The Third Reaction: Defiantly Proclaiming and Providing Evidence for it
The Person responsible for this catastrophe is Hussain al Nuri al Tabarsi (d. 1320) who wrote his book Fasl al Khitab in order to establish this alleged belief.
Probably it was the first time in history that the fables of the Shia, the views of their scholars, and the fabricated verses which they claim in this regard were gathered in one book and printed and published. This book has become an indictment upon the Shia for the rest of time. And if the Muslims had the strength and authority, many tribunals would have been called for in order to decide the faith of the Twelvers in light of this book, i.e. are they Muslims or are they out of the fold. The Muslims would have sighed with relief with the absence of those mercenaries who infiltrate the Muslim world in order to spread Shi’ism. And all those gullible people whom the scholars of the Shia easily deceive would have awoken from their slumber—people who do not understand Shi’ism to be anything other than loving the Ahlul Bayt—which will grant them entry into Jannat without reckoning.
Sheikh Ihsan Ilahi Zahir has published a very large portion of this book in his work al Shia wa al Qur’an coupled with citing the evidence of this calumniator and the misconceptions that his raises. Despite this exposing the Twelver Shia to a very large extent, however, Sheikh Ihsan has sufficed on citing these without any annotation or critique, which is extremely crucial especially when the author has raised twelve misconceptions in order to prove his conclusion. And although they are nothing but the threads of a spider web, but at times they can be misleading to people who have no knowledge of the Shari’ah. It is therefore necessary to unfold his misconceptions, deconstruct them, and extirpate them from their roots. Therefore a brief presentation of the contents of this book will be presented hereunder, considering that the author thereof is a contemporary Shia scholar, coupled with criticising it and deconstructing its misconceptions and blunders with the help of Allah.
Although the book of Ihsan has reached every place in the Muslim world. But he did not reject or at least critique any of its content due to the matter being clearer than should be clarified and due to presenting this false belief being enough to show its falsity. I say that whilst this approach is correct in terms of the belief itself, however, there is most certainly a need for refuting and deconstructing the misconceptions that appear therein.
The author of Fasl al Khitab has lifted the veil from the belief of the Shia regarding the interpolation of the Qur’an, and in this regard has gathered all their scattered narrations and the verdicts of their scholars regarding them being widely transmitted and exceeding two thousand in amount. He has accused the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum of interpolating the Qur’an and unanimously conspiring on doing so. He has not excluded anyone besides Amir al Mu’minin ‘Ali, which in anyway is just a nominal exclusion because it necessitates the concurring of all (including ‘Ali), for he did not reveal the unadulterated Qur’an that was by him. not even during his Khilafah.
He then presents 1062 narrations most of which state that many of the verses of the Qur’an are incorrect. He then mentions the alleged correct verses from their fallacious books thereby rejecting what the Ummah has united upon and accepting what a handful of calumniators have asserted.
He was likewise not ashamed of documenting some chapters in their entirety which are normally circulated in the circles of the Shia and do not feature in the normal Qur’an. The signs of fabrication and forgery are clear from their wordings and meanings; they are not unclear but to an ignorant non-Arab person and cannot possibly be propagated by anyone besides a spiteful heretic.
He has likewise refuted the claims of those scholars who deny interpolation and has mentioned that the denial of the early scholars was based on Taqiyyah and that denying the narrations of interpolation is tantamount to denying the narrations of Imamah due to them being interlinked.
This book which contains all this disbelief was published in Iran in 1298 A.H. It had not still fully made its appearance and the Shia were already expressing their agitation toward it; one of their scholars describing this condition states:
فلا تدخل مجلسا في الحوزة العلمية إلا وتسمع الصجة والعجة ضد ذلك الكتاب ومؤلفه وناشره يسلقونه بألسنة حداد.
You will not enter any gathering from the gatherings of the academic seminary but that you will hear the people decrying this book and opposing it, its author and its publisher vitriolically.
Muhibb al Din al Khatib opines that the reason for the decry was that they wanted the issue of the interpolation of the Qur’an to remain a secret within their circles and the narrations thereof to remain scattered within their reliable books; they did not want them to be gathered in one book, thousands of copies whereof would be published and which their opponents would come to know and would thus hold as evidence against them. And when some of their intelligent people expressed these concerns the author wrote a counterargument in the form of the book Radd Ba’d al Shubuhat ‘an Fasl al Khitab fi Ithbat Tahrif Kitab Rabb al Arbab (dispelling some misconceptions from Fasl al Khitab).
Although some of the extremist Shia have tried to conceal this preposterous belief at most times by way of Taqiyyah which has become the best resort and fort for them, and although many of those who believed in it and were actively part of the protest considered it crucial to conceal it in order to preserve the social status of the Shia and their religion from being disparaged so negatively that it will bring the entire edifice of Shi’ism crumbling down, I do not concur with Muhibb al Din in this generalisation regarding all the Shia. Rather I assert that there has always been a group among the Shia who deny this disbelief and disavow it. They have also written books in refutation of Fasl al Khitab due to this reason, like the book written by one of their scholars Muhammad Hussain al Mar’ashi titled Risalah Fi Hifz al Kitab al Sharif min Shubhah al Qawl bi al Tahrif.
I likewise have noted that in various places in Fasl al Khitab he has refuted the arguments of those who deny this disbelief from among his people and he debates with them. Whoever reads the book will realise that it was compiled in order to convince those Shia who were not willing to accept this heretical belief.
Furthermore, the book that the author of Fasl al Khitab wrote by the title Radd Ba’d al Shubuhat ‘an Fasl al Khitab was not, ostensibly, in order to debunk the viewpoint of those who said that this issue should remain a secret within their circles. This is because what Muhibb alluded to actually played out like this:
When the book Fasl al Khitab emerged their scholar Mahmud ibn Abi al Qasim (famously known as Mu’arrib al Tahrani) wrote a refutation thereof by the title Kashf al Irtiyab fi ‘Adm Tahrif al Kitab. The author of al Dhari’ah has documented for us the first argument of the Kashf al Irtiyab which implies the denial of interpolation and not a call for its concealment. The author of al Dhari’ah says:
وأول شبهات كشف الإرتياب هو أنه إذا ثبت تحريف القرآن فلليهود أن يقولوا إذا لا فرق بين كتابنا وكتابكم في عدم الإعتبار
The first misconception of Kashf al Irtiyab is that if the interpolation of the Qur’an is established then it would give the Jews the niche to say that there is no difference between our book and your book in terms of not being preserved.
Al Tabarsi subsequently wrote a refutation thereof, which is probably what Muhibb was referring to, titled al Radd ‘ala Kashf al Irtiyab. The author of al Dhari’ah says:
وكان يوصي كل من عنده فصل الخطاب أن يضم إليه هذه الرسالة التي هي في دفع الشبهات التي أوردها الشيخ محمود عليه وهي فارسية لم تطبع بعد
And he would advise every person who had a copy of Fasl al Khitab to add this booklet to it wherein he dispelled the misconceptions raised by Shaikh Mahmud. It is in Persian and has still not been printed.
The response of al Tabarsi in his refutation of the arguments of Kashf al Irtiyab was more of an attempt to recant and thus is evidence of contradiction. This is because he says the following:
هذه مغالطة لفظية حيث إن المراد بالتحريف… غير ما حملت عليه ظاهرا للفظ، أعني التغيير والتبديل والزيادة والتنقيص وغيرها المحقق والثابت جميعها في كتب اليهود وغيرهم، بل المراد من التحريف خصوص التنقيص فقط في غير آيات الأحكام جزما، وأما الزيادة فلإجماع الثابت من جميع فرق المسلمين والإتفاق العام من كل منتحل للإسلام علي عدم زيادة كلام واحد في القرآن المجموع فيما بين هاتين الدفتين ولو بمقدار أقصر آية يصدق عليه كلام فصيح، بل الإجماع والإتفاق من جميع أهل القبلة علي عدم زيادة كلمة واحدة في جميع القرآن، بحيث لا نعرف مكانها. فأين التنقيص الإجمالي المراد لنا عما حملت ظاهر اللفظ؟ وهل هذا إلا مغالطة لفظية
This is a semantic misunderstanding, for what is meant by interpolation is not what the word outwardly suggests, i.e. change, distortion, addition and omission, etc., all of which has definitely occurred in the books of the Jews. Rather what is intended by the term interpolation is omission specifically in verses other than the verses of law. As for addition to the Qur’an, the established unanimity of all the various sects of the Muslims and the general consensus of all those who subscribe to Islam is that no one’s speech has been added to the Qur’an which is characterised of whatever is between the two covers, even if it be the amount equal to the smallest verse which can be termed as eloquent. Rather the consensus of the Ummah is that not even a word has been added to the Qur’an in a way that it cannot be pointed out. So what a vast difference between overall omission and what the term ostensibly suggests? And is this not but a semantic misunderstanding?
This is just a little of what appears in the two books which the author of al Dhari’ah has conveyed to us. And this discloses to us that the debate was really about whether interpolation occurred in the Qur’an or not. It was not about the necessity of keeping it concealed although it does not out rule the possibility that there existed among the Shia many who felt that it was necessary to keep it hidden in order to save the integrity of the dogma. However, it does rule out the generalisation of this possibility.
Having said that, the afore cited argument that the author has presented to us after having digested it from the actual Persian booklet written by the author of Fasl al Khitab which I have cited verbatim is not void of traces of incorrectness in its Arabic, obscurity, contradiction, and Taqiyyah; the evidence whereof is completely clear from his speech, as is normally the habit of these Shia.
Moving on, the author, may he receive from Allah what he deserves, has organised this book in to three introductory chapters and two other chapters.
In the first introduction he has cited a number of their narrations which talk of the compilation of the Qur’an, based on their understanding thereof. For example, the narration of their ‘reliable’ scholar which reads as follows:
ما ادعي أحد من الناس أنه جمع القرآن كله، كما أنزل إلا كذاب. وما جمعه وحفظه كما أنزله الله إلا علي بن أبي طالب والأئمة من بعده
Besides the liar, no one has ever claimed that he compiled the entire Qur’an as it was revealed. And no one compiled it nor preserved it in the way it was revealed besides ‘Ali and the subsequent Imams.
This is based upon the Shia doctrine of only considering one person, ‘Ali, infallible and considering the entire Ummah astray. And this doctrine came about due to remnants of the Persian culture which consecrated its kings.
How foolish indeed! He rejects that upon which all the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum concurred and then claims that only the transmission of one person is reliable. These claims have no evidence to back them up and they only exist in the imagination of these people. This is because ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu himself and the Ummah has not known any other Qur’an but this Qur’an.
He then goes on to narrate narrations regarding the Qur’an of ‘Ali wherefrom, as they allege, not one letter was omitted. He cites a group of their narrations which when studied make a person realise that the Shia psyche is the quickest to believe in hogwash and fables. For it believes in a book that does not exist anywhere other than in their fables, and disbelieves in a book which was unanimously accepted by the Ummah, including the Imams. These fables talk of how ‘Ali had compiled the Qur’an and how the Sahabah refused to accept it.
One among these narrations is the narration of the Shia who allegedly met the awaited Mahdi (who was not born at all) and whom the Mahdi addressed by saying the following:
لما انتقل سيد البشر محمد بن عبد الله صلي الله عليه وآله من دار الفناء وفعلا صنما قريش ما فعلا من نصب الخلافة جمع أمير المؤمنين رضي الله عنه القرآن كله ووضعه في إزار وأتي به إليهم وهم في المسجد، فقال لهم: هذا كتاب الله سبحانه أمرني رسول الله صلي الله عليه سلم أن أعرضه عليكم لقيام الحجة عليكم يوم العرض بين يدي الله تعالي، فقال فرعون هذه الأمة ونمرودها: لسنا محتاجين إلي قرآنك، فقال له: أخبرني حبيبي محمد صلي الله عليه وآله بقولك هذا وإنما أردت بذلك إلقاء الحجة عليكم فرجع أمير المؤمنين إلي منزله… فنادي ابن أبي قحافة بالمسلمين وقال لهم: كل من عنده قرآن من آية أو سورة فليأت بها فجاءه أبو عبيدة بن الجراح، وعثمان، وسعد بن أبي وقاص، ومعاوية بن أبي سفيان، وعبد الرحمن بن عوف، وطلحة بن عبد الله، وأبوسعيد الخدري، وحسان بن ثابت وجماعات المسلمين وجمعوا هذا القرآن وأسقطوا ما كان فيه من المثالب التي صدرت عنهم بعد وفاة سيد المرسلين صلي الله عليه وآله. فلذا تري الآيات غير مرتبطة، والقرآن الذي جمعه أمير المؤمنين بخطه محفوظ عند صاحب الأمر عجل الله فرجه وفيه كل شيء حتي أرش الخدشة. وأما هذا القرآن فلا شك ولا شبهة في صحته، وأنه من كلام الله سبحانه، هكذا صدر عن صاحب الأمر
When the leader of humanity Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam departed from this ephemeral world and the two idols of Quraysh did what they did regarding the nomination of a Khalifah, Amir al Mu’minin ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu compiled the entire Qur’an and covered it in a loin cloth, brought it to the masjid, presented it to them and said the following, “This is the book of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala which Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam has ordered me to present to you in order to establish evidence against you on the Day of Reckoning before Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala.” In response, the Firoun and the Namrud of this Ummah said the following, “We are not in need of your Qur’an.” To which he replied, “My beloved had foretold me of your response, I, however, only presented it to you in order to marshal evidence against you,” and subsequently returned to his house. Ibn Abi Quhafah proclaimed amongst the Muslims, “Whoever has any portion of the Qur’an written should produce it.” subsequently, Abu ‘Ubaidah ibn al Jarrah, Talhah ibn ‘Abdullah, Abu Sa’id al Khudri, Hassan ibn Thabit, and droves of Muslims came to him and they compiled the Qur’an. After the demise of the master of the prophets salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam they, however, omitted all the demerits that were contained therein, which they were guilty of. You will thus find that the verses are not organised systematically. As for the Qur’an that Amir al Mu’minin compiled, it is preserved in his hand writing by the lord of the time [Mahdi] (may Allah hastened his release). Therein is everything, even the recompense for a scratch. As for the status of this Qur’an, there is no doubt in its authenticity and in it being the word of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. This is what the Mahdi had said.
I have cited the narration in its entirety despite its length due to all their stories revolving around it. In essence the belief is thus a result of the hatred these people have for the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum and for the Din that they barred.
As you can see, the discussion is about the demerits of the Sahabah and that whoever compiled the Qur’an omitted them. They have thus divulged the hidden secret and what their hearts bare is even greater.
But, if the Sahabah abandoned the Qur’an then why was the actual Qur’an which ‘Ali presented to them kept away from the people of the subsequent centuries? For if it served as inculpatory evidence against the Sahabah it cannot be such evidence against the subsequent generations? And why did ‘Ali not establish this evidence against the people when he was in an authoritative position during his rule and Khilafah? Their fables contradict one another internally.
And if the Sahabah rejected it, surely there would be someone throughout the subsequent centuries who would have accepted it, especially when they claim that some among them accompanied the Imams and even met the awaited Mahdi, also notwithstanding that autonomous Shia empires came about. So why would they then be deprived? And why should it then remain with the Mahdi in his hiding? Does this all not make it very clear that this is all nothing but nonsense, leaving aside all other evidences and their analyses?
Furthermore, the author of Fasl al Khitab goes on to mention narrations in his introduction which suggest that ‘Ali refused to give the Qur’an to the Sahabah when they requested him for it due to averring that none but the pure could touch it and that no one is pure besides the Twelve Imams.
This is indeed problematic. For it implies that ‘Ali refused to convey the Qur’an by claiming that it is specific to him and his children. No Muslim will dare to say this, let alone Amir al Mu’minin radiya Llahu ‘anhu. The motive behind this is tarnishing the reputation of the Ahlul Bayt and lampooning them. It is for this reason that one of the Shia sects, the Kamiliyyah excommunicated ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu from the community of the Muslims. These narrations which feature in the books of the Twelvers invariably lead to this conclusion. These people, thus, are cohorts of Shaitan but definitely not the supporters of Amir al Mu’minin. Those who exonerate Amir al Mu’minin from all these falsities are indeed his supporters and helpers.
In the second introduction he produces examples of the types of interpolation which allegedly occurred in the Qur’an. He cites various examples of interpolation in Surahs, verses, words and letters, all of which are of course a result of the whisperings of his devil to him.
He establishes that adding a chapter and replacing one with another is impossible due to the verse:
وَإِن كُنتُمْ فِي رَيْبٍ مِّمَّا نَزَّلْنَا عَلَىٰ عَبْدِنَا فَأْتُوا بِسُورَةٍ مِّن مِّثْلِهِ وَادْعُوا شُهَدَاءَكُم مِّن دُونِ اللهِ إِن كُنتُمْ صَادِقِينَ
And if you are in doubt about what we have sent down [i.e., the Qur’an] upon Our Servant [i.e., Prophet Muhammad], then produce a surah the like thereof and call upon your witnesses [i.e., supporters] other than God, if you should be truthful.
He thus asserts that in the Qur’an which the Muslims have access to there is no addition of any chapter whatsoever, due to humans being incapable of producing a chapter like any of the chapters of the Qur’an, but he then contradicts himself by stating that decreasing a chapter is very possible and cites as an example the omission of the chapter of Wilayah.
This is because this claim in itself entails an additional chapter to the present Qur’an, i.e. the chapter of Wilayah, whereas he had just denied the possibility thereof earlier. Over and above that, the wording of the Surah suggests that it is a complete fabrication, this is attested to by one of the scholars of the Shia themselves. This chapter is characterised by a concocted text, a ludicrous structure, and disreputable meaning; all of which make it clear that it was fabricated by an ignorant non-Arab, as will appear.
He further asserts that increasing a verse in the Qur’an or decreasing one is also impossible by way of consensus. But then he contradicts his claim by stating that decrease is possible.
As for adding a word to the Qur’an, in light of their fables he concludes that it is possible. He gives an example stating that the word عن in the forthcoming verse is an addition in the verse of the Qur’an?
يَسْأَلُونَكَ عَنِ الْأَنفَالِ
They ask you, [O Muhammad], about the bounties [of war].
The purpose behind this claim is that according to them the spoils of war were exclusively for Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and subsequently for the twelve Imams that succeeded him. But the Sahabah were asking Rasul Allah to give them the spoils as charity and were not asking him about the ruling of the spoils. This meaning is only possible if the word عن (regarding) is omitted.
He further states that omitting a word is very common, like the omission of the word ‘Ali in many a verses, i.e. the name of ‘Ali had occurred multiple times according to them in the Qur’an but the Sahabah omitted it.
This claim is made in order to satisfy their followers who are doubtful regarding their dogma which is not backed by any verses in the Qur’an. This is one of the most likely reasons which drove the Shia to believe in this blasphemy. As for unlikely reasons, they are in order to destroy Shi’ism completely and distance the Shia from Islam completely.
He then goes on to mention the various ways in which this alleged change in the words occurred in the Book of Allah and establishes in light of their fallacious narrations that this has indeed happened. He thus says: like changing the words آل محمد ‘the family of Muhammad in the following verse of chapter Al ‘Imran:
إِنَّ اللَّهَ اصْطَفَىٰ آدَمَ وَنُوحًا وَآلَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَآلَ عِمْرَانَ عَلَى الْعَالَمِينَ
Indeed, God chose Adam and Nuh and the family of Ibrahim and the family of ‘Imran over the worlds…
The purpose of the Shia from this is to look for anything by way of which they can establish the mention of their Imams in the Book of Allah, for how is it possible that the family of ‘Imran is mentioned in the Qur’an but their Imams are not mentioned at all?
He then goes on to discuss particles and asserts in light of their fables that adding and omitting particles from the Qur’an is possible and has occurred. He states, “like the omission of the particle أ in the verse:
كُنتُمْ خَيْرَ أُمَّةٍ أُخْرِجَتْ لِلنَّاسِ
You are the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind.
And the omission of the ي in the verse:
وَيَقُولُ الْكَافِرُ يَا لَيْتَنِي كُنتُ تُرَابًا
And the disbeliever will say, “Oh, I wish that I were dust!”
The motive behind this forgery is obvious, for the Ummah of Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam according to this cult, whose hearts hatred has devoured, is accursed, astray and oppressive due to it conquering their lands and destroying their empires and propagating Islam amongst its people. It hurts them to find that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has praised this Ummah, they have thus tried to divert the praise to their Twelve Imams the last amongst whom was not even born at all. Therefore, they said that the word was actually A’immah and not Ummah.
Likewise the motive behind the forgery of the word Turabiyy is to attribute to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu who was given the title Abu Turab which implies that the disbeliever will say, “How I wish I was a Turabiyy.” i.e. from the partisans of ‘Ali. The question is why would he not desire to be from the partisans of Muhammad? Is ‘Ali better than Muhammad?
And his senseless jabber which has put the Shia into the worst of positions and has tarnished their position forever continues.
The third introduction: therein he has mentioned the views of the Shia clergy regarding the interpolation of the Qur’an. He thus says:
اعلم أن لهم في ذلك أقوالا مشهورها اثنان، الأول: وقوع التغيير والنقصان فيه
Know well that they have many views in this regard. Famous amongst them are two: first: the occurrence of distortion and decrease in the Qur’an.”
He thereafter lists those scholars who held this view, like al Qummi in his Tafsir, al Kulayni in his al Kafi (as he has asserted, they both have very vehemently narrated abundant narrations in support of this viewpoint), al Nu’mani in al Ghaybah, al ‘Ayyashi and Furat al Kufi in their Tafsirs, al Mufid in al Masa’il al Sururiyyah and al Bahrani in al Durar al Najafiyyah.
In this way does he go about enumerating all their prominent scholars who were proponents of this fallacious belief mentioning their names with pompous titles, and at times even describing some of them by saying that they never ever erred in their lives, notwithstanding that this blunder itself is sufficient to gage how steeped they were in misguidance and disbelief. He also presents their statements in this regard, which have exposed the Shia in the belated centuries. So for example, he quotes the statement of their scholar Abu al Hassan al Sharif, the author of Mir’at al Anwar wherein he asserts that believing in this belief is part of the categorically established aspects of the Shia dogma.
He then says:
الثاني: عدم وقوع التغيير والنقصان فيه، وأن جميع ما نزل علي رسول الله صلي الله عليه وآله هو الموجود بأيدي الناس فيما الدفتين، وإليه ذهب الصدوق في عقائده، والسيد المرتضي، وشيخ الطائفة في التبيان ولم يعرف من القدماء موافق لهم إلا ما حكاه المفيد عن جماعة من أهل الإمامة، والظاهر أنه أراد منها الصدوق وأتباعه
Second: the non-occurrence of change and omission therein and that whatever came down upon Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is what is found in the two covers which is accessible to the people. To this view al Saduq has leaned in his ‘Aqa’id, likewise al Sayyid al Murtada and Sheikh al Ta’ifah in al Tibyan. No one from the early scholars is known to have sided with them in this view with the exception of what al Mufid has related regarding a group of the Shia. But apparently he intended al Saduq and his followers.
Notice that he endeavours to prove that the viewpoint of interpolation is the default view of the Shia dogma. Otherwise the early scholars of the Shia dogma were free from this disbelief. The discussion regarding the roots of this belief and how it started has passed already.
He then goes on to mention the statements of the deniers and he debates their denial based on some narrations which appear in their books which establish this belief and eventually reaches the conclusion that it was not based on truth but rather it was a ploy in order to deceive the Ahlus Sunnah.
And in the first chapter: he presents what he calls ‘the evidence which they use, whereas they can be used in substantiation of interpolation occurring in the Qur’an’.
Therein he mentions twelve misconceptions, equal to the number of his A’immah.
 Al Mar’ashi: al Ma’arif al Jaliyyah p. 21.
 Al Khutut al ‘Aridah p. 11.
 Manuscript (see al Ma’arif al Jaliyyah p. 21).
 Fasl al Khitab p. 360, onwards.
 Notice that he has named the arguments misconceptions. This is because the author of al Dhari’ah holds the same view as the author of Fasl al Khitab and he thus names the arguments of Kashf al Irtiyab misconceptions plunging deeper into this belief. And why not, especially when the author of Fasl al Khitab is his teacher whom he has very lavishly praised and exaggeratingly extolled.
 Agha Buzruk al Tahrani: al Dhari’ah ila Tasanif al Shia 18/9: under the letter ك, 10/211: under the letter ز.
 Ibid. 10/211.
 Al Dhari’ah 10/221.
 Notice that first he had denied any addition whatsoever being made to the Qur’an, and then he steps back and says “Rather the consensus of the Ummah is that not even a word has been added to the Qur’an in a way which we cannot point out” reflect over his statement ‘which we cannot point out’. By way of this statement he is subtly inclining to the view of the author of Fasl al Khitab that indeed additions have been made to the Book of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. The author of Fasl al Khitab, whilst making mention of the various ways in which change came about in the Qur’an, ways inspired to him by the devil and motivated by his hatred for Islam and its people, says the following:
السابعة زيادة الكلمة كزيادة عن في قوله تعالي يسألونك عن الأنفال
The seventh way: adding a word, like عن in the verse يسألونك عن الأنفال (Fasl al Khitab p. 25).
Likewise his assertion that only omission has occurred in the Book of Allah does not excuse him from belying the verse, “Verily We have revealed the Remembrance, and We are its Protectors.”
 Referring to al Siddiq and al Faruq, the two who established the empire of Islam after Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam
 Referring to ‘Umar al Faruq who conquered the lands of Persia and spread Islam therein. The only reward these people could think of for him was revilement and excommunication.
 Fasl al Khitab p. 9-10
 Fasl al Khitab p. 7.
 Fasl al Khitab p. 24.
 Al Baqarah: 23.
 Fasl al Khitab p. 24.
 His name is Muhammad Jawwad al Balaghi: in his book Ala’ al Rahman p. 24-25.
 Fasl al Khitab p. 24.
 Al Anfal: 1.
 Āl ‘Imran: 33.
 Āl ‘Imran: 110.
 Al Naba’ 40.
 Fasl al Khitab p. 32.
 Ibid. p. 33.
 Ibid. 33, onwards.