A group of their scholars have taken the route of completely denying its existence in their books. One such scholar is ‘Abdul Hussain al Amini al Najafi, in his refutation of Ibn Hazm who attributes this preposterous belief to the Shia he says the following in his book al Ghadir:
ليت هذا المجترئ أشار إلي مصدر فريته من كتاب للشيعة موثوق به، أو حكاية عن عالم من علمائهم تقيم له الجامعة وزنا، بل نتنازل معه إلي قول جاهل من جهالهم أو قروي من بسطائهم أو ثرثار، كمثل هذا الرجل يرمي القول علي عواهنه. وهذه فرق الشيعة وفي مقدمتهم الإمامية مجمعة علي أن ما بين الدفتين هو ذلك الكتاب لا ريب فيه
If only this brash person pointed to a reliable source from the books of the Shia, or at least quoted a scholar who is held in great esteem by the Shia clergy. If not that then he should have referred to an ignorant person from amongst their ignoramuses, or even a Bedouin or a chatterbox from their simple people, as is the condition of this person who without restraint lodges accusations. Here are all the sects of the Shia at the forefront of who is the Imamiyyah, and they all unanimously agree that whatever is between the two covers is that book wherein there is no doubt.
Likewise ‘Abdul Hussain Sharaf al Din al Musawi:
نسب إلي الشيعة القول بالتحريف بإسقاط كلمات وآيات فأقول نعوذ بالله من هذا القول ونبرأ إلي الله من هذا الجهل. وكل من نسب هذا الرأي إلينا جاهل بمذهبنا أو مفتر علينا، فإن القرآن الحكيم متواتر من طرقنا بجميع آياته وكلماته
It has been attributed to the Shia that they aver that interpolation has occurred by way of the omission of few words and verses. I say, “We seek the refuge of Allah from such a view and we express our disassociation before Allah from such ignorance. Whoever has attributed this to us is ignorant of our creed and is an accuser, for the wise Qur’an is widely transmitted through our transmissions with all its verses and words.”
Lutf Allah al Safi has likewise denied the fact that the book Fasl al Khitab was written to establish this preposterous belief and avers that it was rather written to debunk it. Just as there are others who have tried to defend al Kulayni, who is one of the spearheads of this belief.
Denying that which is already there does not help the apologetics, and will be construed as Taqiyyah according to the Shia and those of the Ahlus Sunnah who are aware of what appears in their books. Hence the issue at hand today is much graver than can be simply brushed aside. For the publishing houses of Najaf and Tehran have disgraced them and have divulged their secrets. And their scholar al Tabarsi has disclosed that which was hidden in what he has put together in his book Fasl al Khitab. This type of an approach is thus of no avail.
Unsurprisingly, this is the approach that they go by in everything that distinguishes them from the Muslims, as has been alluded to by their scholar al Tusi in his book al Istibsar in more than one place. He mentions that whatever is the locus of consensus among the Ahlus Sunnah is fertile grounds for practicing Taqiyyah. It is based on this principle that they have rejected all those narrations which are in harmony with the Muslim majority and which reflect the true creed of the Ahlul Bayt, and have ever since lived with Muslims deceitfully agreeing with them overtly and opposing them covertly. However, it wasn’t long before this Taqiyyah was exposed in contemporary times, for their books have become accessible to many.
So, for example, the Najafi scholar, who in his refutation of Ibn Hazm, demanded that he, Ibn Hazm, establish his claim by referring to any reputable Shia scholar, do you think that he was unaware of what appears in al Kafi and Bihar al Anwar and that which their scholars have written regarding this blasphemous belief, mention of aspects whereof has passed? And was he really thinking that anyone who has access to any of their books wherein it features would be easily misled?
What is more surprising is that although he himself has refuted the existence of this belief in the third volume of his book, he has gone on to establish it explicitly in the ninth volume. Hence he says, amidst his discussion regarding the allegiance that the Muhajirin and the Ansar pledged to Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu which had united the Ummah and deflated the plots of the enemies:
بيعة عمت شؤمها الإسلام وزرعت في قلوب أهلها الآثام… وحرفت القرآن وبدلت الأحكام
It was a pledge the bad-omen whereof engulfed Islam and planted sins in the hearts of its adherents. By virtue of it the Qur’an was interpolated and the injunctions were distorted.
Rather he has even cited a forged verse in this very book. In this way does he go about affirming what he was previously negating. This particular approach, i.e. affirming at times and denying at times, or making a presence before people with contradictory opinions and non-conforming texts is a normal approach which we find in their traditions and in the statements of their scholars. And the reason for this approach is mentioned in some of their reports, which is taking advantage of the ignorance of the Ahlus Sunnah with regards to the reality of their dogma owing to which they will have no room to target them in any way.
As for the style of ‘Abdul Hussain in rebutting this blasphemous belief, it entails such cunningness and prevarication as cannot be picked up by someone who is not aware of their strategies and plots. Reflect over his statement, “For the wise Qur’an is widely transmitted through our transmissions with all its verses and words.” What does he mean by the Qur’an being transmitted by way of mass transmission through their chains? Does he mean the Qur’an which is in front of us or the Qur’an which is with the awaited Mahdi, as they allege.
The specification that it is widely transmitted through their chains subtly suggests the second meaning. This is because one of the crucial reasons for the preservation of the Qur’an was the importance and attention accorded to it by the two giants of Islam, Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma, whose efforts were subsequently culminated with the efforts of their brother ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan radiya Llahu ‘anhu who compiled it and unified its script, as a manifestation of the promise of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala:
إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُوْنَ
Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur’an and indeed, We will be its guardian.
And the belief of the Shia regarding the first three Khulafa’ is known, so the Qur’an then is not actually widely transmitted through them.
As to the foolish attempt of Lutf Allah al Safi and Agha Buzruk al Tahrani to conceal the greatest indictment upon the Twelver dogma which cannot be denied, i.e. the book Fasl al Khitab, it is an attempt in vein. Especially when it has now left the Shia circles and has reached the hands of the Ahlus Sunnah, it has rather reached the hands of the enemies of the Muslims who can learn how to plot against the Ummah and its traditional legacy.
In addition, the author thereof has explicitly mentioned his goals in his introduction and has tried to advance evidence to prove his point. Is it then still possible to conceal his position when he has gathered all their fallacious reports and the views of their scholars which were scattered in this regard?
 Al Ghadir: 3/94-95. Similar is asserted by their scholar Lutf Allah al Safi in his book Ma’ al Khatib fi Khututihi al ‘Aridah p. 71.
 Ajwibah Masa’il Jar Allah p. 28-29.
 Book Ma’ al Khatib fi Khututihi al ‘Aridah p. 64-66.
 The author of ‘Aqidah al Shia says the following:
النقص لا يدعيه أحد من علماء الإمامية حتي ثقة الإسلام الإمام الكليني رضي الله عنه، فإنه يعتقد بنزاهة القرآن وصيانته عن النقص والزيادة، ومع ذلك فقد تهجم الشيخ أبو زهرة وتحامل عليه وأكثر من الطعن فيه.
None of the scholars of the Shia, including al Kulayni claim that omission occurred in the Qur’an! For he (al Kulayni) believed that the Qur’an is pure from omissions and additions. But despite that Abu Zuhrah has brazenly lampooned him and has excessively criticised him. (‘Aqidah al Shia p. 162).
He also says:
إن الكليني لا يقول بنقص القرآن، فكيف يجوز لمسلم أن ينسب إليه هذا القول، وكيف جاز للشيخ أبو زهرة أن ينسبه إليه دون تورع، وكيف جاز له أن يهاجمه بتلك المهاجمة القاسية.
Al Kulayni was not of the opinion of omission taking place in the Qur’an. How is it then possible for a Muslim to attribute that to him? And how is it then permissible for Sheikh Abu Zuhrah to attribute that to him without caution? How is it ok for him to attack him so ferociously?”
In refutation thereof I say that this was initially attributed to him by the scholars of the Shia themselves. And his book al Kafi is a testimony to this and it is an indictment upon him and upon the Shia till the end of time. Had a copy of al Kafi reached the scholars of Islam their ruling regarding the Twelvers would have been very different than what it is. Abu Zuhrah relied upon the attribution of al Kashani who has attributed this belief to him in his Tafsir al Safi (Tafsir al Safi 1: 52: introduction no. 6). And al Kashani is one of the central scholars of the Twelver dogma, for he is the author of al Wafi which combines all four of their early canonical works and is considered one of the reliable books of the dogma according to them.
Similar has been attributed to him by Nuri the last prominent cleric and hadith scholar in his book Fasl al Khitab (see: Fasl al Khitab p. 30-31) and others, as has passed already.
So do these people think that this is unknown to the Ahlus Sunnah? And how do they defend the position of al Kulayni who has blurted such disbelief and satirised the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum with whom Allah was pleased and who were pleased with him.
 Al Istibsar 4/155.
 Al Ghadir 9/388.
 The fabricated verse reads as follows:
اليوم أكملت لكم دينكم بإمامته فمن لم يأتم به وممن كان من ولدي من صلبه إلي يوم القيامة فأولئك حبطت أعمالهم وفي النار هم خالدون. إن إبليس أخرج آدم عليه السلام من الجنة مع كونه صفوة الله بالحسد فلا تحسدوا فتحبط أعمالكم وتزل أقدامكم
Today I have completed your Din for you with his Imamah. Hence whoever does not follow him and those who of his children from my progeny till the Day of Judgment, their deeds are indeed rendered invalid and they will remain forever in hell-fire. Verily Shaitan removed Adam ‘alayh al Salam from Jannat despite him being the chosen servant of Allah because of jealousy. Therefore do not be jealous or else your deeds will be rendered invalid and your feet will stagger. (Ibid. 1/214-215).
The fabricated nature of the verse is obvious from its otherwise poor language and meaning. Despite that this Rafidi claims that Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said that it was revealed regarding ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. And in an attempt to mislead the readers he attributes this lie to the Sunni Muhammad ibn Jarir al Tabari, whereas in actual fact it ought to be attributed to the Shia Muhammad ibn Jarir al Tabari, provided that the attribution exists. He has thus lied against Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala, His Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, and the scholars of the Muslims.
 Usul al Kafi 1/65; Bihar al Anwar 2/236.
 Surah al Hijr: 9.
 A Shia scholar by the name Muhammad Mahdi al Asfahani has made mention of this in his book Ahsan al Wadi’ah p. 90.Back to top