We have seen that most of the books of the Shia have sunk into this brackish quagmire, and they fell into this dangerous abyss. What we now need to determine is the extent and degree of this fall. Do those murky narrations, which found their way into their books and hadith sources dress the one who inclines towards them with the garment of shame and disgrace? Do they snatch from him the last bit of his relationship that he had with Islam?
Are these narrations nothing more than ‘strange narrations’ which were somehow shoved into their books, without being endorsed by their intellectuals, or accepted by their research scholars? Were they injected into the books on account of the many “fabricators against the Imams”, as stated in the books of the Shia, who infiltrated their ranks? Is it because Tashayyu’ was always a fertile ground for all those who wished to harm Islam and its adherents in any way, as proven from events and occurrences?
We have seen that this tale began with two narrations in the book of Sulaim ibn Qais, according to the printed copy that is before us. However, it was not long before it became a huge lie and its narrations increased. ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim al Qummi, the leading scholar of the Shia, made it his duty to amplify this lie and thus he will bear all the repercussions of this kufr.
He reported many narrations regarding this, after stating in his introduction that they are of a large number. He started off an attempt to form a methodology by which this fabrication could be practically implemented, as was explained. It should also be noted that most of the narrations of al Kulayni, the author of al Kafi are from this al Qummi, who grabbed onto anything and everything from every lying scoundrel, and added it to his Tafsir — which is held in high esteem by all Shia. Al Dhahabi and Ibn Hajar have said regarding this Tafsir of his, “he has a Tafsir, which contains calamities.”
The extremist circles of the third century exerted themselves in trying to fabricate as many narrations regarding this as possible. This was to the extent that their scholar — al Mufid, who they refer to as Rukn al Islam wa Ayat Allah al Malik al ‘Allam (d. 413 A.H) —testifies that there are a great number of these narrations, according to the Ithna ‘Ashariyyah (Twelvers). He says:
إن الأخبار قد جاءت مستفيضة عن أئمة الهدى من آل محمد صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم باختلاف القرآن وما أحدثه بعض الظالمين فيه من الحذف والنقصان
There is a great number of narrations from the Imams of guidance from the progeny of Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam regarding the alterations of the Qur’an, and that which some of the oppressors done to it as far as adding and removing is concerned.
This abundance is the result of the lies and fabrications against the Ahlul Bayt, which reached a high level at the hands of a bunch of their scholars, in the third century. If the Ahlul Bayt had anything, they would have recited it, leaving out everything else and they would have brought it out to the public. They would not be allowed to hide it. However, the Ahlul Bayt, according to the confession of the Shia, did not recite anything besides the Book of Allah. Thus their innocence from this lie has become clear. A religion which contains a great number of falsehood is itself nothing but falsehood!
Nevertheless, al Mufid says that this kufr is wide-spread between his people, even though his teacher, Ibn Babawayh says (as quoted previously):
إن من نسب إلى الشيعة مثل هذا القول فهو كاذب
Whoever attributes to the Shia a statement like this is a liar.
The “descendant of the Ahlul Bayt”, al Sharif al Murtada, who was a contemporary of al Mufid and a student of his, says, “their narrations on this subject cannot be paid attention to, as they are unreliable. That which is known and its authenticity is undoubted cannot be rejected by means of their likes.” Do each of these scholars invent their own school of thought and group, with the common factor between them being that they are Shia? Or do they switch colours like chameleons, as a result of Taqiyyah? A third possibility is that they wish to maintain, according to the time and place, two contradictory views so that none may understand the exact position of their religion.
This is why we find that in the sixth century, al Tabarsi (the author of the famous Tafsir) rejected this view, as will appear, whereas his contemporary, the other al Tabarsi (author of al Ihtijaj) openly declared this kufr, and he quoted tens of narrations regarding it, understanding his view to be that upon which consensus took place, or at least it is well known among the adherents of his religion, as explained. A fourth possibility is that these narrations were only fabricated in the latter days, but they were attributed to the classical scholars to win the support of the gullible followers.
The question of all of this being Taqiyyah will be dealt with soon, if Allah wills. Anyway, the production or fabrication of these narrations during the Safavid reign increased manifold. It even surpassed that which was done by al Qummi, al Kulayni, al Mufid, Furat al Kufi and the other Shia scholars of the third and fourth century, to the extent that their scholar, al Majlisi (author of Bihar al Anwar) testified that their narrations regarding this are now equivalent to the narrations of Imamah. He says:
وعندي أن الأخبار في هذا الباب متواترة معنى، وطرح جميعها يوجب رفع الاعتماد عن الأخبار رأساً؛ بل ظني أن الأخبار في هذا الباب لا تقصر عن أخبار الإمامة
According to me, the narrations regarding this are mutawatir as far as the meaning is concerned. Rejecting every single one of them would destroy any reliance upon the narrations. In fact, I think that the narrations regarding this are not less than the narrations regarding Imamah.
This is a testament from al Majlisi who expired in the year 1111 A.H, stating that the narrations regarding this are of a great number, whereas only two of these narrations could be found in the book of Sulaim ibn Qais and according to Ibn Babawayh al Qummi (d. 381 A.H), they were almost non-existent. He stated:
إن من نسب للشيعة مثل هذا القول فهو كاذب، وشيخ الشيعة الطوسي أنكر نسبة هذا إلى الشيعة
Undoubtedly, the one who attributes the likes of this to the Shia is a liar. The scholar of the Shia, al Tusi, rejected that this could be attributed to the Shia.
Al Nuri al Tabarsi really exerted himself to find a way around the statement of al Tusi. He said:
والطوسي في إنكاره (يعني لتحريف القرآن) معذور لقلة تتبعه الناشئ من قلة تلك الكتب عنده
Al Tusi, in his rejection (of the belief of alteration taking place) is excused, as he did not research this adequately. This was due to him not having many of those books in his possession.
This excuse cannot be accepted from the author of Fasl al Khitab, who insists on bringing all the Shia onto his view (that the Qur’an was altered). This is because al Tusi was the scholar of the Shia in his era, and he was the author of two of their four canonical books on hadith, and two of their relied upon books on narrators. How then can it be imagined that he could be excused for not having done enough research or not having enough books, as claimed by al Tabarsi?
We, on the other hand would like to establish from this statement of al Tusi an important testimony and a historic record which establishes that this lie was not widespread and it did not reach the level that it presently stands on except under the supervision of the Safavid dynasty. It is not far-fetched at all that they added on and attributed these fabrications to their classical scholars, in an effort to promote it. This possibility is strengthened by the fact that there is no shortage of evidence to prove that lies are the norm among the Shia. This is well established by the books of the Ahlus Sunnah and it is corroborated by the books of the Shia as well, as will appear shortly.
There is an abundance of testimonies from the scholars of the Safavid dynasty stating that there are many narrations like this. Just as al Majlisi testified, similarly, their other scholar, Ni’mat Allah al Jaza’iri (who was a contemporary of al Majlisi and a student of his, and reliable and trustworthy scholar according to them) also testified regarding the same. He says:
إن الأخبار الدالة على ذلك تزيد على ألفي حديث
The narrations which point that out are more than two thousand ahadith.
He goes on to say, whilst placing the Qur’an on one pan of the scale, that to proclaim that the Qur’an was unadulterated would strip the narrations of all credibility. Thus, he says whilst rebutting the classical scholars who proclaimed that the seven qira’ah are mutawatir:
إن تسليم تواترها عن الوحي الإلهي، وكون الكل قد نزل به الروح الأمين يفضي إلى طرح الأخبار المستفيضة، بل المتواترة الدالة بصريحها على وقوع التحريف في القرآن
To accept that it is mutawatir, from the revelation of Allah, and that al Ruh al Amin (Jibril) brought it, leads to discarding the mustafid (reported by multiple reliable narrators) narrations. In fact it leads to the rejection of the mutawatir which point out very clearly that alterations took place in the Qur’an.
In other words, it is more important to uphold the veracity and integrity of his narrations than the Qur’an! This is exactly what their scholar al Majlisi stated when he said, “rejecting every single one of them would destroy any reliance upon the narrations,” as quoted above. This is the tough decision that these fraudsters have to make; do they lose their narrations, upon which their religion stands and by means of which their sustenance is attained (in the name of khums) and their sacredness is upheld (as they claim to be deputies of the Imam). Do they lose all these benefits that are accrued by means of it or should they say that the Qur’an was altered, the result of which will be that the Muslims will declare them disbelievers, their religion will hardly attract anyone thereafter, their followers will dwindle and the avenues of income will diminish. Indeed it is a tough decision for these (scholars)! Should they appear before the public holding two contradictory views, should they hide and do taqiyyah or should they act according to the demand of the moment?
What has been noticed is that the scholars of the Safavid dynasty were bolder in stating their kufr as a result of some power upon which they could rely. Consequently, the act of Taqiyyah was, to an extent, neglected by them. This is why there are many statements made by them stating that this kufr is established by them with tawatur. Their scholar, Abu al Hassan al Sharif (who is a student of al Majlisi) claimed:
يمكن الحكم بكونه من ضروريات مذهب التشيع
It is possible to say that it is from the fundamentals of the Shia religion.
Their reliable scholar, Muhammad Salih al Mazindarani (d. 1081 A.H.) says:
.. وإسقاط بعض القرآن وتحريفه ثبت من طرقنا بالتواتر معنى كما يظهر لمن تأمل كتب الأحاديث (يعني كتب أحاديثهم) من أولها إلى آخرها
The deletion of a portion of the Qur’an and its alteration is established from our narrations with tawatur as far as the meaning is concerned, as is apparent for the one who ponders over the books of ahadith (i.e. Shia books of hadith) from the start to the end.
Their scholar, Muhsin al Kashani says:
المستفاد.. من الروايات من طريق أهل البيت – عليهم السلام – أن القرآن الذي بين أظهرنا ليس بتمامه، كما أنزل على محمد صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم، بل منه ما هو خلاف ما أنزل الله، ومنه ما هو مغير محرف، وأنه قد حذف عنه أشياء كثيرة منها اسم علي – عليه السلام – في كثير من المواضع، ومنها غير ذلك، وأنه ليس أيضاً على الترتيب المرضي عند الله وعند رسوله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم
What is understood from the narrations of the Ahlul Bayt ‘alayhim al Salam is that the Qur’an which is before us is not complete, in the form that it was revealed upon Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Rather, some of it is against that which Allah revealed and some of it is changed and altered. Many things have been deleted therefrom, including the name of ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam from many places, among other things. It is also not according to the sequence that Allah and His Rasul salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam were pleased with.
These are some of the statements of the scholars of the Safavid era regarding the amount of narrations on the subject. These statements are destructive testimonies, which establish that these lies and fabrications are upheld by them and they appear in many places in their books. This, most certainly, proves the falsity of all their narrations. As long as lies and fabrications are reported, according to them, with tawatur, there can be no reliance upon any of their narrations. Whoever inclines towards these beliefs has nothing to do with the religion of Islam.
The religion of these people is the religion of Imams, or rather, the religion of al Majlisi, al Qummi, al Kulayni, al ‘Ayyashi, etc. They are just like all the other irreligious sects who existed along the course of Islamic history. The veil which they used to hide their reality and enmity towards Islam has been ripped to pieces by this claim, and their hundreds of narrations, which they falsely attributed to the Ahlul Bayt, have been exposed to be lies and deception by means of this open kufr.
Due to the continuous efforts to produce fabrications along the centuries, especially in the era of the Safavids, we see the leading scholar of the Shia, their hadith expert, the expert on the science of (their) narrators, the author of their final hadith compilation (Mustadrak al Wasa’il) and the teacher of many of their reliable scholars (including Muhammad Hussain Al Kashif al Ghita and Agha Buzurg al Tehrani) — Hussain al Nuri al Tabarsi saying that it is inappropriate to study the chains of this fabrication, as it is reported with tawatur by their narrators. His exact words are:
إن ملاحظة السند في تلك الأخبار الكثيرة توجب سد باب التواتر المعنوي فيها بل هو أشبه بالوسواس الذي ينبغي الاستعاذة منه
Studying the chains of those narrations, which are abundant in number necessitates that tawatur as far as the meaning is concerned should be shunned. In fact, it is quite similar to waswas (whisperings of the devil), from which protection should be sought.
Al Khu’i, the Marja’ of the Shia in Iraq, as well as others today, says:
إن كثرة الرويات (رواياتهم في تحريف القرآن) من طريق أهل البيت تورث القطع بصدور بعضها عن المعصومين، ولا أقل من الاطمئنان بذلك، وفيها ما روي بطريق معتبر
The abundance of narrations (of their regarding this) from the narrators of the Ahlul Bayt demands certainty that at least some were stated by the infallibles. The bare minimum is that there is satisfaction (that these fabrications are established) due to that. Many of them are reported through authentic chains.
After all these confessions from the luminaries of the Shia, will anyone doubt that these people have fallen into this murky quagmire and dark abyss? How much of pain do they not bring to the heart of a Muslim? Will he not take pity upon a people who rely, in their religious matters, upon books which are laden with this filth and upon ‘scholars’ (who sold their souls to the devil and placed their forelocks in his hand) who openly state this kufr? However, one question remains; is this the belief of all the Shia? Do all of them subscribe to this kufr? This will be discussed in the next few paragraphs.
After our presentation of some of the contents of these narrations which further clarified the reality, our attempt to ascertain the amount of their narrations and the weight of their chains, seeing that most of the Shia books have fallen into this dark abyss and after seeing that the engineers of Shi’ism worked hard in trying to fabricate and increase these narrations along the course of the centuries, to the extent that their reliable scholars claimed them to be mutawatir and mustafid and that their chains should not be studied, the question that remains is: do all the scholars of the Ithna ‘Ashariyyah (Twelvers) agree with them regarding this?
Al Mufid (d. 413 A.H.) states in his book Awa’il al Maqalat, which is among their reliable books (as stated by their present-day scholars):
واتفقوا – أي الإمامية – على أن أئمة الضلال خالفوا في كثير من تأليف القرآن وعدلوا فيه عن موجب التنزيل وسنة النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم، وأجمعت المعتزلة، والخوارج، والزيدية، والمرجئة، وأصحاب الحديث على خلاف الإمامية
They (the Imamiyyah) were unanimous that the Imams of misguidance opposed greatly, the sequence of the Qur’an and they turned away in it from the demands of the revelation and the Sunnah of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. The Mu’tazilah, Khawarij, Zaidiyyah, Murji’ah and people of hadith have all agreed to oppose the Imamiyyah.
This is an important testimony and an explicit admission by al Mufid of the Shia that the rest of the sects of Islam did not fall into the kufr that he and his sect fell into. It is a testimony that silences those Rawafid who try — in a cowardly manner — to silence the Ahlus Sunnah on the topic of this fabrication, by falsely attempting to attribute this lie to them, an attempt that is clearly a hopeless plot. The Ahlus Sunnah are not in need of this testimony to prove their innocence. However, we have mentioned it here as it is the word of the opposition, whose word holds more weight, when he speaks the truth, than the word of a friend. It also serves the purpose of silencing the lying disbelievers.
He also admits that his sect is unanimous upon this open kufr. He did not mention any difference of opinion among their scholars regarding this, even though his teacher, Ibn Babawayh al Qummi (who is referred to as al Saduq by them (d. 381 A.H.)) rejected this in his book al I’tiqadat. He was also displeased with the attribution of the belief that alterations took place to his sect, as explained. The same was said by al Sharif al Murtada (d. 436 A.H.), al Tusi (450 A.H.) (both of whom were students of al Mufid) and al Tabarsi (d. 548 A.H. or 561 A.H.).
Why did al Mufid not indicate towards the view of his teacher, al Qummi? Did he ignore it on account of him being satisfied that it was done out of Taqiyyah? Added to that, this very Mufid, in this very book of his, mentioned that a group from the Imamiyyah have rejected this view. Similar to the claim of al Mufid is the claim of al Nuri al Tabarsi, who claimed that the Shia unanimously believed in this kufr, until the appearance of Ibn Babawayh al Qummi, who then opposed them. He says:
إن ابن بابويه القمي أول من أحدث هذا القول في الشيعة في عقائده
Ibn Babawayh al Qummi was the first one to introduce this view to the Shia, in his (book on) beliefs.
Perhaps the reader realised the effort made by this al Tabarsi to establish that the Shia, from their inception, held his view, and that opposition of his view was something that happened later. The reality that no Muslim will argue regarding, and no person who studied the development of Shia doctrine will doubt, is that the initial Shia had nothing to do with this kufr. Shi’ism, in its initial stage, was concerning nothing more than Imamah and who was most deserving of it.
Thereafter, one innovation led to another, in quick succession. Thus by the third century, we see their scholars competing with one another in upholding this kufr. This brought upon them humiliation, disgust and contempt from the Muslims. Hence, Ibn Babawayh attempted to take them back to their original beliefs, as it seems. However, the doctrine of Taqiyyah destroyed the fruits of Ibn Babawayhs efforts. He was nonetheless followed by three of their scholars, as explained earlier. Al Nuri al Tabarsi mentions that from the fourth century right up until the sixth century, a fifth person could not be added to this list. He says:
لم يعرف الخلاف صريحاً إلا من هؤلاء الأربعة
No explicit difference of opinion was known, except from these four.
Thus, after this idea found its way into the Shia religion, none of their scholars were found to openly condemn it besides these four. We have indicated previously that Ibn Hazm mentions that all of the Imamiyyah were upon this falsehood besides three of them, among who was al Sharif al Murtada. Their scholars have stated that the Imamiyyah were not unanimous regarding this kufr. The author of Qawami’ al Fusul says:
إن المحكي عن ظاهر الكليني وشيخه عليّ بن إبراهيم القمي والشيخ أحمد بن أبي طالب الطبرسي صاحب الاحتجاج وقوع التحريف والزيادة والنقصان فيه، بل وحكي ذلك عن أكثر الأخباريين، وعن السيد الصدوق والمحقق إنكار ذلك، بل وحكي عن جمهور المجتهدين، وظاهر الصدوق في اعتقاداته أن المراد بما ورد في الأخبار الدالة على أن في القرآن الذي جمعه أمير المؤمنين – رضي الله عنه – كان زيادة لم يكن في غيرها أنها كانت من باب الأحاديث القدسية لا القرآن
That which is reported from the apparent (text) of al Kulayni, his teacher, ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim al Qummi and Sheikh Ahmed ibn Abi Talib al Tabarsi (the author of al Ihtijaj) is that alterations, additions and deletions took place in it. In fact, that has been reported from most of the Akhbaris. It is reported from al Sayed al Saduq. and al Muhaqqiq that they have rejected it, just as this is reported from most of the Mujtahids. The apparent meaning of al Saduq’s statement in his I’tiqadat is that the purport of all the narrations which indicate that the Qur’an which was gathered by Amir al Mu’minin radiya Llahu ‘anhu had additional (information), that was not in the rest was the al Ahadith al Qudsiyyah, not the Qur’an.
Al Tabarsi has also indicated towards the above in Fasl al Khitab, and he mentioned the names of many of those who believed that alterations took place. Among his statements are:
اعلم أن لهم في ذلك أقوالاً مشورها اثنان: الأول وقع التغيير والنقصان فيه
Know that they have many views regarding that, but two of them are popular; the first is that alterations and deletions took place…
Thereafter, he goes on to mention the names of their scholars who were of this view, quoting some of them on the matter. It should be noted that he tries to exaggerate, by adding most of the scholars of this sect to this list. He even goes as far as listing books which neither existed, nor is there any trace of them. Among them are the books he refers to as “al Tahrif” (alterations) and “al Tabdil” (the change), the authors of which, he implies, held the same view as him.
His opposition may ask, “why rule out the possibility that these books were written to criticise the Shia misinterpretations of the Qur’an, or their claim that the words were altered? The name could imply that as well.” Thereafter, he mentions the second view:
الثاني: عدم وقوع التغيير والنقصان فيه وأن جميع ما نزل على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله هو الموجود بأيدي الناس فيما بين الدفتين، وإليه ذهب الصدوق في عقائده والسيد المرتضى، وشيخ الطائفة في التبيان، ولم يعرف من القدماء موافق لهم إلا ما حكاه المفيد عن جماعة من أهل الإمامة، والظاهر أنه أراد منها الصدوق وأتباعه
The second view is that alterations and deletions did not take place, and whatever Allah revealed to Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is found among the people, between the two covers. This is the view stated by al Saduq in his (book on) beliefs, al Sayed al Murtada and Sheikh al Ta’ifah in al Tibyan. None of the classical (Shia) are known to have agreed with them, except that which is reported by al Mufid from group of the people of Imamah. Apparently, it seems as if he was referring to al Saduq and his followers.
His statement, “none of the classical (Shia) are known to have agreed with them,” is with reference to his Imamiyyah and Rafidah scholars. It cannot refer to the initial Shia, as they did not stoop to this level. Thereafter, this al Nuri says:
ثم شاع هذا المذهب (يعني إنكار التحريف) بين الأصوليين من أصحابنا واشتهر بينهم حتى قال المحقق الكاظمي في شرح الوافية: إنه حكي عليه الإجماع
Then this view spread (rejection of the view that alterations took place) among our companions from the Usulis and it became famous amongst them to the extent that al Muhaqqiq al Kazimi stated in Sharh al Wafiyah, “Ijma’ has been reported regarding this.”
He then tries to reject this ijma’, so that he could claim that most of the Shia held the same view as him. Now, do we believe that the Ithna ‘Ashariyyah (Twelvers) are not unanimous upon this kufr, but rather they have two views regarding the matter, as indicated to by al Ash’ari in his Maqalat? Or, do we say that there is only one view and whoever rejected it, did so whilst practising Taqiyyah? This will be discussed next.
 Refer to the preface of this book.
 Refer to Mizan al I’tidal 3/111, Lisan al Mizan 4/191
 Awa’il al Maqalat pg. 98
 Majma’ al Bayan 10/31
 Mir’at al ‘Uqul 2/536
 Tafsir al Tibyan 1/3
 Fasl al Khitab scroll 175 (of the manuscript)
 Refer to the chapter, “their beliefs regarding the Sunnah”.
 This was pointed out to by him in al Anwar al Nu’maniyyah 4/232
 Refer to Fasl al Khitab scroll 125 (of the manuscript) and pg. 251 of the printed edition.
 al Anwar al Nu’maniyyah 2/356-357
 Mir’at al Anwar pg. 49
 Al Mazindarani: Sharh Jami’ (of al Kafi) 11/76
 Tafsir al Safi 1/49
 Fasl al Khitab scroll 124 (of the manuscript)
 Al Khu’i: al Bayan pg. 226
 Muhammad Jawad Mughniyah: al Shia fi l-Mizan pg. 14
 Awa’il al Maqalat pg. 13
 Al I’tiqadat pg. 101-102
 Refer to al Tibyan 1/3, Majma’ al Bayan 1/31
 Al Tibyan 1/3
 He mentions that a group from the Imamiyyah state, “there was no deletion of any word, verse or surah.” Refer to Awa’il al Maqlat pg. 55. Their inconsistency regarding the matter of ijma’ will be seen under the discussion, “their beliefs regarding ijma’ (consensus)”. They have a consensus which is contradicted by another consensus. At times one of them will claim that consensus took place, yet he will state that there was a difference of opinion.
 Fasl al Khitab, scroll 111 (of the manuscript)
 Fasl al Khitab 15 (of the manuscript) and pg. 24 of the printed version.
 Sheikh Ihsan Ilahi Zahir, after quoting this statement, challenged the Shia to bring forth a fifth person. Refer to al Shia wa l-Sunnah pg. 124. However, regarding this matter, it is necessary to keep in mind the following:
ولم يعرف من القدماء موافق لهم إلا ما حكاه المفيد من جماعة من أهل الإمامة، والظاهر أنه أراد منها الصدوق وأتباعه
None of the classical (Shia) are known to have agreed with them, except that which is reported by al Mufid from group of the people of Imamah. Apparently, it seems as if he was referring to al Saduq and his followers. (Fasl al Khitab pg. 33).
 A title of Ibn Babawayh al Qummi, the author of Man La Yahdurhu al Faqih.
 The title al Muhaqqiq (the researcher) is used to refer to Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Hassan al Tusi and Ja’far ibn Hassan ibn Yahya (d. 676 A.H.) Refer to Agha Buzurg al Tehrani: al Anwar al Sati’ah pg. 164. Here, it is being used to refer to al Tusi.
 Qawami’ al Fusul pg. 298
 Fasl al Khitab 30-31
 Ibid pg. 33
 Fasl al Khitab pg. 38Back to top