The Contents of the Narrations on Alterations in the Book of the Shi`ah

Do the Shi`ah Circulate Among Themselves Secret Copies?
April 14, 2016
What Do the Shi`i Sources Have to Say on this Subject?
April 14, 2016

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents


The Contents of the Narrations on Alterations in the Book of the Shia


After presenting the names of the books in which this deception appears, we now move on to some of the contents of the narrations, the birth of this lie, the manner in which it spread and what was the final result. We will start with the first book of the Shia which contained this lie, i.e. Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais. We find this mentioned in the beginning of this book. It appears as part of two lengthy narrations which are related to the subject of Imamah of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. The first narration is reported by Aban ibn ‘Ayyash (regarding whom it is agreed that he is unreliable — as explained) from Sulaim ibn Qais. Part of it states:


أن علياً لزم بيته حتى جمعه وكان في الصحف والرقاع

‘Ali remained in his house until he gathered it all, as it was in booklets and patches (of leather).[1]


He explained his delay in pledging allegiance to Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu to be a result of his engrossment with compiling the Qur’an. He said, when Abu Bakr sent for him to come forward and pledge his allegiance:


إني آليت على نفسي يميناً ألا أرتدي رداءً إلا للصلاة حتى أولف القرآن وأجمعه

I have promised myself not to wear an upper garment, except for salah, until I compile and gather the Qur’an.[2]


Claims similar to this one have appeared in the books of the Ahlus Sunnah. However, they could not be established with sound chains of narration. This is why Ibn Hajar said:


The chain of the narration from ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu that he said, “I have promised myself not to wear my upper garment, except for salah, until I compile the Qur’an,” after which he compiled it is unreliable due to one of the narrators being left out. If we accept that it is authentic, then it means that he gathered it in his chest (memorised it). That which appears in some narrations — that he gathered it between the two covers — is a mistake of the narrator.[3]


The more authentic version, which is the one which is relied upon is the narration of Abu Dawood regarding copies (of the Qur’an). He reports with an acceptable chain from ‘Abd Khayr, ‘I heard ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu saying:


أعظم الناس في المصاحف أجراً أبو بكر – رحمة الله على أبي بكر – وهو أول من جمع كتاب الله

From all the people, Abu Bakr received the greatest reward as far as the copies of the Qur’an are concerned. May the mercy of Allah be upon Abu Bakr, he was the first person to gather the Qur’an.[4]


Nevertheless, the narration of Sulaim states that ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu compilation was not confined to the Qur’an. Rather, it included “its revelation, interpretation, the abrogating and the abrogated of it.”[5] Besides the fact that this narration is not established at all, it even contradicts the guidelines set by Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam regarding the writing of the Qur’an, as he said:


لا تكتبوا عني شيئاً غير القرآن

Do not write anything from me (that which I say) besides the Qur’an.[6]


Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam ordered that the Qur’an should be written, but prohibited that anything else should be written alongside it, so that the one is not confused with the other. Anyway, the most that this claim establishes is that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu had a copy of the Qur’an, just as other Sahabah, the likes of Ibn Mas’ud radiya Llahu ‘anhu[7] had copies thereof. This does not suggest any negativity regarding the Book of Allah.

However, the narration does not end there. Rather, it goes on to claim that he brought it to the Sahabah and called upon them to accept it, upon which ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu, according to their claims, said:


ما أغنانا بما معنا من القرآن عما تدعونا إليه

The Qur’an that we have with us suffices us of that to which you call us.[8]


As long as the Qur’an of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not just comprise of the Qur’an itself but contained in it tafsir and abrogated verses, it was necessary to refer to the actual Qur’an itself. Nevertheless, this clique of bigots went on to build upon this lie, and their hate-filled imaginations destroyed their intellect.

Thus, we find that al Tabarsi (from the sixth century), in al Ihtijaj, paints a different picture (as is the nature of lies; they keep changing, with additions and deletions continuously modifying them) of what transpired. He presents this (fabricated) incident as if it was a fight between ‘Ali and the Sahabah of the Rasul salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam — may Allah be pleased with all of them, just as they are totally innocent of these accusations.

Another addition is that whilst the narration of Sulaim claims that they rejected his copy on the first occasion, when he presented it to them, the narration of al Tabarsi indicates that they took it:


فلما فتحه أبو بكر خرج في أول صفحه فضائح القوم

When Abu Bakr opened it, all the embarrassing (crimes) of the nation appeared in its first pages.[9]


Thus, he informs us of one of the subjects which appeared in the copy of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. However, the narration of Sulaim does not contain any explicit criticism of the Qur’an. The jealousy and hatred in the hearts of these bigots were not calmed down by the lies and accusations cast by them against the first battalion of Islam (who conquered their lands and spread Islam amongst their people). The appetite of these people cannot be satiated except by feeding it vulgarity regarding the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum.

The verses of the Qur’an in which their virtues and merits are extolled strike them on the heads like iron rods and burn their filthy hearts. Thus, it is only a natural reaction on their part to concoct such lies. The narration of al Ihtijaj has yet another addition to the incident ‘reported’ in Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais:


ثم أحضروا زيد بن ثابت – وكان قارئاً للقرآن – فقال له عمر: إن علياً جاء بالقرآن وفيه فضائح المهاجرين والأنصار وقد رأينا أن نؤلف القرآن ونسقط منه ما كان فضيحة وهتكاً للمهاجرين والأنصار، فأجابه زيد إلى ذلك ثم قال: فإن أنا فرغت من القرآن على ما سألتم وأظهر علي القرآن الذي ألفه أليس قد بطل كل ما عملتم؟ فقال عمر: فما الحيلة؟ قال زيد: أنتم أعلم بالحيلة، فقال عمر: ما حيلته دون أن نقتله ونستريح منه، فدبر في قتله


Thereafter, they had Zaid ibn Thabit, who was an expert reciter of the Qur’an, brought (to them). ‘Umar said to him, ‘Ali brought a Qur’an in which the embarrassing crimes of the Muhajirin and Ansar have been mentioned. We thought of compiling the Qur’an (note that the narration of Sulaim suggests that Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma already had a complete copy of the Qur’an) and deleting the crimes and transgressions of the Muhajirin and Ansar. Zaid ibn Thabit complied to his wishes and then said, “if I complete the Qur’an according to your demands and then ‘Ali brings the Qur’an which he compiled, will not all of your efforts go to waste?” ‘Umar asked, “so what is the way out?” Zaid replied, “you people know better.” Thereupon ‘Umar said, “there is no other way out besides killing him and getting rid of him. So, plan out his murder.”[10]


Elsewhere, he presents an account of the alleged plans regarding the murder and he explains that the task was assigned to Khalid radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Thereafter Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu regretted and became perturbed regarding this plan, fearing its negative consequences, to the extent that he said whilst in salah:


لا تقتله يا خالد

Do not kill him, O Khalid!


The tale then continues…[11] Later, he adds on even more to it. He asserts that ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu tried to trick ‘Ali and fool him into bringing out his Qur’an so that they could start practicing upon it. This was an attempt by ‘Umar to distort the copy of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, who did not accept the request. ‘Umar then asked him, “when will it appear?” he replied, “it will appear with the Qa’im (imam) from my progeny. He will bring it forth and make the people practice upon it. Thus the Sunnah will come about with him — the salutations of Allah be upon him!”[12]

The question that remains unanswered by the narration of al Tabarsi and all the other Shia books is that since their plot to kill ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was foiled and their attempt to distort his Qur’an was a failure, why did ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu not bring out the Qur’an that he had with him? If (they claim that) he feared them as they were in power, then what stopped him from doing so when he became the khalifah? Why did he allow himself to be the cause of the ummah remaining astray and lost? How is it that he covered up the treachery of the deceivers and the ones who distorted the Qur’an? He who helps a deceiver with his treachery is equally treacherous.

The clique could find no answer besides that which their scholar, Ni’mat Allah al Jaza’ri assumed, i.e. he preferred displaying good character towards those who preceded him instead of the guiding the ummah.[13] Thus, his (al Jaza’iri) enmity towards both have been revealed; the Book of Allah as well as ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, as there is hardly an insult that could be worse than this (as explained previously).

In addition, I would like to ask: if this was the good character shown by their Imam, then why do they oppose him instead of following in his footsteps? Why do they repeat the filthy language and vulgarity that has blackened an enormous amount of pages in their books? Thus, the reason explained above is either a lie, or they are horrible ‘followers’ of the Imam who oppose his actions. I wonder which of the two options they will find more dumbfounding.

We return to Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais. It contains another narration, similar to the first one. However, this one has an addition; a question from Talhah radiya Llahu ‘anhu to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. He enquired from him as to why he did not bring out the Qur’an that was in his possession. ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu ignored the question and continued speaking about him having a greater right to the khilafah. Talhah then repeated the question saying:


ما أراك يا أبا الحسن أجبتني عما سألتك عنه عن القرآن ألا تظهر للناس،

O Abu al Hassan, I see you have not answered my question that I asked you regarding the Qur’an; why are you not bringing it out to the people?


‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu relied:


يا طلحة، عمداً كففت عن جوابك، قال: فأخبرني عما في كتب عمر وعثمان – كذا – أقرآن كله أم فيه ما ليس بقرآن،. فقال طلحة: حسبي، أما إذ هو قرآن فحسبي

O Talhah I intentionally refrained from answering you. Tell me of that which is in the book of ‘Umar and ‘Uthman, is all of it Qur’an or does it have in it that which is not Qur’an.


Talhah radiya Llahu ‘anhu replied:


بل قرآن كله

All of it is Qur’an.


‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu said:


قال: إن أخذتم بما فيه نجوتم من النار ودخلتم الجنة، فإن فيه حجتنا وبيان حقنا وفرض طاعتنا،

If you hold onto whatever is in it, you will be saved from the fire and you will enter Jannat, for indeed it has in it our proofs, an explanation of our rights and the compulsion of obeying us.


Talhah radiya Llahu ‘anhu responded:


حسبي، أما إذ هو قرآن فحسبي

That suffices me. Since it is the Qur’an, it is sufficient for me.[14]


This narration of Sulaim does not criticise the Qur’an in an open manner. In fact, it even emphasises that all that is in it is the Qur’an. It claims that the rights of the Ahlul Bayt and the compulsion of obeying them is found in it, whereas many of their narrations contradict this. These narrations claim:


لولا أنه زيد في كتاب الله ونقص منه لما خفي حقنا على ذي حجى

If it was not for the additions and deletions that took place in the Qur’an, our rights would not have been obscured to those who have intelligence.[15]


لو قرئ القرآن كما أنزل لألفينا فيه مسمين

If the Qur’an was recited the way it was revealed, we would find in it named (individuals).[16]


As is apparent, this was another twist to the tale. However, this one reveals one of the reasons as to why the tale was concocted, i.e. the twelve Imams (whose acceptance was compulsory for the acceptance of Islam, and rejection of any one of them was kufr) were not mentioned anywhere in the Book of Allah. This reality threatened to destroy their unions and structures. Hence, in a state of panic, they began hunting for a way to repel this threat. Among a few others, the attack upon the Book of Allah was the most dangerous plot!

Other developments that took place regarding this lie were; adding a practical aspect to it as well as the increase in its narrations. These were done courtesy of ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim al Qummi (the author of the Tafsir) and his student al Kulayni (the author of al Kafi). These two individuals were responsible for strengthening the foundation of this unfounded belief, and they had a great share in spreading and discussing it.

Their planning and ideas brought the practical aspect of this belief to its culmination. Thus, a few rules to apply this blasphemy to the Qur’an were formulated. Among them were; adding the words “فى على” (regarding ‘Ali) in any verse wherein the words “انزل الله اليك-وانزلنا اليك” (Allah revealed to you, or We revealed to you) appears, adding the words “ال محمد حقهم” (the family of Muhammad as far as their rights are concerned) after the word “ظلموا” (they oppressed) in all verses, adding “فى ولاية على” (in the matter of the wilayah of ‘Ali) after the word “اشركوا” (they subscribed to polytheism) and they changed the word “امة” (nation) to “ائمة” (Imams) wherever it appeared in the Qur’an.

In this manner, they attempted to pollute the entire Qur’an. Among the proofs for this is a narration of theirs reported by al Kulayni from al Qummi, who reports with his chain from Jabir al Ju’fi who claims that he heard Abu Jafar (al Baqir) saying:


نزل جبرائيل بهذه الآية على محمد: بِئْسَمَا اشْتَرَوْا بِهٖٓ اَنْفُسَهُمْ اَنْ یَّكْفُرُوْا بِمَآ اَنْزَلَ اللّٰهُ (فى على) بَغْیًا

Jibril brought the revelation of this verse to Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam: “How wretched is that for which they sold themselves – that they would disbelieve in what Allah has revealed through [their] outrage[17] (against ‘Ali).[18]


Similarly, they say:


نزل جبرائيل بهذه الآية على محمد هكذا: وَ اِنْ كُنْتُمْ فِیْ رَیْبٍ مِّمَّا نَزَّلْنَا عَلٰی عَبْدِنَا (في علي) فَاْتُوْا بِسُوْرَةٍ مِّنْ مِّثْلِهٖ

Jibril brought the revelation of this verse to Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in this manner: “And if you are in doubt about what We have sent down upon Our Servant (regarding ‘Ali), then produce a surah the like thereof.”[19],[20]


Another narration from Abu ‘Abdullah (al Sadiq) has it:


نزل جبرائيل – عليه السلام – على محمد بهذه الآية هكذا: “يٰاَیُّهَا الَّذِیْنَ اُوْتُوا الْکِتٰبَ اٰمِنُوْا بِمَا نَزَّلْنَا مُصَدِّقًا لِّمَا مَعَكُمْ (في علي) نُوْرًا مُّبِیْنًا

Jibril brought the revelation of this verse to Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in this manner: “O you who were given the Scripture, believe in what We have sent down, confirming that which is with you (regarding ‘Ali) a clear light.”[21]


Take note of how they have joined portions of two separate verses to form one.[22] Al Qummi says:


وأما ما هو محرف فمنه قوله: لٰکِنِ اللهُ یَشْهَدُ بِمَآ اَنْزَلَ اِلَیْكَ (في علي) اَنْزَلَهبِعِلْمِهٖۚ وَالْمَلٰٓئِکَةُ یَشْهَدُوْنَ وقوله: یٰاَیُّهَا الرَّسُوْلُ بَلِّغْ مَآ اُنْزِلَ اِلَیْكَ مِنْ رَّبِّكَؕ (في علي) وَ اِنْ لَّمْ تَفْعَلْ فَمَا بَلَّغْتَ رِسَالَتَه وقوله: اِنَّ الَّذِیْنَ کَفَرُوْا وَظَلَمُوْا(آل محمد حقهم) لَمْ یَكُنِ اللّٰهُ لِیَغْفِرَ لَهُمْ وَلَا لِیَهْدِیَهُمْ طَرِیْقًا وقوله: وَ سَیَعْلَمُ الَّذِیْنَ ظَلَمُوْا (آل محمد حقهم) فِیْ غَمَرٰتِ الْمَوْتِ


As for that which had been changed, among them are his statements: “But Allah bears witness to that which He has revealed to you (regarding ‘Ali). He has sent it down with His knowledge, and the angels bear witness [as well],[23]” “O Messenger, announce that which has been revealed to you (regarding ‘Ali) from your Rabb, and if you do not, then you have not conveyed His message,[24]” “Indeed, those who disbelieve and commit wrong [or injustice] (regarding ‘Ali) — never will Allah forgive them, nor will He guide them to a path.”[25] “And those who have wronged are going to know in the overwhelming pangs of death.”[26]


Al Qummi says:


ومثله كثير نذكره في مواضعه

There are many others like this. We will mention them in their appropriate places.[27]


As promised, he filled his book with this type of kufr[28] in the exact same manner as indicated above. In another narration, which he quotes regarding the verse of Allah, he adds on (as usual) the words ‘the family of Muhammad’:


فَاَنْزَلْنَا عَلَی الَّذِیْنَ ظَلَمُوْا ال محمد

So We sent down upon those who wronged (the family of Muhammad).[29]


Al Qummi also reports from Abu ‘Abdullah (al Sadiq) that the following verse was recited in his presence:


كُنْتُمْ خَیْرَ اُمَّةٍ اُخْرِجَتْ لِلنَّاسِ تَاْمُرُوْنَ بِالْمَعْرُوْفِ وَتَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنْکَرِ

You are the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong.[30]


Thereupon Abu ‘Abdullah (al Sadiq) said:


خير أمة يقتلون أمير المؤمنين والحسن والحسين – عليهم السلام -؟ فقال القارئ: جعلت فداك كيف نزلت؟ قال: نزلت (كنتم خير أئمة أخرجت للناس)، ألا ترى مدح الله لهم تَاْمُرُوْنَ بِالْمَعْرُوْفِ وَتَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنْکَرِ

The best nation kills Amir al Mu’minin, Hassan and Hussain? The reciter asked, “may I be sacrificed for you, how was it revealed?” He replied, “it was revealed, ‘you are the best Imams, produced for mankind.’ Do you not see the praise of Allah regarding them? ‘You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong.’”[31]


This means that there is no goodness in the entire ummah, as well as in the Shia. Goodness is confined to the twelve Imams only. Similarly, we have pointed out that their narrations regarding the interpretation of the Qur’an establish that the revealed word was “امة” (nation), but its interpretation is “ائمة” (A’immah). On the other hand, the narrations which ‘prove that alterations took place’ claim that the revealed word was actually “Imams”. Is this not a contradiction?


Regarding the verse:


َكبُرَ عَلَی الْمُشْرِکِیْنَ مَا تَدْعُوْهُمْ اِلَیْهِ

Difficult for those who associate others with Allah is that to which you invite them.[32]


Al Kulayni reports the following additions from al Rida:


َكبُرَ عَلَی الْمُشْرِکِیْنَ بولاية علي مَا تَدْعُوْهُمْ اِلَیْهِ يا محمد من ولاية علي

Difficult for those who associate others with (the Wilayah of ‘Ali) is that to which you invite them (O Muhammad, as far as the Wilayah of ‘Ali is concerned). This is how it was written in the book.[33]


Regarding the verse:


فَسَتَعْلَمُوْنَ مَنْ هُوَ فِیْ ضَلٰلٍ مُّبِیْنٍ

And you will [come to] know who it is that is in clear error.


They add:


َفسَتَعْلَمُوْنَ يا معشر المكذبين حيث أنبأتكم رسالة ربي في ولاية علي – عليه السلام – والأئمة من بعده، مَنْ هُوَ فِیْ ضَلٰلٍ مُّبِیْنٍ

And you will [come to] know, O the ones who belied when I conveyed to you the message of my Rabb regarding the Wilayah of ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam and the Imams succeeding him, who it is that is in clear error.


Thereafter, they emphasize their heretical belief that interpolations took place by saying:


هكذا نزلت

This is how it was revealed.[34]


In the verse:


فَلَنُذِیْقَنَّ الَّذِیْنَ کَفَرُوْا عَذَابًا شَدِیْدًا وَّ لَنَجْزِیَنَّهُمْ اَسْوَاَ الَّذِیْ کَانُوْا یَعْمَلُوْنَ

But We will surely cause those who disbelieve to taste a severe punishment, and We will surely recompense them for the worst of what they had been doing.[35]


They add:


فَلَنُذِیْقَنَّ الَّذِیْنَ کَفَرُوْا بتركهم ولاية أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام عَذَابًا شَدِیْدًا في الدنيا وَّ لَنَجْزِیَنَّهُمْ اَسْوَاَ الَّذِیْ کَانُوْا یَعْمَلُوْنَ

But We will surely cause those who disbelieve (by rejecting the Wilayah of Amir al Mu’minin ‘alayh al Salam) to taste a severe punishment (in the world), and We will surely recompense them for the worst of what they had been doing.[36]


There are many other narrations like this. If one compares the narration of Tafsir al Qummi and al Kafi to that which their latter day scholars, such as al Majlisi, al Jaza’iri and al Nuri al Tabarsi have mentioned, he will find a considerable increase in the narrations. This indicates that the mission of strengthening this fallacy continued in each era. The reader who understands Arabic will be convinced that these ‘additions’ do not fit — at all — in the verses. They have been added there without the least connection to the verse. It is as if the verse itself rejects it, as its incoherence with the Arabic language and its non-Arab concocter (whose choice of words and ability to convey meanings are quite poor), are both quite visible from it.

The words presented by these liars, as examples of verses which have been deleted, have undoubtedly removed the veil and exposed their kufr, just as it brought to shame their lies and revealed their concoctions. They are attempts at making the Qur’an subservient to them, which are similar in nature to the lies of Musaylamah — the imposter. This is clear from the little that we have already quoted above, and it will become even clearer if one refers to the thousand plus narrations quoted by the author of Fasl al Khitab.[37]

The coherence of the Qur’an and its miraculous eloquence, which left the masters of eloquence and Arabic dumbfounded and impotent as far as producing a chapter or verse of its like, is enough to expose these lies and concoctions. In fact, most of these concoctions do not even meet the standards of the average person’s eloquence. Thus, they serve as a sign of the grandeur of the Qur’an and its unmatchable nature, as if it was not for bitterness, sweetness would not be appreciated. They themselves testify that the men behind them were liars, sufficing one and all the effort of looking at the proofs which establish that the Qur’an was protected and kept pure of any interferences.

These idiotic attempts at adding the speech of humans to the speech of Allah have been the work of some members of this sect for many consecutive centuries. They tried to concoct as much of it that they could. There are other examples of this attempt, added to that which has passed. Some of them have been mentioned by al Majlisi under a chapter which he named, “alterations in the verse which are against that which Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala revealed, which were narrated by our teachers.”[38] Similarly, their books of tafsir are filled with these adulterations, as indicated previously. All of these narrations have been gathered by the author of Fasl al Khitab.[39]

The Rafidah have counted these lies as a portion of that which was deleted from the Book of Allah. Al Kulayni reports in al Kafi:


أن القرآن الذي جاء به جبرائيل إلى محمد (ص) وآله وسلم سبعة عشر ألف آية

The Qur’an that was brought by Jibril to Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam contained seventeen thousand verses.[40]


The actual amount of verses, as is well known, is slightly more than six thousand. This means that according to them, close to two thirds of the Qur’an have been deleted. Can there be a greater lie? This narration appears in al Kafi — the most authentic of their books! However, some Shia will escape by claiming, “all that is in al Kafi is not authentic.”[41] If we take this claim seriously, instead of brushing it off as Taqiyyah, we will need to do some research as far as applying it to our case is concerned.

We will overlook that which they refer to as chains, the so called “principles and laws of authentication” that they claim to uphold, their contradictions and confusion regarding the subject[42] and the fact that the classification “weak” only applies to the chain, as stated by them:


إن أكثر أحاديث الأصول في الكافي غير صحيحة الإسناد ولكنها معتمدة لاعتبار متونها، وموافقتها للعقائد الحقة ولا ينظر في مثلها إلى الإسناد

The chains of most of the ahadith regarding principles in al Kafi are not authentic. However, these are accepted on account of their texts, and their compliance to the correct beliefs. The chain of such (narrations) should not be paid attention to.[43]


If we overlook all of the above, and rather seek an answer directly from one of their scholars, so that we could find a more accurate ruling than our own research (which would have taken place by referring to their books on ‘narrators’) we find their scholar al Majlisi saying regarding the above narration:


فالخبر صحيح

The narration is authentic.[44]


The testimony of al Majlisi holds an unparalleled position, according to them, as he is:


الشارح المتتبع للكافي الذي بين صحيحه من ضعيفه

The commentator who studied al Kafi thoroughly and differentiated between its authentic and unauthentic.[45]


A contemporary scholar of the Imamiyyah, ‘Abdul Hussain al Muzaffar seconds this judgement:


إنه موثق كالصحيح

It is reliable, like an authentic (narration).[46]


It is only fair that we mention that the author of Sahih al Kafi, who is also one of their contemporary scholars, omitted this narration from his book.[47] Does this mean that he regarded is as unauthentic? This is the impression that is created by his methodology, which he explained in the forward of his book. At times, he adopts this stance, and even more pleasing stances, which — unfortunately — cannot be blindly accepted to be his actual stance. This is due to the fact that they uphold the belief of Taqiyyah to an extent explained by one of their contemporary scholars:


لكل مجتهد إمامي أن يرفض أي حديث لا يرتضيه في الكافي وغيره ويأخذ بحديث موجود في البخاري ومسلم، ولا يحق لأحد أن يحتج عليه من وجهة دينية أو مذهبية

Every Imami Mujtahid is allowed to reject any hadith of al Kafi and other books, if it does not suit him. He should rather take the ahadith of Bukhari and Muslim. None should have the opportunity of pointing a finger at him from the perspectives of religion and (his) sect.[48]


Thus, Taqiyyah gives him the liberty to lie in this manner. The reality, of course, is not the same as the impression he creates. This is why their celebrated scholar, al Majlisi named a chapter, “chapter twenty eight: That which the majority report from the narrations of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, that which is authentic according to them (the Shia) and the prohibition of referring to the narrations of the opposition except when using proof against them from their own books.”[49]

Thus far, we discussed the authenticity of the narration. As far as the meaning is concerned, al Mazindarani, the commentator of al Kafi says:


ان القرآن ستة آلاف وخمسمائة والزائد على ذلك مما سقط بالتحريف

Indeed, the Qur’an (contains) six thousand five hundred (verses).[50] The remainder were deleted through alterations.[51]


Al Majlisi says:


إن هذا الخبر وكثير من الأخبار الصحيحة صريحة في نقص القرآن وتغييره

This narration, as well as many authentic narrations explicitly (state) that deletions and alterations took place in the Qur’an.[52]


These are explanatory statements of scholars from the Safavid dynasty regarding this narration. They are the ones who went all out in trying to be as extreme as possible, and perhaps they have reached the pinnacle thereof. You might be in for a surprise if you compare the explanations of these concoctions (which are kufr through and through — which were spread by scholars of the twelfth century, during the Safavid reign) to the explanations presented b Ibn Babawayh al Qummi of the fourth century in his book al I’tiqadat, a book that has been declared by the contemporary Shia scholars to be:


من الكتب المعتبرة الموثقة

Among the reliable and trusted books.[53]


He says:

إنه قد نزل من الوحي الذي ليس بقرآن ما لو جمع إلى القرآن لكان مبلغه مقدار سبعة عشرة ألف آية، وذلك مثل قول جبرائيل.. عش ما شئت فإنك ميت، وأحب ما شئت فإنك مفارقه، واعمل ما شئت فإنك ملاقيه..

The revelation which is not part of the Qur’an is such that if it were added to the Qur’an, it would reach a total of seventeen thousand verses. An example of them is the statement of Jibril, “live as long as you like, you will definitely die; love whoever you wish to love, you will most definitely leave him; do as you please, you will definitely face it.”[54]


He then goes on to list a few more examples. Take a look at and examine the vast difference between the statement of al Kulayni and the statement of Ibn Babawayh. The one says that talks about “revelation that is not part of the Qur’an” whilst the other says, “the Qur’an which was brought by Jibril.” In other words, Ibn Babawayh says that the deficiency is not related to the Qur’an, whereas al Kulayni explicitly declares that the Qur’an is deficient.

Whilst the explanation of al Majlisi and al Mazindarani (concerning the narration) were in complete harmony with the apparent meaning of the blasphemous narration, Ibn Babawayh interpreted the extra amount to be part of the al Ahadith al Qudsiyyah (those ahadith wherein Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam narrates directly from Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala). This explanation is also accommodated by the wording of the narration. However, the noteworthy point at this juncture is that none of the two were prepared to belie and reject the narration!

Is there an angle to the narration of al Kulayni which would make it, to some degree, acceptable (as opposed to the views and lies of al Majlisi, al Mazindarazi and their likes)? It was possible (if these people were well-wishers of their religion and their followers) for them to regard the additional verses to be among those whose recitation was abrogated, if they did not have the courage to reject it. This is because these narrations can only be dealt with in one of two ways; either they should be interpreted in some way or the other, or they should be rejected. I have seen the author of al Wafi mentioning this interpretation, after listing a few possible interpretations which affirm the blasphemous belief of alterations. He says:


أو يكون – أي العد والزائد عما في القرآن – مما نسخ تلاوته

Or the extra amount — which is not in the Qur’an — is from the portion which is abrogated as far as the recitation is concerned.[55]


However, the contemporary Shia scholar, al Khu’i[56] (who is their greatest Marja’), whilst acting as if he is defending the Qur’an, says that there is no difference between saying that there were alterations and saying that abrogation as far as recitation took place.[57] It is as if he wished to shut the door of interpretation and reject this established principle so that he may institute, in a very shrewd manner, a belief that he almost managed to keep hidden. The difference between alterations and abrogation is quite clear. Alterations are the acts of humans and Allah has condemned it, whilst Allah Himself abrogated verses. Allah says:


مَا نَنْسَخْ مِنْ اٰیَةٍ اَوْ نُنْسِهَا نَاْتِ بِخَیْرٍ مِّنْهَآ اَوْ مِثْلِهَا ؕ

We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth

better than it or similar to it.[58]


This does not, in any way, imply that the Book of Allah was interfered with. If the narration of al Kulayni suggests that almost two thirds of the Qur’an was disposed of, it leaves us with a little more than one third. Take into account the other narration reported by him:


نزل القرآن أثلاثاً، ثلث فينا وفي عدونا، وثلث سنن وأمثال، وثلث فرائض وأحكام

The Qur’an was revealed in thirds; one third regarding us and our enemies, one third regarding mannerisms and parables and one third regarding obligations and laws.[59]


So which third, according to them, has remained? Is it the one regarding mannerisms and parables or the one regarding obligations and laws? It cannot be the third relating to the Imams and their enemies as this sacrilegious sect firmly believes that it had been deleted:


لو قرئ القرآن كما أنزل لألفينا مسمين

If the Qur’an was read the way it was revealed, we would have found named (individuals).


This (the claim that the Imams’ names have been removed) is the actual motive, core and essence of all their attacks against the Book of Allah. This means that the ummah were totally lost all along the centuries. Since the demise of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, they only had one third of their book. The Imams (according to them) on the other hand, were the saviours of the ummah, as they had by them the entire Qur’an. However, they chose not to pass it on to the ummah and left them in their pitiable condition, where they could not differentiate between their friends and enemies.

They have been promised that it will resurface with the awaited Imam. Unfortunately, more than a thousand years have passed yet neither is the awaited one making his appearance, nor is any copy of the ‘original’ Qur’an available. If the ummah can be guided despite its absence, then what is the point of it being brought back by the awaited one? If it is the foundation of guidance for the ummah, then why are the Imams being barriers between it and the ummah?

Are they happy to leave the ummah in a state of destruction, misguidance and confusion (as asserted by the Shia)? Did Allah reveal His book so that it could remain imprisoned in the chamber of the ‘Awaited One’ and the ummah could have no real access to it? Is this really the case, even after Allah did not hand over the matter of preserving the Qur’an to any angel or His Nabi, but rather took it upon Himself to preserve and protect it?

Their narrations state (as quoted previously) that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was unable to bring out the original copy due to fear of it being interfered with. This, in essence, means that the ummah which was earmarked as the best ummah and selected for the guidance of the rest of humanity is itself lost, ill-fated and misguided. The only individuals from this entire ummah who are excluded from this pitiable state are the companions of the awaited one. The rest will remain isolated from the source of their guidance, prosperity and good-fortune.

All of this, despite the Imams being granted sources and means to pass on their message that was not even granted to the prophets. According to them, ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu possessed supernatural abilities, by means of which he could have circulated the complete Qur’an. Al Majlisi says under the chapter, “a comprehensive collection of his miracles”:


إن علياً مر برجل يخبط: هو هو، فقال: يا شاب، لو قرأت القرآن لكان خيراً لك. فقال: إني لا أحسنه ولوددت أن أحسن منه شيئاً. فقال: ادن مني، فدنا منه فتكلم بشيء خفي، فصور الله القرآن كله في قلبه فحفظه كله

‘Ali passed by a man who was blurting out, “he, he.” Thus, he advised him, “young man, if you recite the Qur’an, it will be better for you.” He replied, “I cannot (recite) properly, but I wish that I could read any portion of it properly.” Thereupon he (‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu) said, “come close to me.” He drew close to him whereupon he said something mysterious. Consequently, Allah created an imprint of the entire Qur’an in his heart and he memorised it in its entirety.[60]


Hence, ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu had the ability to convey the entire Qur’an in this ‘magical’ way to whomsoever he wished. Furthermore, he was able to adequately counter any opposition that could have come his way, as one of the chapter-headings of al Kafi states:


يعلم ما كان وما يكون ولا يخفي عليه الشيء

He knows what happened and what is to happen. Nothing is hidden from him.[61]


Similarly, it was impossible for him to be killed without his choice and happiness. The Imams, as proclaimed by the chapter-headings of al Kafi:


يعلم ما كان وما يكون ولا يخفي عليه الشيء

They know when they will die, and they do not die except by their own choice.[62]


If this was the degree of strength and control possessed by them, why did they then choose not to convey the Qur’an? According to a narration of theirs, Amir al Mu’minin said:


لو ثني لي الوسادة وعرف لي حقي لأخرجت لهم مصحفاً كتبته وأملاه علي رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم

If a cushion was laid out for me and my rights were recognised, I would have taken out for them a copy which was dictated to me by Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, and I wrote it out.[63]


Firstly, we pause at his statement:


لو ثني لي الوسادة

If a cushion was laid out for me.


This statement, according to al Majlisi, is a reference to being granted the presidential seat.[64] How is it that after he was made the khalifah, he failed to bring out this copy, even after he promised to do so? Did he break his promise, as asserted by the liar behind this fabrication?

The next portion of his statement is:


وعرف لي حقي

… and my rights were recognised.


How was it possible to recognise his rights when the source which explained this did not reach the masses?

The last portion of his statement, “… which was dictated to me by Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam,” contradicts the other tales fabricated by them in which it is stated, “compilation of the Qur’an was only completed after the demise of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.” The reality is that all the texts regarding this lie are the greatest insults against the Ahlul Bayt. None can match them in their accusations against the Ahlul Bayt. Thus, the statement of one of their Imams (as admitted in their books) is indeed undisputable. He said:


لقد أمسينا وما أحد أعدى لنا ممن ينتحل مودتنا

With the passage of time, we (found) that our greatest enemies are the ones who claim to be our lovers.[65]


The most amazing narration regarding this fabrication is the one which is referred to as “the satisfactory answer” of Amir al Mu’minin in the book al Ihtijaj (one of their reliable works) by their scholar, al Tabarsi – who belonged to the sixth century. Supposedly, this was part of an answer to a question posed by ‘one of the irreligious ones’. He said:


“… إن الكناية عن أسماء الجرائر العظيمة من المنافقين في القرآن ليست من فعله تعالى، وأنها من فعل المغيرين والمبدلين وليس يسوغ مع عموم التقية التصريح بأسماء المبدلين، ولا الزيادة في آياته على ما أثبتوه من تلقائهم في الكتاب لما في ذلك من تقوية حجج أهل التعطيل والكفر، والملل المنحرفة عن قبلتنا، وإبطال هذا العلم الظاهر الذي قد استكان له الموافق والمخالف بوقوع الاصطلاح على الائتمار لهم، والرضا بهم.. فلأن الصبر على ولاة الأمر مفروض لقول الله عز وجل لنبيه صلى الله عليه وسلم: { فَاصْبِرْ کَمَا صَبَرَ اُولُوا الْعَزْمِ مِنَ الرُّسُلِ } [الأحقاف، الآية: 35.].. فحسبك من الجواب عن هذا الموضوع ما سمعت، فإن شريعة التقية تحظر التصريح بأكثر منه.

وأما قوله: { كُلُّ شَیْءٍ هَالِكٌ اِلَّا وَجْهَه} [القصص، آية: 88.] فإنما نزلت كل شيء هالك إلا دينه لأن من المحال أن يهلك منه كل شيء ويبق الوجه، هو أجل وأعظم من ذلك، إنما يهلك من ليس منه، ألا ترى أنه قال: { كُلُّ مَنْ عَلَیْهَا فَانٍ ﴿2ۚ6﴾ وَّ یَبْقٰی وَجْهُ رَبِّكَ ذُوالْجَلٰلِ وَ الْاِكْرَام} [الرحمن، آية: 26، 27.]. ففصل بين خلقه ووجه.

وأما ظهورك على تناكر قوله: { وَ اِنْ خِفْتُمْ اَلَّا تُقْسِطُوْا فِی الْیَتٰمٰی فَانْکِحُوْا مَا طَابَ لَكُمْ مِّنَ النِّسَآء } [النساء، آية: 3.]، وليس يشبه القسط في اليتامى نكاح النساء، ولا كل النساء أيتام، فهو مما قدمت ذكره من إسقاط المنافقين من القرآن، وبين [كذا في الاحتجاج.] القول في اليتامى، وبين نكاح النساء من الخطاب والقصص أكثر من ثلث القرآن، وهذا وما أشبهه مما ظهرت حوادث المنافقين فيه لأهل النظر والتأمل، ووجد المعطلون وأهل الملل المخالفة للإسلام مساغاً إلى القدح في القرآن، ولو شرحت لك كل مما أسقط وحرّف وبدّل مما يجري هذا المجرى لطال، وظهر ما تحظر التقية إظهاره من مناقب الأولياء ومثالب الأعداء

The indirect reference to the names of the criminals responsible for the aghast crimes — from the hypocrites — is not the act of Allah, the Exalted. It is the act of those who distorted and altered (the Qur’an). It is inappropriate that along with the generality of Taqiyyah, the names of the distorters should be stated. Similarly, it is inappropriate to add on to the verses which they have established in the Book after their consultation. This is because doing so will strengthen the proofs of those who wish to annihilate (Islam), the disbelievers and the people who do not adhere to our Qiblah. It will also lead to the elimination of this outward knowledge, which has been accepted by those who agree as well as the opposition, as some kind of agreement has been reached as far as obeying them and being happy with them. Also, exercising patience with the rulers is obligatory, as Allah instructs His Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam:

So be patient, [O Muhammad], as were those of determination among the messengers.[66]


This much is enough to answer your question, as the religion of Taqiyyah prohibits that more than this should be stated.

As for His statement:


Everything will be destroyed except His Wajh (literally; face).[67]


The actual revelation was, “everything will be destroyed except His religion,” as it is impossible that the rest of Him is destroyed and His face remains. He is beyond and greater than that. Only that will be destroyed which is not part of Him. Do you not see that He says:


Everyone upon it [i.e., the earth] will perish. And there will remain the Wajh of your Rabb, Owner of Majesty and Honour.[68]


Thus, he differentiated between His creation and His face. As for you expressing your suspicions regarding the verse:


And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphan girls, then marry those that please you of [other] women…[69]


(You object) that justice with the orphan is not tantamount to marrying women, and not all women are orphans. This is from that which I have already mentioned, i.e. the portions which were deleted from the Qur’an by the hypocrites. More than one third of the Qur’an was dedicated to speech and narratives regarding orphans and marrying women.[70] This, and others similar to it are among the things which expose — for those who contemplate and ponder — the role of the hypocrites regarding it.

Also those who wish to annihilate (Islam) and those who follow religions other than Islam have found a pathway for criticism of the Qur’an. If I were to explain to you all that had been deleted, altered and changed in this manner, it will become too lengthy. Also, it will bring to the fore that which Taqiyyah prohibits from being publicised, from the merits of the pious ones and the crimes of the enemies.[71]


Despite the length of the above quotation, it is only a portion of the supposed lengthy conversation that the author of al Ihtijaj claims took place between Amir al Mu’minin ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and one of the irreligious ones, in which ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu debated him and attempted to guide him to the truth. Can there be anyone who is more irreligious than the one who utters such absurdities regarding the Book of Allah and the Sahabah of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam? We cannot fathom any enemy plotting in a manner worse than this! Musa Jar Allah says:


Do the worst enemies find a pathway which is more destructive to the Qur’an and the religion (if it had any weight to it) than this statement which the scholars of the Shia have attributed to Amir al Mu’minin ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu?[72]


Take note of the pitch-black hatred contained in this narration against the best generation known to humanity, the Sahabah of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. This is to the extent that it refers to them as “the criminals responsible for the aghast crimes, from the hypocrites”. All of this was on account of the jealousy which devoured the hearts of these bigots and the hatred that left no space for anything else in their souls against this unique generation who were personifications of the Qur’an. These chauvinists could not find anything in the Qur’an to pacify their emotions, thus they claimed, “the Qur’an was filled with the names of the hypocrites (i.e. the Sahabah of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam — according to them). However they were deleted by the distorters.” Their narrations of this nature are many in number.

Thereafter, the above-quoted narration goes on to state that in is inappropriate to state the names of the distorters due to the belief of Taqiyyah. Paradoxically (but not surprisingly) the same book contains another narration in which it is stated that the ones who altered the Qur’an (according to their belief) were Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and Zaid ibn Thabit radiya Llahu ‘anhum.[73] Al Nuri al Tabarsi adds on to the list:


والذين باشروا هذا الأمر الجسيم هم أصحاب الصحيفة أبو بكر وعمر وعثمان أبو عبيدة وسعد بن أبي وقاص وعبد الرحمن بن عوف، واستعانوا بزيد بن ثابت

The ones who carried out this grave crime were the people of the scroll; Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, Abu ‘Ubaidah, Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas and ‘Abdur Rahman ibn ‘Awf. They sought assistance from Zaid ibn Thabit.[74]


These were the individuals who were at the forefront of Islamic conquests and they were the vanguard of the first Muslim contingent, who engineered an unparalleled civilization. Consequently, they became a sore-sight for the eyes of these bigots and a bone in their throats. This was precisely the reason behind the specific attack, lies and accusations against this generation by these disgruntled vagabonds.

The concocted narration asserts that it is impermissible, as per the demands of Taqiyyah, to add on to the verses of the noble Qur’an. Does this mean that it was only on account of their fear that they held back their forged copy of the Qur’an? Does it imply that, had they nothing to fear, they would have produced a false copy of the Qur’an? Is it possible that as long as there is some reason to fear, they will keep this copy a secret among themselves, and as soon as they are relieved of this fear, they will publicise this copy?

The author of Fasl al Khitab presents from the books of his scholars a thousand of what he refers to as ‘proofs’ in which it is alleged that verses of the Qur’an were deleted. He also proves that most of the books of the Shia confirm this. In doing so, he has undoubtedly exposed the greatest and most shameless crime of the Shia. The question remains; have they done away with Taqiyyah even though their texts state that Taqiyyah will remain with them until the emergence of their Mahdi[75], or has he disobeyed the instruction of his Imam, and opposed the methodology of his people? Indeed, these are conjectures which annul one another. Soon, we will present some research regarding the question of whether or not the Shia have their own copy of the Qur’an.

The narration of al Ihtijaj goes on to claim that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, during the course of his debate with the irreligious individual says that, on account of the demands of Taqiyyah, he is not allowed to state more than he already stated, as this would strengthen the proofs of those who wish to annihilate Islam. This means that Taqiyyah is discarded when speaking to an irreligious one and open kufr is uttered. As for conversations with the believers, in that case it remains obligatory.

Does this sect wish to count Amir al Mu’minin among the group of this irreligious one who practices Taqiyyah before the Sahabah of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, but states his beliefs regarding the Book of Allah in a clear manner when speaking to the irreligious and ungodly ones? After this clear kufr, he says that adding on to this would strengthen the proofs of those who wish to annihilate. If this is a reference to the noble Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum and their followers, then it undoubtedly reveals the bigotry of this sect. On the other hand, if this is a reference to anyone other than them, then how would adding on to what was already mentioned lead to disbelief regarding the Book of Allah?

These vagabonds claim that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu explained to the irreligious one that he was not allowed to openly claim this and explain it, as it was “obligatory to exercise patience regarding the rulers.” Shia doctrine centres on the belief of negating the rule of anyone besides their twelve Imams. However, this text establishes that there were rulers besides them, whose obedience was compulsory! This demolishes the very foundation of their religion, and highlights to us that lies and concoctions will always be self-contradictory.

Among the greatest accusations against Amir al Mu’minin ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu is that he disobeyed Allah, preferring to obey others, considering this to be his responsibility! It is a well-known principle in Islam that there shall be no obedience to any of the creation, if it necessitates disobedience of Allah.


وَ اِنْ جَاهَدٰكَ عَلٰی اَنْ تُشْرِكَ بِیْ مَا لَیْسَ لَكَ بِهٖ عِلْمٌۙ فَلَا تُطِعْهُمَا

But if they endeavour to make you associate with Me that of which you have no knowledge, do not obey them.[76]


They claim that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu obeyed them and towed their line regarding the interpolations that took place in the Qur’an on account of the law of the religion of Taqiyyah. This is severe defamation of the character of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu as well as a claim that he was a disbeliever. Thus, they have attacked him, even before they could attack any of the other companions of Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. From this we learn that these people are the enemies of the Ahlul Bayt and their grudges against them are stronger than their grudges and enmity against the rest of the Muslims.

Look at how he tries to prove that it is incumbent to obey the ruler with regards to kufr from the verse of Allah:


فَاصْبِرْ کَمَا صَبَرَ اُولُوا الْعَزْمِ مِنَ الرُّسُلِ

So be patient, [O Muhammad], as were those of determination among the messengers.[77]


This is a clear sign that the one behind this fabrication was a complete ignoramus. This is because the purport of this verse is the exact opposite of that which he calls towards. Attributing this ‘interpretation’ to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu is an insult to him and a claim that he was an ignoramus. We also understand that this individual was either a non-Arab, who had no understanding of the Arabic language, or he was an irreligious person who played ignorant. This is established from his statement:


Everything will be destroyed except His Wajh (literally; face).[78]

The actual revelation was, “everything will be destroyed except His religion”, as it is impossible that the rest of Him is destroyed and His face remains.[79]


The author of al Ihtijaj the goes on to claim that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu said to this irreligious one that more than a third of the Qur’an was deleted from Surah al Nisa’, and if he was to go into the details of that which was deleted and distorted in this manner, the conversation would become lengthy and that would come to the fore, which the religion of Taqiyyah prohibited from exposing.

Undoubtedly, this is among the greatest accusations against Amir al Mu’minin ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, as he did not reveal to the Muslims, during his rule, this ‘deleted’ portion of the Qur’an. He did not instruct anyone to add it back to the Qur’an, follow its guidelines or practice upon its commands. Thus, these people, who howl slogans of support and love for the Ahlul Bayt have been exposed, by means of these fabrications, to be their worst enemies. They even surpass, in their enmity for them, the Nawasib as they attribute to Amir al Mu’minin ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu the crime of being pleased with kufr and accepting it.

Whenever, they are unable to prove a matter, they resort to their beloved practice of Taqiyyah. Here also, we see that since he is unable to explain “that which was deleted and distorted,” he hid away behind the veil of Taqiyyah. Taqiyyah has by now, been exposed to be a childish trick and an emergency exit from any confrontation. There were others, who were foolish enough to have an attempt at presenting an ‘example’ or two of verses which were deleted. However, they were badly exposed and their ploy was total failure. This was on account of the fact that these ‘examples’, when compared to the verses of the Qur’an, were closer to the jokes and nonsensical speech of children than anything else. How could it be possible for them to come close to matching the glorious Qur’an?

As long as the constitution of the religion of these people refers to those who uttered these profane statements regarding the Book of Allah as irreligious, as stated in the above quoted narration, should we believe the report that the orientalist Brian has in his possession an Iranian copy of the Qur’an, which has additions to that which was revealed by Allah? Apparently, it contains a surah by the name of “al Wilayah”.[80] This would mean that this sect has ‘secret copies’ which they keep among themselves.


NEXT⇒ Do the Shia Circulate Among Themselves Secret Copies?

[1] Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais pg. 81

[2]Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais pg. 81. Take note that in this narration ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not offer any other explanation regarding the delay of his pledge to Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu, except his pre-occupation with the compilation of the Qur’an. It is as if the one who fabricated this tale momentarily forgot their very basis, i.e. Imamah and that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not pledge his allegiance due to him believing that he was the appointed Wasi (as they claim). This is an oft-repeated mistake that occurs in many of the matter which they wish to establish. They keep establishing one belief using a concoction in which they unintentionally destroy another of their beliefs. This is not surprising, as it is the outcome and outstanding trait of lies; they keep contradicting one another irreconcilably. Allah says:

وَلَوْ کَانَ مِنْ عِنْدِ غَیْرِ اللهِ لَوَجَدُوْا فِیْهِ اخْتِلَافًا کَثِیْرًا

If it had been from [any] other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction. (Surah al Nisa: 82)

This verse proves that if anything is falsely claimed to be from Allah, it will most definitely contain irreconcilable contradictions.

[3]Fath al Bari 9/12-13. Refer to Kitab al Masahif of Abu Dawood as well, pg. 16

[4]Fath al Bari 9/12

[5]Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais pg. 81

[6]  Reported by Muslim in Kitab al Zuhd, number 72, pg. 2298-2299, Al Darimi (his introduction) number 42, pg. 119, Ahmed in his Musnad 3/12, 21, 39. The scholars explain that the prohibition of writing the hadith alongside the Qur’an was so that one is not mixed with the other. Al Nawawi: Sharh Sahih Muslim 18/130, al Ubbi: Ikmal Ikmal al Mu’lim 7/305

[7]  Ibn Abi Dawood: Kitab al Masahif pg. 60

[8]Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais pg. 82

[9]Al Ihtijaj pg. 156

[10] Al Ihtijaj pg. 156 (al A’lami print)

[11]Al Ihtijaj pg. 89-90 (al A’lami print)

[12]Al Ihtijaj 1/225-228 printed in Najaf or pg. 155-156 of the A’lami print.

[13]  We have already quoted this text before.

[14] Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais pg. 124

[15]Al Burhan (forward pg. 37), Bihar al Anwar 19/30, Tafsir al Safi 1/41

[16] Tafsir al ‘Ayyashi 1/13, Bihar al Anwar 92/55, Tafsir al Safi 1/41, al Lawami’ al Nuraniyyah pg. 547

[17]  Surah al Baqarah: 90

[18]Usul al Kafi 1/417

[19]  Surah al Baqarah: 23

[20]Usul al Kafi 1/417

[21]  Ibid

[22]  The first portion of the verse, “O you who were given the Scripture, believe in what We have sent down, confirming that which is with you,” was taken from verse 44 of Surah al Nisa’. The words, “a clear light,” were taken from another verse of the same Surah, i.e.

ٰ یٰاَیُّهَا النَّاسُ قَدْ جَآءَكُمْ بُرْهَانٌ مِّنْ رَّبِّكُمْ وَاَنْزَلْنَآ اِلَیْكُمْ نُوْرًا مُّبِیْنًا

O mankind, there has come to you a conclusive proof from your Rabb, and We have sent down to you a clear light. (Surah al Nisa’: 174)

[23]  Surah al Nisa’: 166

[24]  Surah al Ma’idah: 67

[25]  Surah al Nisa’, the added words (regarding ‘Ali) were taken from Tafsir al Qummi 1/159.

[26]  Note how far these people are from the Book of Allah, both physically as well spiritually. They even commit errors in their quotations from the Qur’an (intentionally or unintentionally) and thereafter they falsely attribute this to the Ahlul Bayt. Observe how they have foolishly and ignorantly joined a portion of the verse, “and those who have wronged are going to know to what [kind of] return they will be returned” (Surah al Shu’ara: 227), to the verse, “and if you could but see when the wrongdoers are in the overwhelming pangs of death.” (Surah al An’am 93). Thus they invented a new verse; “And those who have wronged are going to know in the overwhelming pangs of death.” There is no doubt that seeing the wrongdoers suffering the “overwhelming pangs of death” and the pain at that moment serves a much greater lesson, and it is a far more profound warning compared to the statement of the Shia, “they are going to know in the overwhelming pangs of death,” as someone could say that they are overcome by pain and as a result they have no understanding or idea of anything. We will not deliberate further, as this type of drivel deserves none of our attention.

[27] Tafsir al Qummi 1/10-11

[28]  As examples, refer to vol. 1 pg. 48, 100, 110, 122, 142, 159, 118, 123, 125, etc.

[29]Tafsir al Qummi 1/48

[30]  Surah Al ‘Imran: 110

[31]Tafsir al Qummi 1/110

[32]  Surah al Shura: 13

[33]Usul al Kafi 1/418

[34]  Ibid 1/421

[35]  Surah al Fussilat: 27

[36]Al Kafi 1/421

[37]  Refer to Fasl al Khitab pg. 253.

[38]Bihar al Anwar 92/60.

[39]Fasl al Khitab pg. 253

[40]Usul al Kafi Kitab Fada’il al Qur’an Bab al Nawadir 2/134

[41]  As examples, refer to Muhammad Jawad Mughniyah: al ‘Amal bi l-Hadith ‘Ind al Imamiyyah which appears in the book Da’wat al Taqrib pg. 383, Muhsin al Amin: al Shia Bayn al Haqa’iq wa l-Awham pg. 419-420

[42]  This will be thoroughly explained under the chapter, “their beliefs regarding the Sunnah”.

[43]  Al Sha’rani: Muqaddimat Sharh Jami

[44] Mir’at al ‘Uqul 2/536

[45]  Refer to Mir’at al ‘Uqul, Muhammad Jawad Mughniyah: al ‘Amal bi l-Hadith wa Shurutuh ‘Ind al Imamiyyah which appears in the book Da’wat al Taqrib pg. 383

[46]Al Shafi Sharh Usul al Kafi 7/227

[47]  Refer to al Bahbudi: Sahih al Kafi, Kitab Fadl al Qur’an Bab al Nawadir 1/156-157

[48]  Muhammad Jawad Mughniyah: al ‘Amal bi l-Hadith wa Shurutuh ‘Ind al Imamiyyah which appears in the book Da’wat al Taqrib pg. 384

[49]Bihar al Anwar 2/214

[50]  I could not find this number in any of the places (in which I looked) where the number of the verses of the Qur’an is mentioned. Refer to Tafsir al Qurtubi 1/64-65, Al Itqan 1/89, al Feyrozabadi: Basa’ir Dhawi al Tamyiz 1/559-560.

[51]Sharh Jami(li al Kafi) 11/76)

[52]Mir’at al ‘Uqul 2/536

[53]Al Dhari’ah 13/101

[54] al I’tiqadat pg. 102

[55]  Al Kashani: al Wafi vol. 2 1/274

[56]  Abu al Qasim al Musawi al Khu’i (who they have granted the titles, “al Imam al Akbar”, “al Ayat al ‘Uzma” and “Za’im al Howzat al ‘Ilmiyyah”): Currently, he lives in Iraq. Among his writings are Mu’jam Rijal al Hadith and al Bayan fi Tafsir al Qur’an.

[57]  Al Khu’i: al Bayan pg. 210

[58]  Surah al Baqarah: 106

[59]Usul al Kafi 2/627

[60]Bihar al Anwar 42/17

[61]Usul al Kafi 1/260

[62]Usul al Kafi 1/258

[63]Bihar al Anwar 92/52

[64]  Ibid 92/52

[65]Rijal al Kashshi pg. 307

[66]  Surah al Ahqaf: 35

[67]  Surah al Qasas: 88

[68]  Surah al Rahman: 26

[69]  Surah al Nisa: 3

[70]  As stated in al Ihtijaj

[71] Al Ihtijaj: pg. 249-254

[72]Al Washia pg. 123

[73]  Refer to al Ihtijaj pg. 156

[74]Fasl al Khitab pg. 73

[75]  Refer to the chapter regarding Taqiyyah in this book.

[76]  Surah Luqman: 15

[77]  Surah al Ahqaf: 35

[78]  Surah al Qasas: 88

[79]  Al Khutut al ‘Aridah pg. 6

[80]Al Khutut al ‘Aridah pg. 11

Back to top