believe in Tahrif like Murtada and Saduq.

[MuslimAnswers]

^

Maybe it is related to the well-known quote from Majlisi's Mir'at al-'Uqool? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia_view_of_the_Quran#Misconceptions] - interesting that the wikipedia page is trying to dispel false notions attributed to the Shia, yet this matter is quite well known.

Concerning the main topic of the Basmala, I asked one Shaykh, and he basically said that there are different sayings of the Qurra' themselves based on the different indubitable recitations, and the Fuqahaa inclined to a certain opinion based on these differences.

Note that the matter is very different from the Shia sayings, since in the case of us Sunnis, the differences are limited to and based on the mass-transmitted ways of recitation.

[Al-Hassan]

بِسْم الله الرحمن الرحيم


Firstly, here is Majlisi's commentary on Ibn Junayd's position:

قال المجلسي في الذكرى «وقد خالف ابن الجنيد من الشيعة وذهب على أنها في غير الفاتحة افتتاح وهو متروك. انتهى. وما ورد من تجويز تركها في السورة إما مبني على عدم وجوب السورة كاملة أو محمول على التقية لقول بعض المخالفين بالتفصيل» - بحار الأنوار82/21

Tahreef refers to the physical distortion of the text of the Qur'an, be it deleting verses, modifying them, re-arranging them.

Differing interpretations regarding the same text can never be called tahreef.

You keep insisting to restrict it's form to be only of the physical distortion of the text which is not necessarily always true. And it's not simply just "differing interpretations regarding the same text" that can be used to justify this difference and call an end to it. Disagreeing over the Tanzeel, that is of what constitutes an Ayah will eventually all go down to indirectly claiming that the Tanzeel underwent Tahrif no matter how much you try to brush it all those justifications. Brother, as mentioned in my earlier post, if one was to come and claim that in Surat Al-'Imran; the "Alif Lam Meem", while it is an Ayah in Al-Baqarah, it is not an Ayah in Al-'Imran but part of the text with Bismillah before the Ayah, what would that constitute to? Note that the text in Surat Al-Imran still remains the same in such scenario. Please comment in this.

Brother, the very fact that Ibn Al Junaid rejects that the basmallah is a part of the Qur'an, shows that there is no consensus.

If you like, you can use words like "the majority" or "the correct opinion", but you cannot argue that there is a consensus.

You should also be aware that there are authentic hadiths that are clear proofs that the basmallah is only for the Fatiha and not the rest of the Suwar.

This is narrated by Al Halabi and Misma' Al Basri from Al Sadiq.
It is also natrated by Mohammed bin Muslim from Al Baqir.
They all narrated that the Imam made the basmallah mandatory in Fatiha only, but not other verses.
These narrations are all authentic too.

How can anyone suggest that such strong proofs are invalid because of a so-called "consensus"?

Brother, from what I make out of your assertions here, this is like me arguing that the Sunnis do not hold an Ijma' in the Tahrim of Mut'a merely because one Sahabi('Ibn 'Abbas) opposed the opinion of the majority of the Sahaba in it's Tahrim and instead believed that it was Mubah(from a Sunni perspective). Or that some of the Tabi'in differed on it such as some of the scholars of Mecca where they allowed it. Arguing against the validity of a consensus being made by the contemporary scholars is a separate discussion and will only diverge the current one.

Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is that the agreement which the Imamiyia have came to in affirming that the Bismillah is an Ayah of every Surah was based on the majority of the scholars from the past till now holding that opinion and not considering the minority opinion that rejected it. Hence the Ijma' being established based on the opinion of the majority and not considering the opinion that the minority held that the Bismillah is not an Ayah such as Ibn Junayd. For example, here is what Khui states in his Al-Bayan:

هل البسملة من القرآن ؟

اتفقت الشيعة الامامية على أن البسملة آية من كل سورة بدئت بها ، وذهب إليه ابن عباس ، وابن المبارك ، وأهل مكة كابن كثير ، وأهل الكوفة كعاصم ، والكسائي ، وغيرهما ما سوى حمزة

Khui:

"Is the Bismillah part of the Quran?

The Shi'a Imamiya have come to an agreement that the Bismillah is an Ayah from the beginning of every Surah. And those who followed this opinion were Ibn Abbas, Ibn Al-Mubarak, the people of Mecca such as Ibn Kathir............"(see page 439 and the next few pages) "

http://www.shiaweb.org/quran/bayan/pa78.html

Khui is speaking on behalf of the Madhab here and affirming that the Imamiyia holds on to one view regarding the Bismillah and does not take into consideration that opinion of Ibn Junayd to be valid. Plus, no one has opposed his view on this, hence the agreement.

^

Maybe it is related to the well-known quote from Majlisi's Mir'at al-'Uqool? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia_view_of_the_Quran#Misconceptions] - interesting that the wikipedia page is trying to dispel false notions attributed to the Shia, yet this matter is quite well known.

Concerning the main topic of the Basmala, I asked one Shaykh, and he basically said that there are different sayings of the Qurra' themselves based on the different indubitable recitations, and the Fuqahaa inclined to a certain opinion based on these differences.

Note that the matter is very different from the Shia sayings, since in the case of us Sunnis, the differences are limited to and based on the mass-transmitted ways of recitation.

Although I didn't want to diverge the discussion to be on the Qira'at and the Ahruf, but since it's related and vital to this issue to some extent, I don't see why not. From an Imami perspective, we do not believe that the opinions of those Qura' who believed that the Bismillah is an Ayah and those that believed that it wasn't an Ayah justifies this difference. For Warsh and Qaloon to say that it's not an Ayah in Al-Fatiha and Hafs saying otherwise is still problematic considering that at the end of the day no matter how you look at it, it all goes back to the fact that the Fatiha has been revealed once like the rest of the Suwar. That is,  it's either that Allahس included it as an Ayah in Al-Fatiha or that he didn't include it when He revealed the Sura, but saying that both cases happened is impossible and illogical. Otherwise, if both cases did indeed happen, then there wouldn't be a need for this difference to occur between Abu Hanifa and Ahmed bin Hanbal on this issue where each held to one opinion and not considered the other. They can simply both affirm that Allah revealed the Fatiha twice where he included the Bismillah on the first revelation and didn't include it the second revelation based on the justifications made with the Qira'at. Hence they would acknowledge both opinions to be valid and end this difference. 

[MuslimAnswers]

^

It definitely is possible, and it is not at all illogical: We Sunnis definitely acknowledge many more differences that this in the Qira'aat, because the revelation was made in more than one way, and it is our belief that the Prophet (SAW) actually received them in different ways - the issue of why one Imam of Fiqh went with one recitation of from among those of the Qurra' and another went with another recitation from among the Qurra', while interesting, cannot be made a basis in terms of ascribing Tahreef in this case - there are other similar examples of different recitations used for rulings [i.e. where the ruling is different because the words themselves are different], and their taking a certain recitation does not mean that the school discards the validity of the other recitation. Again, this is a Fiqhi issue, not a do-or-die Aqeedah matter.

(Besides, even if we consider the Hanafi versus the Hanbali position, the difference is in saying that the Basmala is a separate Verse revealed that is not part of the Faatihah, or whether it is Verse revealed as part of the Faatihah).

[Farid]

@ Al-Hassan:

You will be surprised then that I do hold the opinion that there was no consensus on  the matter of mut'ah at first. Ibn Abbas' opinion did have weight and it influenced others to adopt the same view.

Similarly, I expect you to admit that there was no early consensus, and the proof of that is the opinion of Ibn Al Junaid, who was no small fry, as you are aware.

I await your response regarding the three narrations that forbid saying the Basmallah before the suwar.