The First Misconception
The heretic says:
الدليل الأول أن اليهود والنصاري غيروا وحرفوا كتاب نبيهم بعده، فهذه الأمة أيضا لا بد وأن يغيروا القرآن بعد نبينا صلي الله عليه وآله، لأن كل ما وقع في بني إسرائيل لا بد وأن يقع في هذه الأمة علي ما أخبر به الصادق المصدق صلوات الله عليه.
The first proof is that the Jews and the Christians distorted and interpolated the books of their prophet after them, this Ummah will thus also ineluctably distort the Qur’an after our Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. This is because whatever occurred in the Bani Isra’il is bound to occur in this Ummah as has been told to us by the truthful and the believed salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
This misconception can be answered in various ways:
First of all, we agree that whatever occurred in the Bani Isra’il will occur in the Ummah of Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, but we assert that whatever is excluded by way of evidence is not part of this general statement, and one such issue is the interpolation of the Qur’an. For it is an exception to this generalisation due to the verse of the Qur’an:
إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ
Indeed, it is we who sent down the message [i.e., the Qur’an], and indeed, we will be its guardian.
Can there be anything more powerful than limiting a hadith with an explicit verse from the Qur’an? Where are the brains of these people? It is for this reason that al Baqillani has said:
أول جهلكم أنكم قطعتم بخبر واحد علي أن القرآن غير وبدل مع ردكم لما هو أقوي منه
The first sign of your ignorance is that you have averred on the basis of a limitedly transmitted report that the Qur’an was distorted and interpolated, thereby rejecting that which is more powerful.
Furthermore, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala had entrusted the people of the book with the preservation of the Torah and ordered them to preserve it. But they had breached the trust and failed to preserve it; they wittingly wasted it. Conversely, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala did not entrust anyone with the preservation of Qur’an thereby allowing for its dissipation. Rather he himself assumed the responsibility of its preservation, as he mentions in the verse:
إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُوْنَ
Indeed, it is we who sent down the message [i.e., the Qur’an], and indeed, we will be its guardian.
And then in the verse:
لَّا يَأْتِيهِ الْبَاطِلُ مِن بَيْنِ يَدَيْهِ وَلَا مِنْ خَلْفِهِ تَنْزِيْلٌ مِّنْ حَكِيْمٍ حَمِيْدٍ
Falsehood cannot approach it from before it or from behind it; [it is] a revelation from a [Lord who is] Wise and Praiseworthy.
This is because the Qur’an is his final revelation, and Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is His Final Messenger and with his death revelation came to an end. So it is the sheer grace of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala that he has taken it upon himself to preserve his book till the Day of Judgement so that it serves as a source of illumination and guidance for the Ummah till the end of time.
Second, the premise that whatever occurred in the Bani Isra’il is bound to occur in this Ummah is not acceptable in all respects. And therefore the conclusion that he draws from this premise is false. This is because it is based upon a premise which is not as general as it is purported to be. The evidence thereof is that the Bani Isra’il killed their prophets but his Ummah did not, despite the efforts of some hypocrites to do so. Likewise they worshipped the calf but no such worship has occurred in this Ummah. The premise is thus not completely general. And the interpolation of the Qur’an is more deserving of being an exception due to it being excluded via an explicit verse of the Qur’an, as we have mentioned, even though some hypocrites have tried to distort it under the guise of Shiasm.
Likewise our Ummah is very different from the Bani Isra’il. For in this Ummah there will always remain a group which will remain upon the truth, whom those who oppose them and those who forsake them will not harm them till Judgement Day. Which is why Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala will not make an enemy from outside overcome them and eventually annihilate them. Both these aspects are established in authentic narrations from Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Indeed he has informed us that there will always remain a group which will be steadfast upon the truth, whoever opposes them will not harm them, till the Day of Judgement. He has likewise informed us that he asked his Lord that he should not give dominance to an external enemy over his followers and He granted him that. And he asked him not to destroy them with universal famine and He granted him that. And he asked him that their in-house fighting not be very ferocious and He did not accede to that.
As opposed to the previous nations, for there was not amongst them a group which was steadfast and assisted in adhering to the truth. External enemies were thus made to destroy them, as in the case of the Bani Isra’il whose kingdom did not remain and in whose era al Quds was ransacked twice.
Third, if we hypothetically consider that the Qur’an is not exempted from the generality of the aforementioned narration, then it is the Shia who interpolate the meaning of the Qur’an coupled with trying to interpolate its words as well. And what we have presented previously is evidence of this. However, they were unable to reach their objective due to Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala taking it upon himself to preserve it as is clearly mentioned in the afore cited verse.
The second misconception
The heretic says:
الدليل الثاني أن كيفية جمع القرآن وتأليفه مستلزمة عادة لوقوع التغيير والتحريف فيه، وقد أشار إلي ذلك العلامة المجلسي في مرآة العقول، حيث قال: والعقل يحكم بأنه إذا كان القرآن متفرقا منتشرا عند الناس وتصدي غير المعصوم لجمعه يمتننع أن يكون جمعه كاملا موافقا للواقع.
The second proof is that the manner in which the Qur’an was compiled and collected necessitates that change and interpolation take place. Al Majlisi has alluded to this in Mir’at al ‘Uqul, for he says, “And reason demands that if the Qur’an was scattered amongst the people and an infallible person thereafter takes up the task of compiling it, it is impossible that his compilation be fully successful and in accordance with the actual revelation.”
Response: This misconception is based upon the Shia perception that the entire Ummah is on error despite its unanimity and, on the other hand, one person who is not even a prophet is correct, as is discernible from his statement “and an infallible person thereafter takes up the task of compiling it”. And this is a completely false notion, as has been explained already under the discussion of infallibility. And whatever is based upon falsehood is false.
The manner in which he has framed his argument posits that many of the scholars in the Shia clergy are calumniators who deny crystal clear realities and believe in falsities and nonsensical things. The compilation of the Qur’an indeed was realised in the most meticulous of ways and the most reliable of them in terms of precision and perfection; for the scribes of revelation were on the one hand writing and the memorises thereof were on the other hand memorising. Over and above that the Ummah in its entirety was repeating the verses of the Qur’an in its prayers and circles of learning. Whenever any portion of the Qur’an was revealed they would advance in memorising it, documenting it, learning it, and practicing it. It is therefore impossible for there to have been a letter which was increased or decreased. It is due to this that the Ummah has concurred upon it. And the unanimity of the Ummah is infallible.
Let us thus apply our minds and understand that this claim was not made by any of the sects amongst the Shia besides the Twelvers. The Twelvers talk of the Qur’an which ‘Ali compiled by himself, which is complete and perfect according to them, and deny that which the Muslims have concurred upon. So what should we believe, the Qur’an or an unknown book, the appearance whereof is based upon a fictitious awaited Mahdi and which was compiled according to them by one individual.
The Shia have produced some verses of this alleged book which cannot possibly be from the word of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala due to the language therein being inferior to the language of an ordinary person, so how can it then be the incapacitating word of the Lord of the universes?
Moreover, the person to whom the Shia attribute the compilation of this alleged book (‘Ali) reads the same Qur’an which is accessible to the Muslims and considers reading it to be an act of worship, but the Shia claim that was due to him doing Taqiyyah. Can Taqiyyah be practiced in a matter of this magnanimity wherefrom will come about the dissolution of Din and the misguidance of generations? This is an answer the falsity whereof is clear even through mere observation and experience. It is the decree of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala in order that the reality of this cult be revealed to all the Muslims as long as they live among them with Taqiyyah.
Furthermore, it is a known fact that the compilation of the Qur’an reached fruition during the era of Abu Bakr al Siddiq and ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhuma after the consensus of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum. And at the forefront of the scribes was Amir al Mu’minin ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu; to the extent that the transmissions of most of the popular readings of the Qur’an return to him, as is conceded by the Shia themselves, as has passed already. And in all the transmissions of the Qur’an which go back to him there is nothing which opposes the present Qur’an in any way. Over and above that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu is reported to have praised al Siddiq and Dhu al Nurayn radiya Llahu ‘anhuma for their efforts and accomplishments with regards to compiling the Qur’an. Can the light of the sun which is not dimmed by the clouds be denied, or should we accept fables narrated by a fringe minority from the enemies of the Ummah and its Din? Can there be any one more devious than the one who calls on his followers to disavow the Book of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and anticipate the emergence of a forged book which “exists” with a fictitious Imam, or with an Imam who went into occultation for now more than a thousand years? And how can evidence be marshalled against humanity by way of such a book when the Shia themselves have no knowledge of it and no access to it? They do not follow but conjecture and they do nothing but surmise!
The third misconception
The heretic says:
إن أكثر العامة وجماعة من الخاصة ذكروا في أقسام الآيات المنسوخة ما نسخت تلاوتها دون حكمها، وما نسخت تلاوتها وحكمها معا، وذكروا للقسمين أمثلة ورووا أخبارا كثيرة ظاهرة بل صريحة في وجود بعض الآيات والكلمات التي ليس لها في القرآن المتداول أثر ولا عين، وإنه كان منه في عصر النبي صلي الله عليه وآله يتلونه الأصحاب وحملوها علي أحد القسمين من غير أن تكون فيها دلالة وإشارة علي ذلك، وحيث إن نسخ التلاوة غير واقع عندنا، فهذه الآيات والكلمات لا بد وأن تكون مما سقط أو أسقطوها من الكتاب جهلا أو عمدا، لا بإذن من الله ورسوله وهو المطلوب.
Most of the commonality (the Ahlus Sunnah) and some of the elite (Shia) have averred, in the various categories of abrogated verses that in some verses the recitation is abrogated but not the ruling and vice versa, i.e. the ruling is abrogated but not the recitation. They have cited examples for both types and have narrated many clear and emphatic narrations of verses and words which do not feature at all in the current Qur’an but existed during the era of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and were read by the Companions. They have considered such verses and words to belong to one of the two types without any explicit or indicative evidence. According to us, the abrogation of recitation is not valid and thus the only possible interpretation of these verses and words is that they fell away or they (the compilers) omitted them either unknowingly or intentionally, but definitely not with the permission of Allah and his Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam which is crucial.
This misconception is raised very often by the contemporary Shia scholars. By raising this misconception they endeavour to impact upon the reader by creating an impression upon him that the verses the recitation whereof is abrogated according to the Ahlus Sunnah are not unlike the narrations of interpolation according to the Shia. You will barely find a book from the books of this cult but that therein will feature the discussion of this accusation; you will find that they try to justify the fables which appear in their books by using the narrations which talk of abrogation in the legacy of the Ahlus Sunnah.
There is no doubt as to the fact that their argument in this regard is untenable. This is because abrogation is from Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala as he states in the Qur’an:
مَا نَنسَخْ مِنْ آيَةٍ أَوْ نُنسِهَا نَأْتِ بِخَيْرٍ مِّنْهَا أَوْ مِثْلِهَا
We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that we bring forthbetter than it or similar to it.
However interpolation is from the actions of men, and there is a vast difference between the two. It is for this reason we will find that many of their scholars have adopted this false stance regarding the Qur’an (of interpolation) due to the implications of their fables, but we will not find one scholar from amongst the Ahlus Sunnah who adopted it; because abrogation and interpolation are two completely distinct concepts.
Rather there is no place whatsoever for this fallacious belief in the dogma of the Muslims. This is clear from the fact that we find mention of the deviance which crept into the Muslims regarding the Qur’an in issues like the inquisition of the created-increate nature of the Qur’an and its likes. But the viewpoint that the Qur’an is interpolated is found nowhere in the legacy of the Muslims. So how can abrogation and interpolation then be considered the same? This is not but outright misguidance and a sinister plot.
The most that the narrations in question indicate is that those verses and words were part of the Qur’an for a while and were subsequently abrogated and raised during the lifetime of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam when the system of revelation was still in function. That is why they are discussed under a dedicated topic of Qur’anic sciences in the books of the Ahlus Sunnah. It never occurred to any scholar that they are indicative of interpolation. Conversely, the narrations of interpolation according to the Shia attribute interpolation to the Companions of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam owing to believing in liars and calumniators who belie categorically established aspects of Din, the diffusely transmitted narrations and the testimony of Allah and His Rasul salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in favour of them.
According to the Ahlus Sunnah, the Sahabah were too pious and Allah conscious to have did something like that. And even if we hypothetically accept that they tried to do so, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala would not have given them the ability to successfully accomplish that. Otherwise that would necessitate that he did not live up to His promise which is impossible. Hence it is impossible for interpolation to have occurred even mistakenly at their hands, because it is Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala who has promised to preserve the Qur’an.
Furthermore, in spite of al Nuri al Tabarsi emphatically denying the abrogation of recitation—minus reading and attributing that to all the Shia in order to bolster his false agenda—the Shia themselves have conceded its occurrence. Even if there is some basis to his claim, then too it would only be referring to some of the Contemporary Shia. In which case it implies that they have plunged deeper into this misguidance than their predecessors. Hereunder is a brief list of some their ancient scholars who have conceded it.
Sheikh al Tabarsi (d. 460 A.H.) acknowledges thus in his book Majma’ al Bayan:
ومنها ما يرتفع اللفظ ويثبت الحكم كآية الرجم
And from them are those verses whose recitation has been lifted but their ruling is maintained, like the verse of Rajm (stoning the adulterer).
Notwithstanding that al Tabarsi was a denier of interpolation, and the scholars of the Shia advance his stance as evidence to prove that their dogma is free of that indictment. Despite that none of their scholars has averred that his affirmation of abrogation is an affirmation of interpolation.
Before him, Sheikh al Tusi (d. 460 A.H.) says the following in his al Tibyan:
لا يخلو النسخ في القرآن الكريم من أقسام ثلاثة: أحدها نسخ حكمه دون لفظه والثاني ما نسخ لفظه دون حكمه كآية الرجم، فإن وجوب الرجم علي المحصنة لا خلاف فيه، والآية التي كانت متضمنة له منسوخة بلا خلاف، وهي قوله: والشيخ والشيخة إذا زنيا.
Abrogation in the Qur’an is one of three types:
Where the ruling is abrogated but not the wording
Where the wording is abrogated but not the ruling, like the verse of Rajm; for there is no dispute regarding stoning being compulsory upon a married woman; the verse which entailed this was abrogated without dispute and it reads as follows, the married man and married woman, if they commit adultery…
He also says in another place:
وقد أنكر قوم جواز نسخ القرآن، وفيما ذكرناه دليل علي بطلان قولهم، وجائت أخبار متضافرة بأنه كانت أشياء في القرآن نسخت تلاوتها.
Some people have denied the possibility of the Qur’an being abrogated. But in what we have mentioned there is proof of their assertion being false; for there are abundant narrations which state that there were verses in the Qur’an whose recitation was abrogated.
And prior to them, the Sheikh of the Shia, al Murtada (d. 436 A.H.), who was also one of the deniers of interpolation; who was excluded by Ibn Hazm from the viewpoint of the Twelver majority; and whose view is used to show that the Shia dogma is free from the blasphemy in question, admits that abrogation of recitation is possible. He states the following in his book al Dhari’ah:
فصل في جواز نسخ الحكم دون التلاوة، ونسخ التلاوة دونه
Chapter regarding the possibility of the abrogation of the ruling minus the recitation and the abrogation of the recitation minus the ruling.
He then expounds on both types.
Hence the acknowledgement of the abrogation of recitation is a locus of consensus between both parties.
Finally, part of the plot of the Shia and their cunningness is that you will not come across a contemporary Shia scholar who has written on this topic but that he has outwardly expressed the view that the Shia are free from this preposterous belief by citing the views of al Murtada, al Tabarsi, and has thereafter tried to attribute it to the Ahlus Sunnah due to them acknowledging abrogation of recitation. Whereas al Tabarsi and al Murtada also acknowledged it. But this plot is in place in order to accomplish an objective which they are not brave enough to reveal and that is their belief in this blasphemy.
The fourth misconception
The heretic says:
الدليل الرابع أنه كان لأمير المؤمنين قرآنا مخصوصا-كذا- مخالف الموجود في الترتيب، وفيه زيادة ليست من الأحاديث القدسية، ولا من التفسير والتأويل
The fourth proof is that Amir al Mu’minin had a special Qur’an which was very different in its structure to the present one; therein were additions which were not from Qudsi narrations, exegesis or interpretation.
In response I say: had Amir al Mu’minin had a Mushaf he would have revealed it to the Muslims; for it would not have been permissible for him to keep it concealed. And if for whatever reasons, as they surmise, he was not able to reveal it during the reign of those who preceded him then he was certainly capable of doing so during his rule. And failing to do so is tantamount to misguidance and disbelief. Hence whoever attributes this to Amir al Mu’minin is indeed not from his partisans, but rather from his enemies due to claiming that he concealed the truth owing to fear and cowardice, notwithstanding that he was the Lion of Allah and His Rasul salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam; for concealing the very basis of Din constitutes leaving the fold of Islam.
Furthermore, if he did not reveal it during his time then Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu could have revealed it when he came into power. But that to which everyone attests, including the Shia, is that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu is not recorded to have read in his prayers or passed judgments by way of any other book save the current Qur’an which we behold. Likewise is reported regarding all the scholars of the Ahlul Bayt, as has passed already. This debunks all the claims of the Shia whose beds became restless, eyes sleepless, unity shattered, and affairs alloyed after having realised that the Mighty Book of Islam is completely silent about their anomalous beliefs. Hence they contrived another ‘Qur’an’ when they did not find what they wanted in the Book of the Muslims, just as they contrived a fictitious Imam when their deceased Imam passed away without issue.
Even if ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu had a Mushaf of his own which opposed the seminal Mushaf, it is an accepted rule that due to the unanimity of the Ummah being infallible whatever opposes that which the Muslims have unanimously agreed upon is to be discarded. Notwithstanding that Amir al Mu’minin radiya Llahu ‘anhu was at the forefront of those who compiled the Qur’an; he concurred upon it with the rest and sanctioned the stances taken by Abu Bakr and ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhuma. This is well known, as has passed.
Al Baqillani says:
فإن قالوا: فإنما لم يغير ذلك ولم ينكره لأجل التقية. قيل لهم: ومن كان أقوي منه جانبا وهو في بني هاشم مع عظم قدره وشجاعته وامتناع جانبه. هذا غاية الامتناع والباطل
If they say, “The reason why he did not change that or condemn it is that he was practicing Taqiyyah” we will say to them: Was there anyone who was stronger than him considering that he was from the Banu Hashim and that he was well-respected, valorous, and well-secured. This is indeed impossible and invalid.
He then alludes to the contradiction of the Shia; for on the one hand they say that he was very brave, assertive when establishing the truth, and not silent upon falsehood; but on the hand they make such ludicrous claims. He then states that the reality which Amir al Mu’minin lived during his Khilafah rebuts even the mere possibility of Taqiyyah:
فأي تقية بعد أن شهر سيفه وقاتل بصفين ونصب الحرب بينه وبين مخالفيه فيما هو دون تغيير القرآن وتحريفه. هذا مما يعلم بطلانه ويقطع علي استحالته
Is there any room for Taqiyyah when he unsheathed his sword and fought in Siffin and waged war against those who opposed him in matters which were less important than the interpolation of the Qur’an and its distortion? This response is thus obviously invalid and utterly impossible.
The fifth misconception:
The heretic says:
الخامس: أنه كان لعبد الله بن مسعود مصحف معتبر فيه ما ليس في القرآن الموجود.
‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ud had a reliable Mushaf. And in it was contained that which is not found in the current Qur’an.
He then gives examples of verses which appeared in the Mushaf of Ibn Mas’ud, as their narrations claim. One of the verses he cites is the following:
وكفي الله المؤمنين القتال بعلي بن أبي طالب ورفعنا لك ذكرك بعلي صهرك
Allah was sufficient for the believers in the war through ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib. And we elevated for you your mention through ‘Ali, your son in law.
In response I say: There is no dispute regarding the fact that some of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum had their own Mushafs wherein they documented what they heard and assimilated from Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. This in no way undermines the status of the seminal Mushaf nor does it in anyway allude to what these people claim. Because what the Muslims united upon is what holds value and not that which some among them might have isolatedly possessed.
The aim behind postulating that the Mushaf of Ibn Mas’ud radiya Llahu ‘anhu was reliable is clear, namely because the mention of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu features therein. However the examples which he presents suggests that they are fabrications and not actual verses from the Mushaf of Ibn Mas’ud. For example the verse:
وَرَفَعْنَا لَكَ ذِكْرَكَ
We raised for you your mention.
This verse is from Surah Inshirah which in its entirety is a Makki Surah, as is known. The addition:
وجعلنا عليا صهرك
And we made ‘Ali your son in law
reveals their fabrication. This is because Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam only had one son-in-law in Makkah, i.e. Abu al ‘As ibn Rabi’. They have thus fabricated but not so cleverly due to them being ignorant of history. Furthermore, was it possible for Ibn Mas’ud radiya Llahu ‘anhu to document that which is against reality and against what he heard from Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam?
Likewise the second example:
وكفي الله المؤمنين القتال بعلي
And Allah was sufficient for the believers in the war through ‘Ali.
is also against the text of the Qur’an and against reality. Because Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has informed us of those by virtue of whom he sufficed for the believers and that is in the verse:
إِذْ جَاءَتْكُمْ جُنُودٌ فَأَرْسَلْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ رِيحًا وَجُنُودًا لَّمْ تَرَوْهَا
When armies came to [attack] you and we sent upon them a wind and armies [of angels] you did not see.
Hence the early scholars have said the following in the interpretation of this verse:
أي بجنود من الملائكة والريح التي بعثها عليهم
i.e. with an army of angels and the storm which he sent over them.
As for its contradiction with reality, ‘Ali himself was not sufficient for the believers. And if there were none with Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam besides ‘Ali he would not succeed in establishing his Din, for ‘Ali was of no avail to himself despite having all the armies of the land with him in his war against Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu.
It is for this reason that al Baqillani says:
فأما ادعاؤهم أن ابن مسعود قرأ وكفي الله المؤمنين القتال بعلي وما أشبه ذلك من الأحاديث فإنه إفك وزور لا يصح
As for their claim that Ibn Mas’ud radiya Llahu ‘anhu read (the aforementioned verse) and other similar verses, they are all lies and fabrications.
And Ibn Hazm says:
وأما قولهم: إن مصحف عبد الله بن مسعود رضي الله عنه خلاف مصحفنا فباطل وكذب وإفك، مصحف عبد الله بن مسعود إنما فيه قراءته بلا شك، وقراءته هي قراءة عاصم المشهورة عند جميع أهل الإسلام، في شرق الأرض وغربها
As for their claim that the Mushaf of Ibn Mas’ud was at variance with our Mushaf, it is a lie and a fabrication, for therein is contained his Qira’ah (recitation), and his Qira’ah is the acclaimed Qira’ah of ‘Asim which is popular in all parts of the Muslim world, the east and the west.
The sixth misconception
The heretic says:
الدليل السادس أن الموجود غير مشتمل لتمام ما في مصحف أبي المعتبر عندنا
The sixth proof is that the current Mushaf does not comprise of everything which was found in the Mushaf of Ubayy which is credible according to us.
Look at the extent of his fanaticism? The Mushaf of Ubayy is credible according to them and not the Mushaf of the Ummah.
What evidence is there to prove that the Mushaf of Ubayy is credible and not the Mushaf of the Ummah? They have no evidence whatsoever, but they insist on discrediting the Qur’an in which they will never succeed; for there is no other Mushaf besides the current one. Their statements have returned on them with the worst of outcomes.
Although it is true that Ibn Mas’ud, Ubayy ibn Ka’b, ‘Aisha, and Salim the freed slave of Abu Hudhayfah radiya Llahu ‘anhum each had their personal Mushafs, as is attested to in the reports of both the Sunnis and the Shia, however, these Mushaf were private ones which were prepared by their possessors for themselves, but not with the intention that the Ummah will adhere to them. It is for this reason that these individual Mushafs cannot be marshalled as evidence against the Ummah; for the other Masahif beside the Mushaf of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu are not categorical but rather treated as individual personal copies which are not enough to yield evidence.
And if something in these Masahif happen to oppose what is in the Mushaf of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, it is natural and inadvertent due to them compiling and writing them for themselves. That is why they would write the exegesis of some of the verses in the very Mushaf due to them having no fear of confusing the two because they were personal copies.
Ibn al Jazari mentions:
وربما كانوا يدخلون التفسير في القراآت إيضاحا وبيانا، لأنهم محققون لما تلقوه عن النبي صلي الله عليه وسلم قرآنا فهم آمنون من الالتباس وربما بعضهم يكتبه معه.
At times they would include exegesis of the different readings for clarification and elucidation, because they were confidently sure of what they had assimilated from Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam as Qur’an. Hence they were protected from confusion and thus would at times even write it (the exegesis) with it (the verse).
And at times they would even document the abrogated verses:
ولذلك نص كثير من العلماء علي أن الحروف التي وردت عن أبي وابن مسعود وغيرهما مما يخالف هذه المصاحف منسوخة… ولاشك أن القرآن نسخ منه وغير فيه في العرضة الأخيرة
Therefore may scholars have opined that the variant readings and dialects which feature in the Masahif of Ubayy, Ibn Mas’ud, and others, which oppose the central Mushafs is abrogated; there is no doubt that much of the Qur’an was abrogated and changed in the last presentation (revision with Jibril ‘alayh al Salam).
To reiterate, all of this was because they wrote for themselves, notwithstanding what the Shia have forged and falsely attributed to these Masahif. As for the Qur’an, the bearers thereof among the Sahabah handled the task of its compilation based on what the scribes of revelation had documented in the scripts under the supervision of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and was settled upon in the last presentation of Jibril ‘alayh al Salam to Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. And this is what is in front of us today without any addition or omission. We, therefore, see that no two people have disputed regarding its credibility, not even ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu had denied a letter or more of it.
The seventh misconception
The heretic says:
السابع أن عثمان لما جمع القرآن ثانيا أسقط بعض الكلمات والآيات
The seventh proof is that when ‘Uthman compiled the Qur’an for the second time he omitted some words and verses.
He goes on to establish evidence for this claim and says:
العلم بمطابقة ما جمعه لتمام المنزل… متوقف علي… عدالة الناسخين والكاتبين أو صدقهم أو العرض علي المصحف الصحيح التمام…
Knowledge of his compilation being in accordance with the entire Manzil… depends upon… the uprightness of the scribes and their truthfulness, or the juxtaposition thereof with the complete Mushaf…
Which according to him is impossible.
Notice that he has based his claim upon the negative viewpoint that the Shia hold regarding the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum which is against Qur’an, Sunnah, the consensus of the Ummah and all the incidents and happenings which have been transmitted diffusely.
Likewise notice that he has considered the misconception of the Shia that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu had a Mushaf which was inherited from him by the subsequent Imams to be the benchmark for assessing the central Mushaf, which is obviously tenuous, as tenuous as all those narrations and verdicts which he has cited from their books in order to establish this idea.
Moving on, it is a known fact that the entire Qur’an was already documented during the lifetime of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not order but to rewrite that which was already written; and thus we find that he suspended the documentation of the last verse of Surah Bara’ah till he found it written despite knowing it and having memorised it. This was because they relied upon both memory and documentation when compiling the Qur’an and not only on memory, for their intention was to copy precisely that which was written in the presence of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and not merely put on paper what they memorised.
Furthermore, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has informed us in the Qur’an that it, the Qur’an, is compiled in Suhuf (scriptures) in the verse:
يَتْلُو صُحُفًا مُّطَهَّرَةً
(A messenger from Allah) reciting purified scriptures.
Hence the Qur’an was documented in scrolls which were scattered. And Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu compiled them in one place. Thereafter it remained secure till eventually ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu ordered that it be replicated and the replicated copies be sent to various cities.
Ibn Taymiyyah, discussing the process of compiling the Qur’an says the following:
لما كان العام الذي قبض فيه النبي صلي الله عليه وسلم عارضه جبريل بالقرآن مرتين، والعرضة الأخيرة هي قراءة زيد بن ثابت وغيره، وهي التي أمر الخلفاء الراشدون أبو بكر وعمر وعثمان وعلي بكتابتها في المصاحف، وكتبها أبوبكر وعمر في خلافة أبي بكرفي صحف أمر زيد بن ثابت بكتابتها، ثم أمر عثمان في خلافته بكتابتها في المصاحف، وإرسالها إلي الأمصار، وجمع الناس عليها باتفاق من الصحابة علي وغيره
In the year wherein Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam passed away Jibril ‘alayh al Salam presented the Qur’an to him twice. The last presentation was the Qira’ah of Zaid ibn Thabit radiya Llahu ‘anhu and others. It was regarding this Qira’ah that Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman and ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhum ordered that it be compiled and documented in the Masahif; Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma had ordered Zaid ibn Thabit radiya Llahu ‘anhu to document the Qur’an in a single Mushaf which he did. ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu had then subsequently ordered that it be replicated and documented in various Masahif and, thereafter, be sent to the various cities. He then made the Ummah concur upon them with the consensus of the Sahabah, ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and those besides him.
Hence a person who considers Abu Bakr and ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhuma to have erred has indeed attributed error to ‘Ali and all the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum. Because it is an undeniable fact that ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu had compiled the Qur’an with the unanimity of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum.
If what the Shia postulate really transpired, it would not have been permissible for anyone to remain silent upon the distortion of the primary text of Islam and its foundational book. And everyone would have been misled including ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Whereas abundant and agreed upon evidence suggests that the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum would not have remained silent on issues even of lesser importance than this.
They waged war against those who refused to pay Zakat. And ‘Ali and Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhuma fought over an issue of even lesser importance. Likewise had what the Shia postulate really happened, it would have been documented by the enemies of Islam who look for every niche to criticise Islam, but the Shia have isolatedly narrated this fable.
Despite the Shia narrating this fallacious belief they have documented reports which contradict it. For example, Ibn Ta’us who is one of the leading scholars of the Shia narrates that:
عثمان جمع المصحف برأي مولانا علي بن أبي طالب
‘Uthman compiled the Qur’an due to the view of our master ‘Ali.
This, due to it being in harmony with the consensus of the Ummah, defies what the Shia have always been claiming across the centuries. This is an acknowledgement on their path, and an acknowledgment of the opponent is much more convincing than the acknowledgement and approval of the likeminded.
The only response the author of Fasl al Khitab was able to muster against this, despite his fervour to establish this erroneous belief, is the following, “It is indeed really strange.” But the statement is only strange according to him and those who concur with him.
Ibn Abi Dawood has narrated with an authentic chain of transmission, as is stated by Ibn Hajar, that Amir al Mu’minin ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu said the following:
لا تقولوا في عثمان إلا خيرا، فوالله ما فعل ما فعل في المصاحف إلا عن ملأ منا
Do not say regarding ‘Uthman but good. For indeed he has not done whatever he done in respect to the Masahif but in our presence.
Having said all of this, the greatest attestation to the fact that these people are liars is the examples they present to illustrate what ‘Uthman had omitted. So we find that the author of Fasl al Khitab cites four narrations from four of their books all of which state that ‘Ali ibn Musa al Rida said:
لا والله لا يري منكم اثنان في النار أبدا، لا والله ولا واحدا. قال: قلت: أصلحك الله أين هذا من كتاب الله تعالي؟ قال: هو في الرحمن،وهو قوله تبارك وتعالي لايسئل عن ذنبه منكم إنس ولا جان، قال: قلت: ليس فيها منكم؟ قال: بلي، والله إنه لمثبت فيها وأن أول من غير ذلك لابن أروي
“No! By the oath of Allah no two among you will be seen in the fire of Jahannam. No! By Allah not even one.”
He said (the narrator), “I said, May Allah see to your affairs, where is this in the Book of Allah?”
To which he replied, “It is in Surah al Rahman and it is the verse: No human from amongst you will be questioned regarding his sin nor any Jinn.”
I retorted that there is no ‘from amongst you’ in the verse?
He said, “Indeed it is established in it, but the first person to omit it was Ibn Arwa.”
The other three narrations more or less convey the same. And ‘Uthman is intended by Ibn Arwa.
This example, which the Shia present as proof of what ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu had omitted reveals the hidden reality; for indeed at the instance of the revelation of the Qur’an there were no Shia, Murji’ah, nor anyone else, but this verse—as they claim—proves that a Shia will not be asked regarding his sin. This is indeed a very grave claim which has no support of evidence, rather it is contrary to emphatic verses of the Qur’an and to what is categorically known of the matters of Islam. It also has grave ramifications, for it can invariably lead to exempting oneself from the commandments and dictates of Shari’ah and becoming emboldened in committing sins and cataclysmic crimes.
Furthermore, their Imam on oath says that none of his Shia will enter the fire of Jahannam. Did he somehow come to know the unseen or did he make a covenant with Allah? They are, in light of this claim, much more extreme than the Jews who say:
وَقَالُوْا لَنْ تَمَسَّنَا النَّارُ إِلَّا أَيَّامًا مَّعْدُوْدَةً
And they say, “Never will the Fire touch us, except for [a few] numbered days.”
Which Allah has refuted by saying:
قُلْ أَتَّخَذْتُمْ عِندَ اللَّهِ عَهْدًا فَلَنْ يُّخْلِفَ اللَّهُ عَهْدَهُ أَمْ تَقُوْلُوْنَ عَلَى اللَّهِ مَا لَا تَعْلَمُوْنَ.بَلَىٰ مَنْ كَسَبَ سَيِّئَةً وَّأَحَاطَتْ بِهِ خَطِيْئَتُهُ فَأُولٰئِكَ أَصْحَابُ النَّارِ هُمْ فِيْهَا خَالِدُوْنَ
Say, “Have you taken a covenant with Allah? For Allah will never break His covenant. Or do you say about Allah that which you do not know?” Yes, [on the contrary], whoever earns evil and his sin has encompassed him – those are the companions of the Fire; they will abide therein eternally.
These verses reveal the falsity of all these claims and that the motive behind the claim of interpolation is actualising an anomalous position not supported by the Qur’an or authentic Sunnah. Furthermore, they also reveal that the forger of this narration is an ignoramus heretic who has no knowledge of the meanings of the Book of Allah; for the verse in question is regarding the evildoers and he assumes that it is regarding the pious and thus applies it to the Shia. He further tries to enforce this erroneous understanding by adding ‘from amongst you’ and justifies this addition by saying that had it not been added, punishment would have fallen away from the entire creation whereas it is only meant to fall away from his Shia, as he alleges. Not realising that another verse mentions:
وَلَا يُسْأَلُ عَن ذُنُوبِهِمُ الْمُجْرِمُونَ
But the criminals, about their sins, will not be asked.
The verse is thus regarding the people of crimes and sins. And Ibn ‘Abbas has, therefore, said the following in the interpretation of this verse:
لا يسألهم هل عملتم كذا وكذا، لأنه أعلم بذلك منهم.
They will not be asked, “Did you commit such and such a sin,” because he will have more knowledge of that than themselves.
And Mujahid has said:
لا يسأل الملائكة عن المجرم، يعرفون بسيماهم
The angels will not ask about the sinner because they will know them from their signs.
We sum up the answer to this discussion with what Jahiz has said in refutation of their misconceptions regarding the compilation of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu:
والذي يخطئ عثمان في ذلك فقد خطأ عليا وعبد الرحمن وسعدا والزبير وطلحة وعلية الصحابة. ولو لم يكن ذلك رأي علي لغيره، ولو لم يمكنه التغيير لقال فيه، ولو لم يمكنه في زمن عثمان لأمكنه في زمن نفسه. وكان لا أقل من إظهار الحجة إن لم يملك تحويل الأمة. وكان لا أقل من التجربة إن لم يكن من النجح علي ثقة، بل لم يكن لعثمان في ذلك ما لم يكن لجميع الصحابة وأهل القدم والقدرة. ومع أن الوجه فيما صنعوا واضح، بل لا نجد لما صنعوا وجها غير الإصابة والاحتياط والإشفاق والنظر في العواقب وحسم طعن الطاعن.
ولو لم يكن ما صنعوا لله تعالي فيه رضا لما اجتمع عليه أول هذه الأمة وآخرها، وإن أمرا اجتمعت عليه المعتزلة والشيعة، والخوارج والمرجئة لظاهر الصواب واضح البرهان علي اختلاف أهوائهم.
فإن قال قائل: هذه الروافض بأسرها تأبي ذلك وتنكره وتطعن فيه وتري تغييره. قلنا: إن الروافض ليست منا بسبيل، لأن من كان أذانه غير أذاننا، وصلاته غير صلاتنا، وطلاقه غير طلاقنا، وعتقه غير عتقنا، وحجته غير حجتنا، وفقهاؤه غير فقهائنا، وإمامه غير إمامنا، وقراءته غير قراءتنا، وحلاله غير حلالنا، وحرامه غير حرامنا، فلا نحن منه ولا هو منا
Whoever considers ‘Uthman to have erred in this regard has averred the same regarding ‘Ali, ‘Abdul Rahman, Sa’d, Zubair, Talhah, and the erudite among the Sahabah. Had that not been the view of ‘Ali he would have changed it, and if he did not have the capacity to change it he would have at least condemned it. And if it was not possible for him to do so in the era of ‘Uthman it was certainly possible for him to do so during his reign. The least he could do was establish the evidence even if he would not have succeeded in diverting the Ummah. Likewise the bare minimum he could do was at least try even though he was not confident that he would succeed. Rather the fact of the matter is that just as the other Sahabah, who were people of prominence and leadership, did not err so did ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu not err. All the more so when the reasons for which they had embarked upon the enterprise are completely clear; for there is no other viable explanation for what they done besides that of: aiming for precision, exercising precaution, fearing evil consequences, looking deeply into potential outcomes, and shutting the prospect criticism of the criticisers.
If in what they had done were not the pleasure of Allah, the early Ummah and its latter would never have united upon it. But the fact that the Mu’tazilah, the Shia, the Khawarij and the Murji’ah have united upon it despite their divergent motives is obviously evidence of its accuracy and overwhelming soundness.
If someone says that the extremist Shia (Rawafid) reject it in its totality, criticise it, and consider it interpolated we shall say: The extremist Shia have nothing to do with our consensus; for those whose Adhan is different from our Adhan, whose salah is different from our salah, whose divorce process is different from our process, whose emancipation is variant to ours, whose Hajj is not like our Hajj, whose scholars and distinct from our scholars, whose Imams are different from our Imam, whose reading of the Qur’an is different than our reading, whose Halal is not like our Halal, and whose Haram is not like our Haram; they can never possibly be from us nor can we be from them.
The eighth misconception
The heretic says:
الثامن في أخبار كثيرة دالة صريحا علي وقوع النقصان زيادة علي ما مر رواها المخالفون
The eighth proof lies in the copious narrations which clearly indicate that omission of other verses has occurred, besides those which have passed, as is narrated by the opposition.
He thereafter mentions all the narrations which are narrated by the Ahlus Sunnah regarding the abrogation of recitation. But there is no evidence for them in this argument, as we have previously stated. Those narrations are specifically mentioned in the books of the Ahlus Sunnah under the discussion of abrogation. We will not repeat what we have already presented previously, for the author is repeating the same arguments but in different styles in order to make them reach twelve which is the amount of his Imams.
He has, however, at this juncture documented a fabricated Surah which he claims he came across in the book Dabistan Madhahib and did not come across it in any other book. He subsequently says that it is probably the Surah of Wilayah to which some of the scholars of the Shia alluded in their writings. He cites this entire Surah, which is characterised by poor expressions, meaningless words, ludicrous purports, disjointed context and sentences which are not related in anyway. It is merely words of the Qur’an which have been re-organised very badly. And the subject matter of this Surah is what has concerned the Shia most, i.e. the absence of any evidence in the book of Allah for their anomalous beliefs. Hence we find that it makes mention of the emphatic nomination of ‘Ali as the Imam and the excommunication of the Sahabah due to them not obeying the chosen successor. It reads as follows:
يايها الذين آمنوا بالنورين أنزلناهما يتلوان عليكم آياتي. إن الذين يوفون ورسوله في آيات لهم جنات نعيم. والذين كفروا من بعد ما آمنوا بنقضهم ميثاقهم وما عاهدهم الرسول عليه يقذفون في الجحيم. ظلموا أنفسهم وعصوا الوصي الرسول يسقون من حميم. إن الله الذي نور السموت والأرض بما شاء واصطفي من الملائكة وجعل من المؤمنين أولئك في خلقه يفعل الله ما يشاء… إن عليا من المتقين وإنا لنوفيه حقه يوم الدين… فإنه وذريته الصابرون، وإن عدوهم إمام المجرمين… يايها الرسول قد جعلنا لك في أعناق الذين آمنوا عهدا فخذه وكن من الشاكرين بأن عليا قانتا بالليل. يحذر الآخرة ويرجو ثواب ربه. قل هل يستوي الذين ظلموا وهم بعذابي يعلمون. سيجعل الأغلال في أعناقهم وهم علي أعمالهم يندمون
O you who believe in the two lights which I have sent down who recite to you my verses. Verily those who fulfil and his prophet, in verses for them are the gardens of bliss. And those who disbelieve after having believed due to violating their pledge and that upon which the messenger agreed with them will be thrown in the Jahannam. They oppressed themselves and disobeyed the successor, they will be made to drink from Hamim. Verily Allah is the one who has illuminated the heavens and the earth with what he wanted and selected from among the angels and made from the believers those from his creation, he does what he desires… Surely ‘Ali is from the pious and we will give him his full share on the Day of Reckoning… For him and his progeny are the patient ones. And their enemy is the leader of the criminals… O prophet we have placed for you in the necks of the believers a pledge so claim it and be thankful of the fact that ‘Ali is a worshipper by night. He fears the hereafter and hopes for the reward of his lord. Say are those who oppress equal, whereas they know of my punishment. Shackles will be placed in their necks and they will regret over their actions…
This is a passage thereof. It does not require any analyses due to it being meaningless speech and lowly commodity; even the lowest of linguists will not want it to be attributed to him let alone considering it to be from the Book of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala which has incapacitated the experts of language and the masters of eloquence.
Sheikh Yusuf al Dajawi has written an analyses of this Surah in his book al Jawab al Munif fi al Radd ‘ala Mudda’i al Tahrif fi al Qur’an al Sharif. The Shia scholar al Balaghi has likewise rejected it in his exegesis ‘Ala’ al Rahman. The falsity of this Surah is more obvious than can be pointed out, there is thus no need to cite what the aforementioned scholars have mentioned; for you will notice that the matter is quite clear even to someone who merely sees its wording. Take for example the sentence:
واصطفي من الملائكة وجعل من المؤمنين أولئك في خلقه
And he selected from among the angels and made from the believers those from his creation.
You will realise that the one who has forged this is a non-Arab who does not know how to express what he intends. What did he choose from the angels? The sentence is incomplete. Probably he meant that he chose from the angels messengers to the successors but was unable to complete the sentence. Likewise, what did he make from the believers? And what is the meaning of ‘them in his creation’?
You will always find that whoever tries to copy the Qur’an in its style Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala defeats him with helplessness and disgraces him before everyone.
The ninth misconception
The heretic says:
إنه تعالي ذكر أسامي أوصيائه وشمائلهم في كتبه المباركة السالفة، فلا بد أن يذكرها في كتابه المهيمن عليه
Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala makes mention of the names of the successors and their attributes in his previous divine books. Therefore he necessarily would mention them in the Qur’an which is their guardian.
In other words due to there being no mention of them in the Qur’an, it is indicative of interpolation according to him. He then cites a fair amount of their narrations which state that the mention of their Twelve Imams has featured in the previously revealed books.
In response I say: This claim is based upon the premise that the names of the Twelve Imams were mentioned in the books of the previous Ambiya’, and that is completely false and based upon false. It is a false assertion whose factuality is based upon another false assertion. Is there anyone who will agree that the Imams were mentioned in the previous books and subsequently agree that they were mentioned in the Qur’an as well? Here we have before us the scriptures of the previous prophets wherefrom people have pointed out the mention of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, but there is no such mention of ‘Ali, let alone the other Imams. Even those who embraced the faith of Islam, none among them is known to have made mention of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu in their scriptures.
The glad tidings of the advent of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam definitely features in the previous books. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala says:
الَّذِينَ يَتَّبِعُوْنَ الرَّسُوْلَ النَّبِيَّ الْأُمِّيَّ الَّذِيْ يَجِدُوْنَهُ مَكْتُوْبًا عِندَهُمْ فِي التَّوْرَاةِ وَالْإِنجِيْلِ
Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written [i.e., mentioned] in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel.
Likewise praise for the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum also features in the Tawrah and the Injil. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala says:
مُّحَمَّدٌ رَّسُوْلُ اللَّهِ وَالَّذِيْنَ مَعَهُ أَشِدَّاءُ عَلَى الْكُفَّارِ رُحَمَاءُ بَيْنَهُمْ تَرَاهُمْ رُكَّعًا سُجَّدًا يَّبْتَغُوْنَ فَضْلًا مِّنَ اللَّهِ وَرِضْوَانًا سِيْمَاهُمْ فِيْ وُجُوْهِهِمْ مِّنْ أَثَرِ السُّجُوْدِ ذٰلِكَ مَثَلُهُمْ فِي التَّوْرَاةِ وَمَثَلُهُمْ فِي الْإِنْجِيْلِ كَزَرْعٍ أَخْرَجَ شَطْأَهُ…
Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah; and those with him are forceful against the disbelievers, merciful among themselves. You see them bowing and prostrating [in prayer], seeking bounty from Allah and [His] pleasure. Their mark [i.e., sign] is on their faces [i.e., foreheads] from the trace of prostration. That is their description in the Torah. And their description in the Gospel is as a plant which produces its offshoots…
It was obviously difficult for this cult to note that Allah makes mention of the Messenger of guidance and his Companions but makes no mention of their Imams despite the fact that the Sahabah according to them were all apostates and that the Imams hold much higher ranks than the prophets and messengers; what could they say to their followers? They thus invented narrations which state that their Imams were mentioned in the previous scriptures. But then the question is why not in the Book of Allah? To this they found no answer but to surmise that the Book of Allah is interpolated, which has resulted in the worst of indictments for them.
The tenth misconception
لا إشكال ولا اختلاف بين أهل الإسلام في تطرق اختلافات كثيرة وتغيرات غير محصورة في كلمات القرآن وحروفه بالزيادة والنقصان واستقرار آراء المخالفين علي اختيار سبعة من القراء منهم أو عشرة علي ما بينهم من الاختلاف… واعتنائهم بتوجيه قراءاتهم وإرجاعها إلي الرسول كما زعموا. فيكون القرآن في نفسه و عند نزوله مبنيا علي الاختلاف وموضوعا علي المغايرة. وحيث إن القرآن لا تغير فيه ولا اختلاف فتكون هذه القراءات هي قراءة بغير ما أنزل الله
There is no dispute amongst the Muslims that much change has occurred in the words of the Qur’an in terms of increase and decrease and that eventually the unanimity of the opposition settled upon seven of their Qurra’ (transmitters of the Qur’an) or ten, and that also notwithstanding the differences that exist between them, and that they have dedicated themselves to find a plausible explanation for their variant readings and trace their origins back to Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, as they allege. Based on this, the Qur’an in and of itself and from the very instance of its revelation is based upon change. But because there exists no changes and difference of readings in the actual Qur’an it is obvious that these readings are not divinely revealed from Allah.
He follows this up with a set of narrations which commonly state that the Qur’an is one and is revealed by one being but the differences are due to the narrators. He impugns the integrity of the seven transmitters and asserts that their readings are not worth acceptance because:
أول طبقات القراء هم الذين استبدوا الآراء ولم يبايعوا إمام زمانهم أمير المؤمنين
The first generation of the Qurra’ exclusively held their own views and did not pledge allegiance to the Imam of their time Amir al Mu’minin.
This heretic is trying to draw evidence for the divergent readings of the Qur’an in order to establish the heresy of his cult despite there being no evidence for them therein; for none of them in anyway even allude to what he is alleging. This is because his argument would only hold weight if each of the Qurra’ who differed with the others in the recitation of some verses would be reading on his own accord based on what he felt was plausible. But the narrations and reports clearly indicate that each one of them had taken his particular reading from the readings of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. They also state that each reading was different from the other and that Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam sanctioned all of them and informed that that is how they were revealed. Hence it is clear that all of them were revealed by Allah and thus the difference between them and the fallacious belief of the Shia is completely obvious.
What is unclear to this heretic is the difference between the readings of the Qur’an and the Qur’an itself, due to him considering them one on account of his clear ignorance; because the Qur’an is diffusedly transmitted according to all Muslims unanimously, passed on from one generation to another, whereas the various readings of the Qur’an are of variant degrees: some are diffusedly transmitted and thus categorical, whilst others are transmitted by limited narrators and yet others anomalous, containing explanatory side notes and still some completely fabricated.
No one has ever said that the Qur’an was transmitted by the seven or ten Qurra’, for every reading is an exclusive school of reading which an Imam from the Imams of Qira’ah has adopted and is at variance with the others.
In this regard al Zarkashi states:
واعلم أن القرآن والقراءات حقيقتان متغايرتان، فالقرآن هو الوحي المنزل علي محمد صلي الله عليه وسلم للبيان والإعجاز، والقراءات اختلاف الوحي المذكور في كتبة الحروف أو كيفيتها من تخفيف وتثقيل وغيرهما
Know that the Qur’an and the readings thereof are two completely different realities: The Qur’an is the revelation which was revealed to Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam for propagation and in order to establish its incapacitating miracle, and the variant readings are the various versions of this same revelation in terms of writing the letters and pronouncing them differently, like reading with Tathqil (reading doubled or similar letters as one) or without it, etc.
The seven readings (Qira’ah) are different from the seven Ahruf which this Rafidi denies. Although the authenticity of the hadith regarding the seven Ahruf is well established, he conflates the two.
Narrations regarding the Qur’an being revealed upon seven Ahruf appear in the books of the Shia as well, to the extent that al Qummi has established a chapter for it in his al Khisal.
A person who carefully reflects over the chains of transmissions through which these readings were conveyed will find that they contain within them those whom the Shia acknowledge like Amir al Mu’minin ‘Ali, Jafar, and those besides them. This has passed already.
The eleventh misconception
The Heretic says:
الدليل الحادي عشر: في ذكر الأخبار المعتبرة الصريحة في وقوع السقط ودخول النقصان في الموجود من القرآن، وأنه أقل مما نزل إعجازا علي قلب سيد الإنس والجان، وهي متفرقة في الكتب المعتبرة التي عليها المعول عند الأصحاب.
The eleventh proof is in all those reliable and emphatic narrations regarding omission and decrease occurring in the present Qur’an; which talk of it being lesser than the revelation which came down upon the heart of the leader of men and jinn as an incapacitating miracle. These narrations are scattered in our reliable books which have been the locus of authenticity according to our scholars.
Thereafter he mentions a fair amount of narrations from their books on the topic.
These narrations which he has used in support of his position do not in any way suggest the interpolation of the Qur’an upon which the unanimity of the entire Ummah has settled; the Qur’an whose preservation Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has taken upon Himself, and regarding whose authenticity and soundness abundant and categorical evidence is established. Rather the aforementioned facts attest to the falsity of these narrations which they attribute to their Imams and their unworthiness. These facts prove that their narrations are not authentic and that their books are indeed interpolated and corrupted. The corruption and interpolation therein have both come to the fore by virtue of this erroneous belief and this preposterous fallacy.
The purport of the narrations he has adduced can only be used in substantiation against the Shia, as for against the Muslims, never.
In fact there is an in-house witness, i.e. from among the Shia clergy, who acknowledges that the narrations in this regard are narrated only by extremists and inveterate liars whose transmissions and reports are not worth acceptance. This in-house witness is their scholar al Balaghi the author of ‘Ala’ al Rahman; for he states:
هذا وإن المحدث المعاصر جهد في كتاب فصل الخطاب في جميع الروايات التي استدل بها علي النقيصة. وفي جملة ما أورده من الروايات ما لا يتيسر احتمال صدقها، ومنها ما هو مختلف يؤول به إلي التنافي والتعارض… هذا مع أن القسم الوافر من الروايات ترجع أسانيده إلي بضعة أنفار، وقد وصف علماء الرجال كلا منهم إما بأنه ضعيف الحديث فاسد المذهب مجفو الرواية، وإما بأنه مضطرب الحديث والمذهب يعرف حديثه وينكر ويروي عن الضعفاء، وإما بأنه كذاب متهم لا أستحل أن أروي من تفسيره حديثا واحدا، وأنه معروف بالوقف وأشد الناس عداوة للرضا عليه السلام، وإما بأنه كان غالبا كذابا، وإما بأنه ضعيف لا يلتفت إليه ولا يعلو عليه ومن الكذابين، وإما بأنه فاسد الرواية يرمي بالغلو
Having said this, the contemporary scholar of hadith has tried in his book Fasl al Khitab to gather all the narrations which suggests omission. However, some of them cannot possibly be true, whilst others eventually lead to contradiction and conflict in their purport… Notwithstanding that the chains of transmission in most of them go back to just a few individuals. And each one of them has been described by the scholars of transmitter biographies as a weak narrator in hadith who holds an incorrect dogma and is distant from the art of narration; or as a narrator of conflicting narrations and an adherent of a confused dogma whose narrations entail both acceptable and reprehensible narrations; or suspected of lying from whom I do not consider it permissible to narrate even one narration of his exegesis; or as infamous for holding the view of Waqf (consignment of the knowledge of who is the rightful Imam to Allah) and being an arch enemy of al Rida; or as a weak transmitter who is not worth consideration nor can be trusted and is from the liars; or accused of having an erroneous belief and being an extremist. It is clear that the abundance of such narrations does not help in any way.
Likewise, the leading cleric of the Shia in his time Mirza Mahdi al Shirazi mentions that their narrations in this regard are anomalous, their chains of transmission are weak and their texts are contradictory. He states:
وأما ما ورد من الأخبار التي ظاهرها وقوع التحريف في بعض الآي فلا يثبت بها ذلك حيث إنها شاذة ضعيفة الأسانيد، فإن كثيرا منها عن السياري الذي ضعفه علماء الرجال كما في الفهرست لشيخ الطائفة، والخلاصة للعلامة، والرجال للنجاشي أنه ضعيف الحديث فاسد المذهب مجفو الرواية
As for those narrations the apparent meaning of which suggests that interpolation has occurred in some verses of the Qur’an, they fail to truly establish that due to them being anomalous and weak in their chains of transmission; for many of them are narrated by al Sayyari who has been unanimously impugned by all the scholars of transmitter biographies, as is found in al Fihrist of Sheikh al Ta’ifah; in al Khulasah of ‘Allamah and in al Rijal of al Najashi that is he a weak narrator of hadith, deviated in his creed and far from pure transmission.
He then illustrates the contradiction in their texts he says:
معارضة بعضها مع البعض من وجهين: أحدهما: تعارضها في تعيين الساقط… وثانيهما: ما ورد في روايات من سقوط اسم علي في مواضع كثيرة، مع أن بعض الروايات تدل علي أن الله تعالي لم يسم عليا في القرآن
They contradict each other in two ways: first: they contradict each other in terms of specifying what actually was omitted… second: it appears in some narrations that the name of ‘Ali fell away in many places, whereas some narrations clearly mention that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala did not mention ‘Ali by name in the Qur’an.
This is what al Balaghi and al Shirazi have to say about their transmitters their transmission.
In no way are we in need of the judgements of the Shia, however, we present them in order to illustrate the contradiction in their verdicts and how they themselves realise the absurdity of their views and their invalidity. Also to illustrate how they try to cover up for their dogma and deny this shameful and blasphemous belief which was introduced into their dogma by their early scholars by giving space to it in their canonical works, i.e. the likes of al Kulayni, Ibrahim al Qummi, al Majlisi and their likes.
It is for this reason that we cite their rulings regarding their transmissions.
The Twelfth Misconception
The heretic says:
الدليل الثاني عشر الأخبار الواردة في الموارد المخصوصة من القرآن الدالة علي تغيير بعض الكلمات والآيات والسور بإحدي الصور المتقدمة.وهي كثيرة جدا (يعني حسب أساطيرهم)، حتي قال السيد نعمة الله الجزائري في بعض مؤلفاته كما حكي عنه: أن الأخبار الدالة علي ذلك تزيد علي ألفي حديث، وادعي استفاضتها جماعة كالمفيد والمحقق الداماد والعلامة المجلسي وغيرهم،بل الشيخ أيضا صرح في التبيان بكثرتها، بل ادعي تواترها جماعة ونحن نذكر ما يصدق دعواهم
The twelfth proof is reports contained in specific sources about the Qur’an which indicate that some words, verses and chapters were distorted in one of the aforementioned ways. These narrations are abundant (i.e. according to their fallacious reports). To the extent that Ni’mat Allah al Jaza’iri has averred in some of his works, as is reported from him, that the narrations which are indicative of this are more than two thousand. And a group of scholars like al Mufid, al Muhaqqiq al Damad, al ‘Allamah al Majlisi, and others have opined that they are widely transmitted. Rather Sheikh has also emphatically stated in al Tibyan that they are abundant. Instead a group of scholars have concluded that they are categorically established due being diffusely transmitted (Mutawatir). Here under I will mention that which will affirm their claims.
He then starts to mention whatever appears in their narrations regarding what they claim is the pure and unadulterated Qur’an. He cites a thousand and sixty two examples following the sequence of the chapters of the Qur’an which covers over a hundred pages. I shall make mention of some of them in order to reveal the actual objectives which they aspire to meet by way of these fabrications.
But before that, I would want to say that their copious narrations in this regard are only binding evidence for the Shia, not for us. Furthermore, this stupendous amount indicates that the Shia creed is an embodiment of lies through and through, and that it is all about plotting against Islam by attacking its foundational source upon which its edifice stands; i.e. the Qur’an.
Furthermore, this heretic claims that these false reports are well attested to and diffusely transmitted, and yet at the same time there are others who claim that they are rare and anomalous, notwithstanding that both categories are from the acclaimed scholars of the Shia. Is this not evidence of the stark contradiction which exists in this creed and between its scholars?
This grave claim which he considers to be evidence for his purpose is in turn evidence for his disbelief and an indictment with which he has tarnished his people for eternity. When you are bereft of shame then do as you please and there is no sin more heinous than disbelief. By making this claim he intends to distance his people from the Qur’an. Because their book is still with the fictitious Mahdi who is in everlasting seclusion and perpetual occultation due to him not being born.
As for the examples that he has presented, they are a poor attempt to ground their beliefs in the Book of Allah and to convince their confused and sceptical followers who were appalled by the fact that the seminal book of Islam does not contain any mention of the Wilayah of the Twelve Imams despite it being all of Din according to them. Hereunder is some of what this heretic has said:
سورة البقرة: …عن جابر الجعفي عن أبي عبد الله في قول الله عزوجل: وإذا قيل لهم آمنوا بما أنزل الله (في علي) قالوا نؤمن بما أنزل علينا
- Jabir al Ju’fi narrates the following from Abu ‘Abdullah: And when it is said to them “Belief in what Allah has revealed (regarding ‘Ali)” they say we believe in what was revealed upon us.
As you can see, they added ‘regarding ‘Ali’ to the verse, failing to realise that the verse is regarding the Banu Isra’il and that the context does not allow for such an addition. This is because the very wording of the verse refutes their claim; for the words ‘we believe in what was revealed upon us’ is emphatic that the verse is not regarding this Ummah. But sadly these forgers were either non-Arab heretics who did not understand the meanings of the verses, or probably this is something they intended to do in order to misguide the Shia and divert them to the ways of disbelief and heresy.
سورة الأنعام: روي الكليني عن أبي عبد الله: إن الذين فارقوا أمير المؤمنين وصاروا أحزابا
- Surah al An’am: al Kulayni narrates the following from Abu ‘Abdullah: verily those who parted from Amir al Mu’minin and diversified into various groups…
This was an attempt to change the verse:
إِنَّ الَّذِيْنَ فَرَّقُوْا دِيْنَهُمْ وَكَانُوْا شِيَعًا لَّسْتَ مِنْهُمْ فِيْ شَيْءٍ
Indeed, those who have divided their religion and become sects – you, [O Muhammad], are not [associated] with them in anything.
Sadly they did not know how to forge this verse; for the verse is Makki (revealed before migration), and during the lifetime of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam no Amir al Mu’minin existed due to everyone being his followers and not the followers of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu which would result in parting from him.
سورة البراءة: روي الكليني والعياشي عن أبي الحسن الرضا أن الحسين بن الجهم قال له: إنهم يحتجون علينا بقول الله ثاني اثنين إذ هما في الغار. قال: وما لهم ذلك، لقد قال الله فأنزل الله سكينته علي رسوله… وما ذكره فيها بخير قال: قلت له وهكذا قراءتها؟ قال: هكذا قراءتها. وعن أبي جعفر مثله، وقال: ألا تري أن السكينة إنما نزلت علي رسوله وجعل كلمة الذين كفروا السفلي، وهو كلام الذي تكلم به عتيق (يعني أبا بكر).
- Surah Bara’ah: al Kulayni and al ‘Ayyashi narrate from Abu al Hassan al Rida that Hussain ibn Jahm said the following to him: they marshal as evidence against us the following verse: ‘the second of the two when they were in the cave’. He replied, “There is no evidence for them therein, for indeed Allah says: ‘And Allah sent down His tranquillity upon his prophet’. He has not made any praiseworthy mention of him (Abu Bakr).” I asked, “Is this how the verse should be read?” “This is how it ought to be read,” he replied.
A similar narration is narrated from Abu Jafar, but he also adds the following, “Do you not see that tranquillity only descended upon His Messenger and he made the word of those who disbelieved the lowest, referring to what ‘Atiq had said (i.e. Abu Bakr).”
Thereafter commenting upon the narration the heretic says, “This verse is proof of the Companion not being a believer.
As you might have noticed, they have tried to distort the following verse:
فَأَنزَلَ اللهُ سَكِينَتَهُ عَلَيْهِ
And Allah sent down His tranquillity upon him.
They have tried to do so by replacing ‘upon him’ with ‘upon his prophet’. And the purpose thereof is to prove the disbelief of Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu by distorting the verse which spells out his greatest virtue. But they did not realise that this change does not really accomplish their purpose.
From these examples it is clear that their distortions and fables revolve around the orbit of Wilayah and the excommunication of the Sahabah. Most of the fables that this heretic has cited read along similar lines.
After having raised these twelve misconceptions he endeavours to rebut the claims of the other party of the Shia which refused to acknowledge this fallacious belief due to is falsity being absolutely clear. He has thus established a chapter in his book for this. And therein he presents their proofs and tries to answer them.
Hereunder I will cite the proofs of the deniers, present the answers proposed by this heretic and analyse his answers.
In reality, in this chapter that he has established he has undone all his previous allegations and assertions. Because he was unable to provide satisfactory answers to the opponents of his blasphemous belief, as you will see.
The heretic says:
الباب الثاني في ذكر أدلة القائلين بعدم تطرق التغيير مطلقا في كتاب الله تعالي، وإن الموجود هو تمام ما أنزل علي رسول الله صلي الله عليه وسلم… وهي أمور عديدة
The second chapter: making mention of the proofs of those who claim that no change has ever occurred in the Qur’an and that the current Qur’an is exactly that which was revealed upon Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. These are few in number:
No. 1: the verse:
إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ
Indeed, it is we who sent down the message [i.e., the Qur’an], and indeed, we will be its guardian.
The heretic says:
واعترض بأن المراد الحفظ من تطرق شبه المعاندين، حيث لا يوجد فيه بحمد الله مدخل إلي القد ح فيه
The objection against this is that the verse means safeguarding against the prospect doubts of the opposition; for, by the grace of Allah there is no niche for anyone to target the Qur’an from that avenue.
Look at this foolish objection levelled by him; he considers the view of interpolation not to be part of the doubts of the oppositions and thus considers it not part of the broad promise of preservation.
The closest meaning of ‘preservation’ is preservation against change and distortion. The verse is thus general despite the uneasiness of the disbelievers.
He further says:
واعترض أيضا بأن الضمير في قوله له راجع إلي النبي صلي عليه وآله وسلم لا إلي القرآن فلا شاهد فيه
The pronoun in ‘له’ refers to Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and not to the Qur’an. There is thus no evidence in the verse.
Whereas it is completely clear that it is referring to al Dhikr (message), for the pronoun in the Arabic language refers back to the closest noun. This is also clear from the context of the verse. Furthermore, is it behoving of Allah to safeguard his Prophet but not his Book. What is wrong with these people? They fail to understand anything at all.
He also says:
ولو سلم شموله للحفظ من التغيير أيضا فإنما هو القرآن في الجملة، لا لكل فرد. فإن ذلك واقع، بل ربما مزق كما صنع الوليد وغيره
Even if, for arguments sake, the verse is taken as comprehensive of preservation from change, it still refers to the Qur’an being preserved as a whole. It does not refer to every copy being preserved, for change has definitely occurred (in some of them). Instead at times it was also torn apart like in the case of what al Walid and others had done.
This is an ignorant claim which claims that one copy of the Qur’an getting burnt entails its interpolation. One of their scholars who denies this blasphemy comments thus:
هذا كلام لم يصدر عن روية، فإن المراد من حيث هو أعني ما أرسل به محمد صلي الله عليه وسلم، لا ما رسم فيه من النسخ، فإن جميعها يؤول إلي التلف وهو في الصدور، والصحف محفوظة حتي لو فرض ونعوذ بالله تلف كل نسخة علي وجه الأرض… لكان أيضا محفوظا.
This statement was not said with deliberation. Because what is intended is that with which Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was sent, and not that which was documented in the manuscripts; for they will all one day eventually perish, but the Qur’an will remain preserved in the hearts. To the extent that if we hypothetically envisage the dissipation of each copy on the surface of the earth, the Qur’an will still remain preserved.
No. 2: the verse:
لَّا يَأْتِيهِ الْبَاطِلُ مِنْ بَيْنِ يَدَيْهِ وَلَا مِنْ خَلْفِهِ تَنْزِيْلٌ مِّنْ حَكِيْمٍ حَمِيْدٍ
Falsehood cannot approach it from before it or from behind it; [it is] a revelation from a [Lord who is] Wise and Praiseworthy.
He fumbles when trying to give an answer against this verse. Hence he first says:
إن الحذف والتغيير وإن كان باطلا لكن ليس المراد من الآية
Although omission and change are part of falsehood, but they are not meant in the verse.
But why wouldn’t change be intended when it is the worst form of falsehood? His fanaticism forces him to say the following:
ظاهرها (يعني الآية) أن لا يجوز أن يحصل فيه ما يستلزم بطلانه من تناقض أحكامه أو كذب في إخباراته وقصصه
The apparent meaning of the verse is that all that which will necessitate the invalidity of the Qur’an cannot occur, i.e. contradiction in its rulings or lies in its information and stories.
Look at this interpretation, it smacks of either poor intellect or hidden heresy or both together. Since it is obvious that if what he believes (interpolation) were to occur in the Qur’an than necessarily there would come about contradiction in its rulings and lies in its stories.
He further says:
وأما ثانيا، فإنه منقوض بمنسوخ التلاوه والحكم أو التلاوة فقط
And secondly, the verse is violated by all those verses the recitation and ruling of which were abrogated or those whose recitation only was abrogated.
This is revisiting the misconception which we already answered. It is as though he is belying Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala due to him claiming that abrogation falls part of falsehood which has indeed occurred in the Qur’an. Can you see how heinous is his crime?
Abrogation is no doubt true due to it being directly from Allah himself. And the scholars of this heretic, the likes of al Murtada, al Tusi and al Tabarsi have conceded it. It is thus clear that he and those who concur with him from the contemporaries have gone a step further in their extremism, such that was not envisioned by their predecessors.
He goes on to say:
فيكفي في انتفاء الباطل عنه انتفائه من ذلك الفرد المحفوظ عند أهل البيت
The absence of falsehood from the individual copy which exists with the Ahlul Bayt is sufficient for the realisation of this promise.
Muse at the viewpoint of these Rawafid and at how they interpret the verses which speak of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala preserving his book; they interpret them with a non-existent book which exists with their fictitious hidden Mahdi, regarding both the Ummah has not known anything nor seen any trace.
Furthermore, how does its preservation by the Mahdi help in anyway, does it benefit the people in any way; it only gives the benefit of it remaining unadulterated by Allah. Whereas there is no doubt as to the fact that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala preserved the Qur’an after its revelation in order for it to remain the constitution of the Ummah till the Day of Judgment; there is no meaning or wisdom to its preservation in anything other than that.
No. 3: their abundant narrations regarding the virtues of various Surahs of the Qur’an.
Al Saduq says:
وما روي من ثواب قراءة كل سورة من القرآن، وثواب من ختم القرآن كله، وجواز قراءة سورتين في ركعة نافلة، والنهي عن قراءة سورتين في ركعة فريضة تصديق لما قلناه في أمر القرآن، وأن مبلغه ما في أيدي الناس، وكل ما روي من النهي عن قراءة القرآن كله في ليلة واحدة، وأنه لا يجوز أن يختم القرآن في أقل من ثلاثة أيام تصديق لما قلناه
The reward that is mentioned for reciting every Surah of the Qur’an; the reward of completing the entire Qur’an; the permissibility of reading two Surahs in a rak’ah of optional prayer and the impermissibility of doing so in a rak’ah of an obligatory prayer, all attest to what we have opined regarding the Qur’an and that whatever is accessible to the people is the ultimately the Qur’an. Likewise, everything that is reported regarding the prohibition of reading the entire Qur’an in one night and that it is impermissible to complete the Qur’an in less than three days also attest to what we have said.
No. 4: the diffusely transmitted narrations from Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the Imams wherein they have ordered that their narrations be judged in light of the Qur’an. It is obvious that judging them in light of the interpolated and distorted version is useless, and judging in light of the preserved version is impossible.
No. 5: One of the proofs that the opponents of interpolation have advanced is the diffusely transmitted narration wherein the directive is given to firmly hold on to the Book and the Ahlul Bayt. This is evidence that the Book will be found in every era, for it is not possible that the Ummah be ordered to hold on to something which it is unable to hold on to.
No. 6: If any portion of it was omitted, it would no more be reliable for us to return to it.
No. 7: Given the intensive recording procedure and the attention paid, it is highly improbable that something might have been omitted. The honourable commentator of al Wafiyah says:
The longevity of time serves as more of a catalyst for the preservation of that for which necks are stretched and is not reported but for a purpose. How can something like the Qur’an remain hidden when he salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam would be overwhelmed by the weight of revelation when it would descend upon him, so much so that if he was mounted on an animal its legs would quiver? Then when that condition would dissipate he would read to them the revelation like a prolific orator or profound poet who is well versed at citing poem after poem and delivering speech after speech which is brimming with wisdom and opportune for the need, especially when there is a known cause and an obvious sign. Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam would convey to them promises and warnings, encouragements and discouragements, new imposing laws, the tales of the previous nations and strange sayings. All of this was anxiously anticipated for by droves of people with hope and at times with fear. He further ordained upon them to learn the Qur’an, read it, memorise it, deliberate upon its meanings and promised them Jannat if they done so. He classed its recitation as the greatest of worships and amongst them there were thus those who spent the entire night reading it. He did not only suffice on that, rather he appointed fourteen individuals to document it, memorise it, preserve it study it by him and regularly report to him. All of this was because, it was a miracle for his prophethood, a source of the Shar’i rulings, a Book to which the Ummah could have recourse and a witness for the Imams. To the extent that a group of them completed the entire Qur’an by him several times.
Its popularity continued to increase, its light to spread and its radiance to rise day by day, year by year, and century by century till eventually it became the greatest of diffusely transmitted matters in its clarity. After knowing this, you will come to learn the secret of what our master al Murtada said, as quoted from him by our scholar Abu ‘Ali in al Majma’; he says, “Knowledge of the authenticity of the transmission of the Qur’an is like having knowledge of various cities, major events and great happenings… (He cites the quotation of al Murtada we have previously cited in this book).
He goes on to say, “The glorious Qur’an was not so much that it could not be compiled, nor was it so scattered that it could not be put together. Rather its parable is like a compendium of poetry belonging to a great poet. Therein is contained profound poetry, interesting points of wisdom and rare proverbs; a compendium which is preserved by transmitters, memorisers, and people who quote it in their gatherings and write it in their notebooks. They do all of this so meticulously that even if they were to miss a verse, aside from an entire poem, they would search for it. And the announcer of the king would announce to its transmitters, memorisers, singers and writers that bring forth to us what you have. Do you think that anything of it can possibly go missing after all of this?
The Qur’an is greater than the parable we have mentioned. Its transmitters, scribes and memorisers are more, and the interest of people much more immense. Moreover, it has many readers and memorisers; in the time of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam already a group had collected it, hence al Qurtubi says that seventy among them were martyred in the Battle of Yamamah, and yet another seventy during the era of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in the incident of the well of Ma’unah. And al Bukhari narrates from Qatadah the following, “I asked Anas ibn Malik regarding those who compiled the Qur’an in the time of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, He replied, “Four of the Ansar: Ubayy ibn Ka’b, Mu’adh ibn Jabal, Zaid ibn Thabit, and Abu Zaid.” I asked, “Who is Abu Zaid?” he replied, “One of my uncles.”
Added to all of this is the immaculate attention given to it by Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala himself and the truth of his promise to preserve it and make this religion of which the Qur’an is the greatest principle reign supreme. So much so that he made the greatest opponents of its supremacy and the least bothered of its high stature from those who strive to preserve it and secure it, just as he preserved the fort of Islam from ruination despite the ardent desire of the enemies to extirpate his progeny.
Furthermore, there were abundant stimuli for its propagation for the Muslims, the disbelievers and the hypocrites due to the challenge it poses, its incapacitating miracle, its entailment of primary laws; due to its recitation, its studying and teaching for them and their children; due to it being completed in the month of Ramadan, once every month, every seven days, three days, in a day, or reading a portion of it every night; due to its preservation, the nobility of bearing it, and contemplating over its meanings, its proverbs, its promises and warnings. These are some among the innumerable stimuli for its preservation, notwithstanding the great number of Muslims and their supremacy, for in the Battle of Tabuk the army of Islam consisted of thirty thousand soldiers and in the farewell Hajj seventy thousand had converged.
The author of Fasl al Khitab was really perturbed when quoting these words from the opponents of interpolation from amongst his ranks. He comments thus subsequently:
انتهي ما أوردنا نقله من الكلمات التي تشبه بكلام من لا عهد له بمباحث الإمامة، وحال أصحاب النبي صلي الله عليه وآله في الضلالة والغواية في حياته وبعد وفاته.
This is the end of the quotation we have cited, which is very much like the arguments of those who have no knowledge of the discussion of Imamah and the condition of the Companions of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in their deviation and misguidance during his lifetime and after his demise.
Nonetheless, a number of their scholars have made similar remarks in rebutting this blasphemy due to its falsity being clear. Hence we find that al Alusi has made the following remarks after citing al Tabarsi’s refutation thereof:
وهو كلام دعاه إليه ظهور فساد مذهب أصحابه حتي للأطفال. والحمد لله علي أن ظهر الحق وكفي الله المؤمنين القتال.
He was driven to make such a statement due to the viewpoint of his fellow companions being clearly false, even to children. And all praise is due to Allah for having made the truth reign supreme and Allah was sufficient for the believers in battle.
In conclusion, this book which its author has penned and with which he has targeted the Book of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has not harmed the Book of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala at all. Rather it has bounced back upon his cult with the worst of ramifications; for it has become the biggest disgrace for the Shia. And it is concrete evidence of the fact that their narrations are unreliable and baseless, and that despite being diffusely transmitted they are not worth consideration. It is for this reason that one of the contemporary Shia scholars made the following remarks:
ما أجاد في تأليفه، ولا وافق الصواب في جمعه، وليته لم يؤلفه، وإن ألفه لم ينشره، وقد صار ضرره أكثر من نفعه بل لا نفع يتصور من نشره، فإنه جهز السلاح للعدو وهيئه
He did not do well in writing it, nor did he meet the truth in compiling it. If only he did not write it, and if he wrote it, if only he did not publish it. Its harm is more than its benefit, rather there is no hope of any benefit whatsoever in its publication, for he has prepared arms for the opposition.
He further says:
ويقال: إن بعض أعداء الدين وخصماء المذهب حرضه علي تأليف ذلك الكتاب وهو رحمه الله لم يشعر بذلك الغرض الفاسد وليس هذا الحدس أو النقل ببعيد
And it is said that some of the enemies of Din and the opponents of the dogma incited him to write this book and he, may Allah have mercy on him, did not realise the sinister motive hidden therein. This assumption or report in not unlikely.
In this way do they want this issue to remain hidden and not open, and its narrations scattered and not collected. Because now its harm has far surpassed its benefit, instead there is no benefit in its propagation and thus it should be imparted and shared clandestinely. Does this suggest that they have books which are not yet published due to their content being too provocative for the Muslim world and grave effects being too grave, owing to which they remain discreetly disseminated? This is not far-fetched.
 Fasl al Khitab p. 36.
 Surah Al Hijr: 9.
 Nukat al Intisar p. 104.
 Surah Fussilat: 42.
 Sahih Muslim: chapter regarding signs of the hour: sub-chapter regarding the destruction of the Ummah at each other’s hands: 3: 2216; Sunan al Tirmidhi: Tribulations: sub-chapter regarding Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam making three prayers for his Ummah: 4/471-472; Sunan Ibn Majah: chapter regarding tribulations: sub-chapter regarding various tribulations that will transpire: 2/303; Musnad Ahmed: 1/175, 181, 3/146, 156, 5/108, 240, 243, 6/396.
 Minhaj al Sunnah 3/242.
 At this juncture Doctor Muhammad Rashad Salim dictated the following to me: The resemblance between the doings of both the nations is that in the Ummah of Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam there have been those who have tried to interpolate the Qur’an, like the Shia and the Rafidah, or interpret it in ways completely invalid, like the Jahmiyyah. However, the difference is that the outcomes were different; for in the Bani Isra’il, who concealed the actual Torah and preached the interpolated one, interpolation actually took place. Likewise is the case regarding the Injil of the Christians. As for the Ummah of Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has taken it upon himself to preserve their holy book, the Qur’an.
 Fasl al Khitab p. 97.
 Fasl al Khitab p. 106.
 Surah al Baqarah: 106.
 Majma’ al Bayan 1/180.
 Al Tibyan 1/13
 Ibid. 1/394.
 Al Dhari’ah Ila Usul al Shari’ah p. 428-429.
 Narrations the words and meanings whereof are inspired by Allah to Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
 Nukat al Intisar p. 108.
 Fasl al Khitab p. 136.
 Surah Ahzab: 9.
 Tafsir al Tabari 21/148; Fath al Qadir 4/272.
 Minhaj al Sunnah 4/56.
 Nukat al Intisar p. 107; Ruh al Ma’ani 21/175.
 Referring to the Christians; their doubts and objections regarding Islam are similar to the doubts and objections of the Shia.
 Al Fasl 2/212.
 Al Burhan 1/222.
 Ibn al Jazari: al Nashr 1/32; al Suyuti: al Itqan 1/77.
 That is why one of the Types of Qira’ah, as stated by the scholars, is fabricated Qira’ah. See al Itqan 1/77.
 Al Nashr 1/33.
 Fasl al Khitab p. 150.
 Ibid. p. 154.
 Fath al Bari 9/12-13.
 Abu Shammah: al Murshid al Wajiz p. 57; al Itqan p. 58.
 Surah al Bayyinah: 2
 Fath al Bari 9/13.
 Majmu’ Fatawa Shaikh al Islam 13/395.
 Al Murshid al Wajiz p. 53
 Al Zanjani: Tarikh al Qur’an p. 67.
 Fasl al Khitab p. 153.
 Fath al Bari 9/18; Ibn Abi Dawood: Kitab al Masahif p. 19; Abu Shammah: al Murshid al Wajiz p. 53.
 Fasl al Khitab p. 157.
 Surah al Baqarah: 80, 81.
 Surah al Qasas: 78.
 Tafsir al Tabari 27/142-143; Tafsir Ibn Kathir 4/294.
 Rasa’il al Jahiz: Risalah Fi Hujaj al Nubuwwah 3/233-234.
 Fasl al Khitab p. 162.
 A book in the Persian language of Muhsin Fani al Kashmiri. It has been published a few times in Iran. And the Orientalist Theodor Noldeke has cited this Surah from this book in his work Tarikh al Masahif 2/102. This Surah was published in the French Asian paper in 1842 (p. 431-439) (see: al Khutut al ‘Aridah p. 13)
 Ibid. p. 180-181.
 See: al Jawab al Munif p. 174, onwards.
 ‘Ala’ al Rahman p. 24-25.
 Fasl al Khitab p. 184.
 Ibid. p. 184-204.
 Minhaj al Sunnah 4/46.
 Surah al A’raf: 157.
 Surah al Fath: 29.
 Fasl al Khitab p. 210.
 Sahih al Bukhari (and its commentary al Fath) 9/22.
 Al Itqan p. 77.
 Al Burhan 1/318.
 There is no dispute in this regard between the scholars. Only simpletons will think that they both one and the same. This is because the first person to compile all seven readings was Abu Bakr ibn Mujahid during the fourth century. (See: al Murshid al Wajiz p. 146; Majmu’ Fatawa Shaikh al Islam 13/390; al Nashr 1/24).
 A hadith of this nature is narrated by Imam al Bukhari in the chapter of Fada’il al Qur’an under the sub-heading ‘the Qur’an was revealed upon seven Ahruf: (Sahih al Bukhari with its commentary Fath al Bari) 9/23: hadith no. 4992; It also appears in the following books: Sahih Muslim, chapter regarding the Salah of travellers, sub-chapter regarding the Qur’an being revealed upon seven Ahruf and its meaning: hadith no. 818; Sunan Abi Dawood, chapter of Salah, sub-chapter regarding the Qur’an being revealed upon seven Ahruf: 2/158: hadith no. 1475.
 Al Khisal p. 358.
 Al Balaghi: Ala’ al Rahman p. 26.
 The following is mentioned in his biography: Ahmed ibn Muhammad ibn Sayyar, Abu ‘Abdullah, the scribe from Basrah. He is known as al Sayyari. He is weak in hadith, far from transmission thereof and excessively narrates Marasil (narrations where the link between him and the Imam or the prophet is omitted). See: al Fihrist p. 51; Rijal al Najashi p. 62; Rijal al Hilli p. 203. Ibn Hajar states that he lived in the latter portion of the third century, see Lisan al Mizan 1/252.
 Al Ma’arif al Jaliyyah p. 18.
 Fasl al Khitab p. 251-252.
 Fasl al Khitab p. 254.
 Fasl al Khitab p. 262.
 Surah al An’am: 159.
 Fasl al Khitab p. 266.
 Surah al Tawbah: 40.
 Ibn Kathir says the following under this verse, “Allah sent down his tranquillity upon him, i.e. upon Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam according to the popular of the two views (Tafsir Ibn Kathir: 2/384). And another view is: ‘upon Abu Bakr’, this is the view of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, Ibn ‘Abbas and Habib ibn Abi Thabit (Zad al Masir 3/41).
 To read an extensive refutation of the fallacies of the Shia on this topic the reader can refer to al Intisar of al Baqillani (the first vol. in manuscript form is available at the institution for Arabic manuscripts in Cairo; It consists of three hundred and four pages). Likewise to Nukat al Intisar li Naql al Qur’an of Muhammad Zaglul. The misconceptions that he has raised are not new, for his heretic predecessors also raised them in their times. And the scholars of the Muslims rebutted them accordingly. It seems as though this heretic has retrieved these misconceptions from the writings of some Muslim scholars who documented them without rebutting them. He has done so in order to misguide his people (contrast his misconceptions with those which feature in al Intisar of al Baqillani).
 Surah al Hijr: 9.
 Fasl al Khitab p. 360.
 Tafsir Ibn Kathir 2/592.
 I.e. and not considered to only be preserved against the doubts of the opposition, as is the view of these heretics.
 Fasl al Khitab p. 360.
 Muhsin al Kazimi: Sharh al Wafiyah. The author of Fasl al Khitab has cited this on page 360 of his book.
 Surah Fussilat: 42.
 Fasl al Khitab p. 362.
 Fasl al Khitab p. 362.
 See p. 1020 of this book (add page number) #Third misconcepton
 Fasl al Khitab p. 363.
 Al I’tiqadat p. 102; Fasl al Khitab p. 363. He has endeavoured to answer this by averring that the instruction to read the Qur’an and complete it does not entail it not being interpolated. And in order to support this claim he advances another argument which is based upon falsehood, he says, “It is just like encouraging people to firmly follow the Imam… which is followed by the inability to do so due to the Imam not being able to reveal what is by him due to fear or practicing Taqiyyah,” (Fasl al Khitab p. 363).
This is based upon the viewpoint of the Shia pertaining to occultation, Taqiyyah, and the leadership of the Imam; the refutation of all of which has passed already and that they are against revelation, reason, and whatever is categorically known in Din on account of its widespread transmission. Advancing this specific argument at all is a reflection of their anomalous belief having no basis whatsoever in the Book of Allah.
 Fasl al Khitab p. 364. This exposes the contradiction of the Shia to a very great extent. Answering this particular argument posed a great problem for the author of Fasl al Khitab. He thus tried to rebut it but in a way that he conceded some of the truth. He says thus,
هو قرينة على أن الساقط لم يضر بالموجود وتمامه من المنزل للإعجاز، فلا مانع من العرض عليه مضافا إلي اختصاص ذلك بآيات الأحكام لعدم دخول نقص علي الخلفاء من جهتها.
“This is an indication that the omitted has not impacted upon the present, notwithstanding that both are revealed in order to establish the incapacitating miracle of the Qur’an. Hence there is no impediment from judging the narrations in light of it (i.e. the present). More so when this juxtaposition is specific to the verses of laws, due to the Khulafa’ not being impugned for (trying to adulterate) them.” (Fasl al Khitab p. 364).
This answer, however, does not eliminate the contradiction which still exists between the narrations which command the juxtaposition of the traditions of the Imams with the Qur’an on the one hand and the narrations of interpolation on the other. The claim that this is specific to the verses of laws is baseless; because their narrations are general in the directive of all their narrations being judged in light of the Qur’an; they do not specify the verses of laws.
 Al Tusi: al Tibyan 1/3; Fasl al Khitab p. 364. He has rebutted this proof based on their erroneous belief. For in their narrations the directive of holding firmly to the Ahlul Bayt features, but despite that the Imam is absent for centuries now. Likewise is the case of the Book. One of their scholars Muhsin al Kazimi in Sharh al Wafiyah writes the following response:
إن التمسك بهم… ممكن في الغيبة (يعني غيبة منتظرهم) للعلم بهم وبطريقتهم، وهذا بخلاف التمسك بالكتاب فإنه إنما يتحقق بالأخذ به، ولا يمكن إلا بالإطلاع عليه.
Holding on to them (the Ahlul Bayt) is possible even during the occultation (of the Mahdi) due to having full knowledge of them and their path. Unlike holding on to the Book; for that will only happen when it is practiced upon and that is only possible after having knowledge of it. (Fasl al Khitab p. 365)
The heretic was not pleased with this answer. In refutation thereof he thus says:
إن العلم بجميع طريقة الإمام في الغيبة لم يدعه أحد من الأعلام
No eminent scholar has ever claimed to have full knowledge of the path of the Imam.
He goes on… The crux of his response is that just as having knowledge of some of the path of the Imam is sufficient, likewise having knowledge of some of the Qur’an which is preserved is sufficient. (Fasl al Khitab p. 365). In this way does the Shia dogma destroys itself.
 The author of Fasl al Khitab is exposed once again in the response he gives to this proof, He says:
إن هذا لا يقدح لاحتمال كون الظاهر المصروف عن ظاهره من الظواهر الغير المتعلقة –كذا- بالأحكام الشرعية العملية التي أمرنا بالرجوع فيها إلي ظاهر الكتاب.
This does not pose a problem, due to the possibility of the literal which is diverted from its literal purport not being linked to the practical laws of Shari’ah in which we are ordered to go with the literal of the book. (Fasl al Khitab p. 365).
Perhaps he is alluding to the fact that their reference to the Qur’an is only in the verses of laws, or put another way, they resort to their esoteric interpretations in all the verses of the Qur’an save the verses of laws, for therein they resort to the literal. He further says:
فإن إرشاد الأئمة إلي التمسك بها (يعني آيات الأحكام) وتقريرهم الأصحاب عليه وتمسكهم بها في غير واحد من الموارد كاشف عدم سقوط ما يوجب الإجمال-كذا- في الموجود من آيات الأحكام وغير مناف للسقوط في غيرها
For surely the directive of the Imams to hold on them (the verses of laws), their approbation of their companions doing so and using them as evidence in more than one source, all reveal the non-omission of all that which could bring about ambiguity in the present verses of laws. They thus do not contradict the possibility of omission occurring in all else besides them. (Ibid).
Here he is now making his narrations and fables the deciding factor over the Qur’an, i.e. their directive of referring to the verses of laws will be accepted and all the narrations which emphasise the importance of holding on to the Book will be interpreted in light of them.
In reality, the contradiction is quite clear. For on the one side the directive to hold on to the Book includes all the verses, verses of laws and otherwise, and on the other side the narration of interpolation are just as inclusive and general. And contradiction is evidence of their narrations being unreliable and that they are not upon anything substantial.
 Muhammad ibn al Sayed Hassan al A’raji al Hussaini al Kazimi (d. 1227 A.H.). The author of Sharh al Wafiyah or al Mahsul. The author of al Dhari’ah says that he saw few copies of it by some of his scholars (al Dhari’ah 20/ 151).
 The scribes of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam are many. A number of scholars have captured their names; Abu Shammah has enumerated twenty five name (see: al Murshid al Wajiz p. 46. Ibn al Qayyim has enlisted seventeen (see: Zad al Ma’ad 1/117. Probably the largest account given is that of al Hafiz al ‘Iraqi, for he has mentioned forty two scribes of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam (see: al Kattani: al Taratib al Idariyyah 1/116). And finally, al Burhan al Halabi has enumerated forty three in annotations of al Shifa’ (see: Ibid. 1/117). Also refer to: al Sabbagh: Lamahat fi ‘Ulum al Qur’an p. 67.
 Fasl al Khitab p. 365-367.
 Fasl al Khitab p. 367.
 Ruh al Ma’ani 1/24.
 Al Tabataba’i: al Anwar al Nu’maniyyah 1/24.
 Instead it is probably a reality, for you find that some volumes of Bihar al Anwar are banned from being published due to the directive issued by their seminaries.