The Fractious Schizophrenia (Discussing the reality of the crisis between the Shia scholars and the Quran)

Preface:
The purpose of this brief study is to show the ‘Aqaed(beliefs) the Twelver Shia sect has concerning the holy book of Allah, and how their ‘Aqeedah(belief) pushes them away from this book and alienates them from it.

There is a crisis between the Shia scholars and the book of Allah, a crisis they will not admit to having in any debate or interview because the only thing they care about is to win and look as best as they can in the eyes of the people. this study shall uncover this crisis by exposing the root of the problem, a set of corrupt beliefs that the Shia scholars hold on to as part of their ‘Aqeedah (Which they attribute to Ahlul-Bayt).

Before I begin, I need to clarify that the purpose of this article is only to uncover the truth and that I do not doubt that the average Shia layman believes in everything that is found within the book of Allah and glorifies it as opposed to those wearing the black turbans. Although the time an average Shia layman spends with the book of Allah is much less than that spent by the average Muslim from Ahlul-Sunnah, this is because their scholars keep them occupied with Nauhas and Maatam and weeping for al-Hussein (ra) and reading Ziyarat and doing Latmiyat instead of reciting the book of Allah. This is an honest cry to warn the average Shia laymen from the dangers of the beliefs that their scholars hold on to, beliefs that led them away from the book of Allah and made them estranged from it, poisonous beliefs that must not creep into the hearts of the average Shia laymen.

Introduction:

The one who is familiar with the beliefs of the Shia scholars towards the Quran, based on their narrations and the declarations of their scholars and teachers, will see that there is psychological barrier between them and the book of Allah, and that they have greatly distanced themselves from it. This is natural and inevitable, it is caused by the beliefs they have chosen to carry, and although they are divided into two teams when it comes to the preservation and protection of this book from Tahreef(corruption), yet this crisis towards the Quran affects both teams.

You see the first team declaring a negative position towards the Quran, claiming that the evil hands have reached it and corrupted it, they claim that many of its verses were deleted and some changed. This team has saved us the time since they themselves declared that the book of Allah is not binding upon them and they rejected it completely, placing a thick solid wall between themselves and the Quran, so it is no secret that they suffer from this crisis.

As for the second team, it is they who have declared that the book is preserved and protected from additions or deletions, this is a positive position that leads the researcher to believe for a second that they are not affected by the crisis. Unfortunately, after reading this brief research one will see that the symptoms of this disease are deeply rooted into the belief system of this second team and it’s incumbent upon me to mention the origins of the problem and to clarify why it was unavoidable.

Chapter 1: Unveiling the disease causing the crisis towards the Quran.

The observer will realize quickly that the root of the disease in the Shia ‘Aqeedah is their belief in Imamah (divine appointment of Ahlul-Bayt as rulers) which in turn leads them to believe in the treachery of the companions of the Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) in general and the first three rightly guided Caliphs in specific (Abu Bakr, ‘Umar & ‘Uthman may Allah be pleased with them) because they usurped the right of rulership that Allah had supposedly bestowed on the twelve Imams from the progeny of the Prophet (SAWS).

Based on this, the image of the companions in the eyes of those who have been breast fed Shia ‘Aqeedah is a dark and ugly image, because they believe that the companions betrayed that which Allah had entrusted them with and did not offer the position of divine leadership to ‘Ali (ra) and his children but instead they oppressed them, tortured them, murdered them and forced them to give a pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr (ra).

The ones who have absorbed a great quantity of this Shia belief will most probably reach a stage where they cannot even imagine that the companions are capable of doing anything positive in Islam. This is why you often see the Shia scholars doing their best to turn the smallest positive virtue or any good deed done by a companion into a crime and a negative act even if the opposite is clear.

I shall mention some examples below:

1- The virtue of the emigration of Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq (ra) with the Prophet (SAWS):

It is a virtue that has been preserved by Allah in his eternal book when he said: {If you do not aid the Prophet – Allah has already aided him when those who disbelieved had driven him out [of Makkah] as one of two, when they were in the cave and he said to his companion, “Do not grieve; indeed Allah is with us.” And Allah sent down his tranquility upon him and supported him with angels you did not see and made the word of those who disbelieved the lowest, while the word of Allah – that is the highest. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.} [Quran 9:40]

The Shia scholars would put all their effort into turning this great virtue into a horrible crime, the Shia scholar and leader of their sect al-Tusi said in his book of Tafseer “al-Tibyan al-Jami’I li-‘Uloum al-Quran” while commenting on the saying of Allah “He said to his companion: do not grieve”:

“If this is not disparagement then it has no virtue in it, it is just a prohibition from being fearful”

Meaning that these words vilify Abu Bakr (ra) or at least cannot be counted as a virtue. He continued when commenting on the saying of Allah “Indeed Allah is with us”:

“What is meant here is only the Prophet (SAWS), but even if Abu Bakr was also included then this is still not a virtue, it may be a threat to him, like the one who says to a man whom he sees doing an evil act: Don’t do it! Allah is with us! meaning Allah is watching over our actions.”

2- The honor bestowed upon Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq (ra) when the Prophet (SAWS) chose him to accompany him in the “‘Arish” or the tower of command during battle:

Shia scholar Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr would transform this from virtue to criticism in his book “Fadak fi al-Tareekh” page 128:

“I have no reasonable explanation for this other than him attempting to stand beside the Prophet (SAWS) to earn a position that is naturally the furthest point away from the battle-field and from danger (…) We know from the methods of al-Siddeeq that he loved being beside the Prophet (SAWS) in wars because his position is the most protected where all the Islamic forces are concentrated to guard and defend him.”

He also said on page 125:

“A certain person (meaning Abu Bakr) who found it enough during the holy Jihad to stand in the last lines -al-‘Arish-“
We say in response to al-Sadr: And if we ignore the fact that Abu Bakr (ra) remained there by orders of the Prophet (SAWS), I ask those whose eyes have been blinded by the darkness of hatred: When he had accompanied the Prophet (SAWS) in the cave and the Kouffar were searching for them to kill them as they stood right above their heads, was this the “furthest point possible from battle”?

{May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?} [Quran 9:30]

Based on the above and based on the fact that they do not tolerate any virtue for the companions, let us discover what their position was regarding the biggest of all virtues achieved by the rightly guided Caliphs, the virtue of collecting the Quran we have in our hands today after the death of the prophet (SAWS), we need to discover their views regarding the book that was collected by the men whom they accused of the most hideous crimes and described with the worst of descriptions, the men whom they labeled as being traitors and betrayers of the divine command of God.

The Shia scholars will be faced with two choices here, the first choice:

To admit that they collected the Quran in a matter that pleases Allah and his Prophet (SAWS), and thus accept this as a great historical virtue and that the entire nation would be thankful to them until the day of judgment for preserving and protecting the holy Quran. This is something that their hateful and vile souls shall never accept, because of all the loathing and hatred they absorbed as a result of their belief in Imamah. Believing in such a virtue for them is worse than being struck with swords and stabbed with knives.

An example of this, is that when one of their scholars wanted to defend the position that says that the Quran is Muharraf (corrupted), he stated that believing otherwise means that we think well of the Caliphs and have a good opinion of them, this directly opposes the base of their religion and their principals that state that the Caliphs were evil usurpers that betrayed the divine orders of God (Imamah). Shia scholar al-Muhaqqiq Yusuf al-Bahrani wrote in his book “al-Durar al-Najafiyah” 4/83:

“I swear, that in saying: “there is no corruption and change”, this is considered nothing more than thinking Well of the evil leaders, and that they did not betray the biggest and most important of things entrusted to us (Qur’an), although it is apparent to all that they betrayed the other important thing entrusted to us (Imamah) and the latter is more harmful to the religion.”

You can see above that the Shia scholar thinks that by betraying Imamah which he described as being more harmful to the religion, one must not be so naïve as to think that they wouldn’t change and corrupt the Quran.

The second choice:

To stick to their principals and turn this great virtue into a lowly despicable act by stating that the companions never collected the Quran properly in the manner that Allah had intended for it to be collected, and that they did this only to hide the truth that was revealed by the Prophet (SAWS) and to misguide the people.

What is evident to all those who have experience and are well informed about the ways of the Shia scholars, is that they will go for the second choice and this is why they started casting doubts on the book of Allah claiming that the way it was collected was wrong and that this wasn’t the collection that pleases Allah and his Prophet (SAWS). They did this in two methods.

The first method:

That the rightly guided Caliphs when collecting the Quran have corrupted it by deleting many verses that show the virtues of Ahlul-Bayt and their divine right of Imamah. This is the method of casting doubt on the entire Quran and it was adopted by the Shia scholars who clearly declared the corruption of the Quran in form of deletion such as al-Qummi, al-‘Ayyashi, al-Majlisi, Ni’imatullah al-Jazaeri, al-Noori al-Tabrasi and many others.

The second method:

That the rightly guided Caliphs when collecting the Quran did not corrupt it by deleting verses, instead they corrupted it by changing the order of verses and chapters and the way it is recited and deleting the explanation of the Prophet SAWS and the interpretation of the verses or words and the reasons for revelation. This method of casting doubt on the book of Allah was adopted by the Shia scholars that deny Tahreef in the form of deletion and addition and they are the subject of our research in this article.

Chapter 2: Displaying some of the beliefs of their scholars who deny Tahreef openly but push people away from the Quran.

We saw previously that this team of Shia scholars disagrees with the other team on the corruption of the Quran in form of addition or deletion but they agree with them on casting doubts on it and pushing people away from it because it was collected by the Caliphs. They would start casting doubts using hidden twisted ways so as to plant these doubts in the minds of all those who read their books thus alienating the Shia laymen from it and this way they hit two birds with one stone. They distance their followers from its teachings from one side, from another side they protect themselves from being accused of believing in the corruption of the Quran.

Here I present a quick list of these beliefs:

1- The Caliphs only collected the Quran when ‘Ali(ra) came to them with the correct Quran that he had collected, after checking its contents they rejected ‘Ali’s (ra) collection and made their own.

2- The way the Muslims read or recite the Quran today is not the way that pleases Allah, it is different from it.

3- The Quran collected by ‘Ali (ra) and rejected by the Caliphs contains the explanation of the Prophet (SAWS) to the verses and the causes for revelation of each verse.

4- The Quran collected by the Caliphs is different than that of ‘Ali (ra) in terms of order of chapters and verses.

5- The Quran collected by ‘Ali (ra) has acquired miraculous power and all matter of perfection and accuracy in compilation as opposed to the one spread all over the world today.

6- The Quran of ‘Ali (ra) that the 12th hidden Imam al-Mahdi shall reveal is a new Quran, different than the one the Muslims are used to because of its miraculous power and difference in interpretation and accuracy and the perfection of its collection.

Now we shall discuss these ‘Aqaed one by one, starting with the first one.

The first belief:

The Caliphs collected the Quran after ‘Ali (ra) came to them with the correct Quran that he had collected, after checking its contents they rejected ‘Ali’s (ra) collection and made their own.

The leader of the Shia Muhaddiths (Scholars of Hadith) ibn Babaweih al-Qummi whom they call al-Saduq says in one of the most important Shia books of ‘Aqaed “Kitab al-I’itiqadat fi Deen al-Imamiyah” pg.86:

[ Ameer al-Mumineen (as) had collected it, and when he brought it to them, he said: “This is the book of your Lord as it was revealed on your Prophet, without any added or removed letters.” They said: “We have no need for it, we have one like the one you have.” so he left while reciting: {But they threw it away behind their backs and exchanged it for a small price. And wretched is that which they purchased.} (Quran 3:187)]

The grand Shia scholar Murtada al-Ansari says in the old print of “Kitab al-Salat” pg.119:

[For this they rejected the Quran of Ameer al-Mumineen (as) when he presented it to them, so he hid it for his son al-Qaem(Mahdi) may Allah hasten his appearance.]

‘Allamah and Muhaqqiq(Researcher) ‘Ali bin Musa al-Tabrizi says in “Miraat al-Kutub” pg.32:

[As was stated in the narrations that he (as) collected the Quran after the passing of the Prophet (SAWS) and he brought it to them but they never accepted it, so it remained preserved and stored until the appearance of the Qaem (aj)]

‘Allamah Muhammad Hussein TabaTabaei says in “Kitab al-Quran fil-Islam” pg.137:

[And the Imam Ameer al-Mumineen (as) although he was the first to collect the Quran in the order it was revealed and they rejected his compilation and they did not allow him to participate in the first or second collections.]

He also says in “Kitab al-Shia fil-Islam” pg.28-29:

[And the Prophet (SAWS) had declared that ‘Ali was the most knowledgeable in Islamic and Quranic sciences, and they did not allow him to participate in collecting the Quran (and they knew that after the death of the Prophet (SAWS) ‘Ali was sitting in his home gathering the Quran) and his name was never mentioned in their meetings and gatherings.]

Sheikh ‘Ali al-Kourani al-‘Amili says in his book “Alf Soual wa Ishkal” 1/243:

[In reality there was no problem in the task of collecting the Quran, this problem was created by the government! (the government here means ‘Umar) Who did not accept the copy of the Quran brought forth by ‘Ali (as) as the official copy used by the Muslims.]

He also said in his book “Tadween al-Quran” pg.256:

[And with this ‘Ali (as) had fulfilled his responsibility towards the nation, and presented them with the Quranic copy by order of the Prophet (SAWS) and ‘Ali’s (as) own handwriting, but they saw (in their interests) that it must not be the official copy of the Quran.]

Ayatullah ‘Ali al-Milani says in “Muhadarat fil-I’itiqadat” 2/602:

[It’s true that Ameer al-Mumineen (as) collected the Quran, and I pointed to this previously, the Imam came to them with the Quran but they refused it, ‘Ali had a Quran, this is proven and everyone remembers it.]

Ayatullah Muhammad al-Hussein al-Husseini al-Tehrani says in “Noor Malakut al-Quran” 4/345:

[As for the narrations of the Shia, we see that he (as) placed the Quran on a camel and brought it to the Masjid(Mosque) and said: “This is your Quran!” they replied: “We don’t need your Quran!” and they did not pay him any attention, so he grabbed the reins of his camel and went home and said: “You will never see it until the day of judgment.”]

He also said on pg.343:

[Ameer al-Mumineen (as) was the first to express the idea of collecting the Quran directly after the death o the Prophet (SAWS), even though his own collection was rejected.]

Grand Ayatullah Muhammad al-Husseini al-Shirazi says in “Mata Jumi’a al-Quran” pg.31:

[As for the issue of ‘Ali’s (as) Quran that he had collected but was rejected, what is meant here is what was collected in terms of Tafseer(explanations) and Taaweel(Interpretations) like he (as) had mentioned in a narration that was narrated from him.]

Shia writer Dr. Zuhair al-Bitar says in “al-Imamah Tilka al-Haqiqah al-Quraniayh” pg.49:

[But when they denied him, they had to work based on their own opinions, so they rejected the Quran he (as) gathered for them according to the reasons of revelation so that no one may misinterpret it, and they gathered it in the known fashion.]

He said on pg.50:

[The reality of the matter is that Ameer al-Mumineen ‘Ali (as) remained playing the role of the lawyer who defends the Sunnah and the Quran, as we stated earlier he collected the Quran according to the reasons of revelation because it is directly linked to the interpretation, so they rejected it because it displayed facts that disagree with their methods.]

Shia writer ‘Abdullah ‘Ali Ahmad al-Daqqaq says in “Haqiqat Mushaf al-Imam ‘Ali ‘ind al-Sunnah wal-Shia” pg.309-314:

[The narrations found within the Imami Shia sources confirm that the Caliphate had refused the Quran of Imam ‘Ali (as) (…) And because the Imami narrations showing the rejection of the Caliphate to the Quran of Imam ‘Ali (as) are many, we feel reassured that this matter has occurred (…) the reluctance to accept the Quran of Imam ‘Ali (as) and its rejection, and even trying to find a replacement]

So notice dear reader how the Shia scholars have tried to strip this Quran of its legitimacy because a group of people supposedly rejected the infallible Quran of ‘Ali (ra) after finding that its contents (whether the verses or the interpretation) do not suit their desires and ambitions.

How can this book have any legitimacy if it differs from the infallible book collected by the infallible Imam with special directions and supervision from the infallible Prophet (SAWS)!?

I ask the honest Shia will you feel at ease when reading a Quran gathered by those whom your scholars accuse of having rejected the infallible Quran after checking its contents!?

Sheikh ‘Ali al-Kourani says in “Tadween al-Quran” pg.181:

[They refused to adopt that copy because it contained the interpretation of all verses and many if not all were in favor of ‘Ali according to them.]

Sheikh Ja’afar Murtada al-‘Amili says in his book “Maasat al-Zahraa” 1/366-367:

[The Quran was gathered in the days of the Prophet (SAWS) but the first two Caliphs refused the Quran of the messenger of Allah (SAWS) because it contained the revelation and the interpretations and the reasons of revelation and the explanations. As well as other things that could have embarrassed many people but the Caliphs refused to embarrass them nor spread the truths about them. Then they collected the Quran in one book after they dropped the explanations and interpretations and the reasons of revelation from it as is known.]

‘Abdullah ‘Ali Ahmad al-Daqqaq says in his book “Haqiqat Mushaf al-Imam ‘Ali” pg.304:

[Also some of the narrations stated that the scandals of those folks were present in the ‘Alawie Quran (‘Ali’s copy), this is why the Caliphate rejected it.]

And on pg.313:

[When Abu Bakr opened it, on the first page he found the scandals of the folks, so ‘Umar jumped up and said: “O ‘Ali, return it, we have no need for it.” So we realize that the rejection came as a reaction to the contents and the scandals found in it, they rejected it to hide them.]

The second belief:

The way the Muslims read or recite the Quran today is not the way that pleases Allah, it is different from it.

And the proof for this is their narrations and the declaration of their scholars.

Firstly: the narrations:

1- What was narrated from Muhammad bin al-Hassan al-Saffar: [From Salim bin abi Salamah that he said: A man recited to Imam abu ‘Abdullah (as) and I heard letters from the Quran that are different than those recited by the people, so the Imam (as) said: “Meh meh! stop this reading, recite it the way other people recite it until al-Qaem(Mahdi) rises, when he does he shall recite the Quran properly and reveal the Quran written by ‘Ali (as)]
source: Basaer al-Darajat pg.213.

2- What was narrated from Muhammad bin Ya’aqoub al-Kulayni: [Salim bin Salamah said: A man recited to abu ‘Abdullah (as) and I heard letters unlike those recited by the people, abu ‘Abdullah (as) said: “Enough of this recitation, recite as the other people recite until al-Qaem(Mahdi) rises, when he does he shall recite the Quran properly and reveal the Quran written by ‘Ali (as)]
source: al-Kafi 2/633.

3- What was narrated from Muhammad bin Ibrahim al-Nu’umani: [From Habah al-‘Arni, He said: Ameer al-Mumineen (as) said: “It’s as if I am looking at our Shia in the Masjid of Kufa, they planted their tents and taught the people the Quran as it was revealed.]
source: al-Ghaybah pg.333.

4- What was narrated from al-Mufid: [Jabir narrated from abu Ja’afar (as) that he said: “When al-Qaem from the family of Muhammad rises, he shall plant tents for those who teach the people the Quran and its complete rulings, on that day it shall be very hard on those who had already memorized it because it differs from the way it was compiled.”]
sources:
-al-Irshad by al-Mufid 2/386.
-Bihar al-Anwar by al-Majlisi 52/339.
-al-Anwar al-Bahiyyah by ‘Abbas al-Qummi pg.384.
-Rawdat al-Wa’etheen by al-Fattal al-Naysabouri pg.265.
-Tafseer Noor al-Thaqalayn by al-Huweizi 5/27.

Secondly: the declaration of their scholars:

Shia sheikh and leader of the sect during his time, Muhammad Hassan Najafi says in “Jawahir al-Kalam” 9/292:

[Because they may the peace of Allah be upon them, accepted the people’s recitation of the Quran, and they may have prohibited people from reciting the truthful recitation, they would say: “It is intended for the time of the rising of al-Qaem (as).”]

Shia sheikh and researcher Aqa Rida al-Hamdani says in “Misbah al-Faqih” printed in Qum, 2/1/276:

[And either way, there is no doubt that the seven readings are correct in terms of clearing the Dhimmah and fulfilling the act of reciting the Quran, even if one does not know that what is being recited does not agree with the Quran revealed on the Prophet (SAWS).]

Shia scholar ‘Abdul-Karim al-Haeri says in “Kitab al-Salat” pg.205:

[What can be said is that the seven readings are correct in terms of clearing the Dhimmah and fulfilling the act of reciting the Quran, even if it is not known that what is being recited does not match the Quran as it was revealed, and even if it is known as we have learned from the narrations ordering us to recite as the people recite.]

Grand Ayatullah Muhammad Sadiq al-Roohani says in “Kitab Fiqh al-Sadiq” 4/423:

[As for the text of the narrations, what is apparent is the prohibition of reciting all the additions found within their narrations (as), nor do they point to the superiority of one of the readings over the other, Yes they do reveal the permissibility of reciting while knowing that it is contrary to the Quran as originally revealed.]

al-Mujaddid al-Shirazi says in “Kitab Taqreerat Ayatullah al-Mujaddid al-Shirazi” 1/173 by Mawla ‘Ali:

[What the narrations show is that they (as) accepted the recitation of the different readings and offered the choice between them, by saying: “Recite it as the people recite.”]

al-Muhaqqiq al-Khawansari says in “Jami’I al-Madarik” 1/334:

[What we benefit from the narrations is the permissibility of reciting as the people do like the narration of Salim bin abi Salamah]

al-Moujaddid al-Waheed al-Bahbahani says in “al-Fawaed al-Haeriyyah” pg.286:

[What is popular between us: is the permissibility of reciting by the seven famous readings, and the proof or should I say the order of the Imams (as) is: “read it like the people read it until the rise of al-Qaem (as).”]

al-Fadil al-Touni says in “al-Wafiyah” pg.260:

[What is also narrated is the permissibility of using this Quran found today, until the rise of al-Qaem from the family of Muhammad (SAWS)]

al-‘Allamah Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi says in “Bihar al-Anwar” 82/65-66:

[Undoubtedly, it is allowed for us at this time to recite according to their famous readings as the countless narrations state until the rise of al-Qaem (as), then he will reveal the Quran in one letter and one reading, may Allah enable us to live in those times.]

Grand Ayatullah and the leader of the sect in his time abu al-Qassim al-Khoei says in “al-Bayan fi Tafseer al-Quran” pg.167:

[It was related from them (as) that these readings are acceptable by their saying: “Recite it as the people recite it” “Recite like you have been taught”.]

al-Mirza Muhammad Taqi al-Isfahani says in “Mikyal al-Makarim” 1/197:

[al-Qaem (as) when he appears to the people of the earth shall recite the Quran as it was revealed on the seal of Prophets (SAWS).]
I want the wise reader to observe these hideous beliefs that push one away from reading the book of Allah, these beliefs state that one cannot read or recite the Quran like the Prophet (SAWS) did in his time, they state that our readings are wrong and that they are contrary to what Allah had revealed and intended.

In other words, the reading of all the Muslim nation in the east and the west of the Islamic world is incorrect and does not match that of the originally revealed Quran, and that the Imams ordered their followers to recite it like everyone else does even while knowing that the recitation is wrong and faulty.

I ask the honest Shia, do these beliefs not make you avoid reciting the Quran, don’t they make you lose all the joy and passion you had for worshipping Allah by reading his words? The intention of these scholars is simply to keep you away from the book of pure monotheism, to keep you away from the book that obviously does not mention the Imamah of ‘Ali (ra) or his children, until the Mahdi supposedly finally rises to teach people what they should have been taught a thousand four hundred years ago.

Finally, I urge the readers to remember the narration of al-Mufid in which they attribute to the Imam that he said: “On that day it shall be very hard on those who had already memorized it because it differs from the way it was compiled.” As if to say: Don’t bother memorizing it, the correct Quran revealed by the Mahdi is going to be different anyway.

.....To be continued....

^The whole story, so far, can be summarized thus:

First issue raised:
# That Shi'a believed Abu Bakr and Umar usurped the Khilafah, which happened to be the most important office after the demise of the Prophet. Therefore, if they can go that far, what is the validity of the Quran they claimed to compiled?

Second issue raised:
# Shia believed there was a Quran compiled by Imam 'Ali (alayhi Salam) "different" from the one the then government compiled. Since the government rejected it, Imam Ali hide it either for his son (al-Mahdi) or till Qiyamat.

Third issue raised:
# Shia believed the recitation of the present Quran is wrong.

We await the rest of the stories before we respond in sha Allah.

INTRODUCTION

The article copied and pasted by Sino is actually trying to expose a fact that some Shi'a Ulama believed in tahrif (distortion) of the Quran. The article further advance its argument that even the rest of Shi'i Ulama that openly declare NO TAHRIF in the Quran also believe in it.

The first question is What is Tahrif?. One of the greatest Shi'i scholars of our time, Ayatullah Abul Qassim al-Khoei gave six meaning when explaining what Tahrif is in his book [THE COMPILATION AND PRESERVATION OF QURAN]. You can read online:
http://www.al-islam.org/the-collection-and-preservation-of-the-quran-extract-ayatullah-adul-qasim-al-khui

And the summary can also be find here:
https://www.nairaland.com/3060589/surah-wilayah-satanic-inspiration/1


Second, there is no doubt both Sunni and Shi'i documents are filled with ahadith talking that Tahrif had occurred in the present Quran. Both sides reports are Mutawatir (widely reported) if all of them are gathered. So, if one accuse the other about Tahrif of the Quran, it is a case of kettle calling pot black.

# One of Shi'i ulama, Sayed Sharaf-al-din Amali (d 1377 H) writes:

"The books of Hadiths written by Shia and Sunni Ulema contain hadiths which demonstrate that alteration has been committed in the Quran. That hence means that the present Quran is smaller [in size] from the original Quran. But these hadiths are unreliable in the eyes of Sunni and Shia Ulema because such hadiths are weak from the aspect of sanad and moreover such hadiths can be refuted by a plethora of hadiths that enjoy authentic sanads that are clear from the perspective of number and proof. One cannot therefore rely on such weak hadtihs in comparison to the presence of these countless, clear hadiths that reject the notion of distortion of the Quran,

Moreover the hadiths that evidence distortion with the Quran are single-chained narrations, and if the statement of a single-chained hadith is not useful at the place where it is to be practiced then it is not an authority. On the one side we have unequivocal proof that the present Quran is exempt from distortion in comparison to the assumption that the Quran has been distorted on the basis of some weak hadiths. It is clear that absolute, confirmed facts can never be rejected due to the existence of single chains and assumption. In conclusion, the hadiths that attribute distortion to the Quran should be thrown away”
Source: Ajubat-al-Masail Jaar Allah]}

# So, if Sunni accused certain Shia ulama of (belief in) Tahrif of the Quran, Sunni records revealed several Sahabah like Umar b. al-Khattab, Aishah, Abdullah ibn Abbas, Abu Musa al-Ash'ari et al with their beliefs in Tahrif. Very few Examples are given under this title here: DISTORTION OF THE QURAN IN SUNNI AHADITH
https://www.nairaland.com/3060589/surah-wilayah-satanic-inspirati


* Muslim view on Tahrif

Ayatullah Abul Qassim al-Khoei writes:

The accepted view of Muslims about the Qur’an is that it is free from all profanities and tampering. They firmly believe that the Book existing among them has the complete text of what was revealed to the great Prophet (‘s). Many scholars of repute have supported this view, among them is Muhammad ibn Babawayh, popularly known as Sheikh Saduq, who has included this view in the principle tenets of Shia Ithna‑Asheri sect. Sheikh al Taifah Abu Ja'far Muhammad b. al‑Hasan al‑Tusi has dwelt on this subject in his commentary al Tibyan and in support of this view, has quoted his master Alamul Huda Sayyid Murtadha, relating his extensive arguments.

The great commentator, aI Tabrasi, has lent credence to this view in the preface to his famous work Majma‑ul‑Bayan, and so has Shaikh Ja’far in his chapter on the Qur’an, from his book Kashful Ghita; wherein he claims a consensus on this view. Allamah Shahshahani in his book Al Urwatul Wuthqa says that the majority of mujtahids concur that there has been no Interpolation in the Qur’an; and Mulla Muhsin Kashani in his two worlds, al‑Wafi and llm‑ul‑Yaqin reiterates the same view.

We find this repeated by the great scholar Sheikh Muhammad Jawad al‑Balaghi in the foreword to his Tafsir Ala‑ur‑Rahman. Besides, many great scholars like Sheikh Mufid, Shaikh Bahai and Muhaqqiq Qadhi Nurullah are known to have been partisans of the view that there has been no tampering in the Qur’an. Even those great Shi’a scholars who wrote on the subject of Imamat, criticizing the factions which arose to usurp the rights of Ahl ul-Bayt ( ‘a), have not ascribed Tahrif to them. This is a very pertinent point, because had they subscribed to the view that the Qur’an had been profaned, they would have mentioned it with more candour than merely grieving about the burning up of the copies of the Qur’an or other similar matters.

To sum up, the general belief of Shi’a Ulama’ has been that the Qur’an is intact and pristine. Of course, there has been a small group of traditionalists, both among Shi’as and Sunnis, who held that the Qur’an has been tampered with. al‑Rafai says: "A group of theologians used to hypothetical presumptions have subscribed to the view of Tahrif; those who have a habit of resorting to various methods of disputations in every word and in every law, have found it probable that something from the Qur’an may have been lost because of the way its collection has been described"[Ijazul Qur’an, p.41] .

In Majma ul Bayan, Tabrasi has ascribed this view to the group of Hashawiyyah among Sunnis. It will soon be evident from what follows that to confirm that the recitation of certain parts of the Qur’an had been abrogated is tantamount to believing in Tahrif. Those Ulama’ of Ahlu‑sSunnah who declare such an abrogation are in reality declaring that some tampering has occurred in the Qur’an.

Source: The collection and preservation of Quran, p. 7
.......... ................

First issue raised:

# That Shi'a believed Abu Bakr and Umar usurped the Khilafah, which happened to be the most important office after the demise of the Prophet. Therefore, if they can go that far, what is the validity of the Quran they claimed to compiled?

The writer submitted certain merits of Abubakar, Umar and Uthman which Shi'a Ulama denied. This, the writer used as a background to establish his main argument that Shi'a truly believed that Quran"compiled" by these three Khulafa is defective (since the Shia do not believe in any of their virtues).

* REPLY 1:
No doubt there are lots of virtues recorded in Sunni documents (books of ahadith and Tafasir) for Abubakar, Umar and Uthman. Shi'a rejected these merits based on the fact that there are lots of other Sunni reports that contradict these merits. Some of these merits even go against Quran.

EXAMPLE
We shall cite just one example (out of many) for brevity. One of our writer's examples is emphasis on these three Sahabah being Khulafau Rashidin mahdiyin (rightly guided khalifah).

Imam Abu Dawud, Imam Ahmad (28/373) and Imam Tirmidhi (5/44) reported this hadith:

Irbad b. Sariyah: The Messenger of Allah...said, "I instruct you to fear Allah, and to listen and obey your ruler even if he is an Ethiopian slave. For, whoever lives among you shall witness after me several disagreements. Therefore, follow my Sunnah and the sunnah of the khulafa, who are rashidun and mahdiyun. Bite onto it with your molar teeth. And beware of innovated matters. For, verily, every innovation is a bid’ah; and verily, every bid’ah is misguidance.”

Source: Sunan Abi Dawud; book 42, hadith 12; Book 41, hadith 4590 http://sunnah.com/abudawud/42

Scholars of Ahlu Sunnah unanimously agreed that Abubakar, Umar and Uthman were among the Rightly Guided Caliphs. The fact is that the hadith never mention their names but the hadith gives important hints to identify these Khulafau irrespective of their numbers.

In the hadith Prophet ordered his Sahabah to follow his Sunnah and the sunnah of the khulafa after him. He used the singular “sunnah,” and not the plural “sunan,” apparently to emphasize that all these Khulafau would have a single, uniform sunnah. It was not possible for one of them to have a sunnah which would be different from the sunnah of another. The sunnah of all the Khulafa, whatsoever their number, would be one and the same in all cases and circumstances.

To further re-emphasize the point, he used the singular pronoun “it” to refer to his Sunnah and the sunnah of these khulafa jointly. This then establishes that the Sunnah of Muhammad and the sunnah of the khulafa are so perfectly identical and uniform that they are in essence one and the same entity.

The Messenger also described the khulafa as rashidun and mahdiyun. What do these terms mean? Shaykh Dr. al-Fawzan explains in His Sharah Aqeeda Wastia, page 165:

"The rashid is he who knows the truth and practises it. His opposite is the deviant, and that is he who knows the truth but does not practise it. His statement (mahdiyin) means those whom Allah guided to the truth."

So, these khulafa know and practise the truth, and are guided to it by Allah Himself. When there are disagreements within the Ummah, everyone must follow these khulafa, because they have only one sunnah among themselves; and their sunnah is also uniform with Sunnah of the Prophet.

Secondly, Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman did NOT have a single, uniform “sunnah.” In fact, each one of them contradicted the other “severely.” This was why Imam Ibn Hazm (d. 456 H) got confused and mentioned in His book, al-Ahkam fi Usool-al-Ahkam, 6/76:

"As for his statement, peace be upon him {follow my Sunnah and the sunnah of thekhulafa who are rashidun}, we know already that he, peace be upon him, never commanded the impossible. Yet, we find that the Rightly Guided Caliphs after him, peace be upon him, had severe disagreement among themselves."

In fact, they do not only had severe disagreement among themselves but contradicted the Sunnah of the Prophet.

Imam al-Nasai reports:

Muhammad b. Ali alHassan b. Shaqiq - my father - Abu Hamzah - Mutarrif - Salamah b. Kuhayl - Tawus - Ibn Abbas:

"I heard 'Umar saying, 'By Allah, I forbid you to perform al-Mut'ah (hajj tamatu), and while it is in the Book of Allah and the Messenger of Allah did it.' He meant 'Umrah with Hajj."

Albani comments: Sahih

Source: al-Mujtaba min al-Sunan (Halab: Maktab al-Matbu'at al-Islamiyyah; 2nd edition, 1406 H)[annotator: Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani], vol. 5, pg.153, #2736. Online source: Sunan al-Nisai, Kitab al-Hajj, Book 24, hadith 2736 www.sunnah.com/nasai/24

In opposition to this, Imam al-Nasai (same source above, hadith 2739) documents:

Ibrahim b. Yahqub - Uthman ibn Umar - Ismail ibn Muslim - Muhammad ibn Wasi - Mutarif:

Ibrahim b. Hussein said to me, "The Messenger of Allah preformed 'Umrah and Hajj together, and we performed 'Umrah and Hajj together with him, and whosoever says anything different, that is his own personal opinion."

There are lots of examples where the first three Khulafa openly contradicted the Quran and Sunnah, and each one of them contradicting each other, and some Sahabah disagree with them on their personal opinions. Based on this, Shi'a rejected these three Khulafau being "Rightly Guided" that every believer must follow as stated in the hadith Sherif.

* REPLY 2:
DO THEY USURPED THE KHILAFAH?

As Shi'a, we believe that Prophet (s) designated 'Ali (a) as his successor after him. Various words such as "khalifah, Wali, Mawla etc" were used by the Prophet announcing Ali to the public.

[a]. Prophet used the word "Khalifah"

# Imam Ibn Asim (d. 287) documents:

Muḥammad b. al-Muthannā – Yaḥyā b. Ḥammād – Abū ‘Awānah – Yaḥyā b. Salīm Abū Balj – ‘Amr b. Maymūn – Ibn ‘Abbās:

The Messenger of Allah (s) said to 'Ali: "You are to me of the status of Harun to Musa, with the exception that you are not a prophet. And you are MY KHALIFAH OVER EVERY BELIEVER AFTER ME."

Dr. Al-Jawabirah says: Its chain is Hasan

Ref: {'Kitab al-Sunnah (Dar al-Sami'i li al-Nahr wa al-Tawhi) [annotator: Dr. Al-Jawabirah], vol. 1, p. 799 - 800, #1222}

# 'Allamah al-Albani also comments: Its chain is hasan (sound).

Ref: {Kitab Sunnah (al-Maktab al-Islami; 1st Edition, 1400H) [annotator: Nasir deen al-Albani], vol. 2, p. 565, #1188

# Imam al-Hakim (d. 403H) declares: This hadith has a SAHIH chain.
Ref: {Al-Mustadrak ala al-Sahihayn, vol. 3, p. 143, #4652}

* Imam al-Dhahabi (d. 748H) concurs with Imam al-Hakim: SAHIH (authentic).

# Allamah Ahmad Shakir: Its Chain is sahih
Ref: {Musnad Imam Ahmad (Dar alHadith, 1416H) [annotator: Ahmad Shakir] vol. 1, p. 331, #3062}

# Imam al-Busiri (d. 840H): A sahih chain
Ref: {Itihaf al-khiyarah al-Maharah bi Zawaid al-Masanid al-'Ashara, vol. 7, p. 184, #6630

. Prophet used the word "WALI"

# Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (d.852H) states:

"Al-Tirmidhi records in a narrative with strong (qawi) chain from 'Imran b. Hasin: "That messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said: "What do you want with Ali? Verily! 'Ali is from me and I am from Ali, and he is the WALI of every believer AFTER ME."

Ref: {al-Isabah fi Tamyiz al-Sahabah (Beirut: Dar al-kutub al-Illmiyah;1st edition, 1415H), vol. 4, p.468}

# Imam Ibn Asim (d. 287H) also documents:

The messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said: "Ali is from me, and I am from him, and he is the WALI of every believer AFTER ME."

Albani comments: ITS CHAIN IS SAHIH... upon the standard of (Imam) Muslim.

Ref: {Kitab al-Sunnah (al-Maktab al-Islami; 1st edition, 1400H) [annotator: Nasir din al-Albani], vol.2, p.564, #1187}

HIJACK OF ALI'S WILAYAH
After the death of the Prophet, Abubakar and Umar assumed power and used the word "Khalifah and Wali of the prophet" for themselves.

# Imam Muslim records a long hadith whereby al-Abbas and Imam Ali brought a dispute to Umar ibn al-khattab to judge them. Interestingly, none of the litigants has submitted his complaint to the Caliph Umar when Hazrat Abbas accused Imam Ali as "a liar, traitor, sinful and dishonest person".

The Caliph himself surprisingly never asked what there differences was. The Caliph simply switch to the subject Caliphate while accusing both Hazrat Abbas and Imam Ali, saying:

"When the Messenger of Allah (s) died, Abu Bakr said: “I am the WALI of the Messenger of Allāh (s). So both of you (Ali and Abbas) thought him (i.e. Abu Bakr) to be a liar, sinful, a traitor and dishonest. And Allah knows that he was really truthful, pious, rightly-guided and a follower of the truth. Abū Bakr died and I became the WALI of the Messenger of Allāh (s) and the walī of Abū Bakr. So both of you thought me to be a liar, sinful, a traitor and dishonest."

Ref: {Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim (Beirut: Dār Iḥyā al-Turāth al-'Arabī), vol. 3, p. 1376, #1757}

SAHABAH DIVIDED OVER THE KHILAFAH

* Sahabah divided into three parties:

1. Muhajirun who rally round Abubakar

2. The Ansar who planned to hijack the leadership for Sa'd ibn Ubadah

3. Ali and his supporters who opposed Abubakar.

Source: {Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 6, p. 2503, #6442}.

* Bibi Fatima (alayha Salam) never paid allegiance to Abubakar till she died six months after the demise of her father (s).

* And Ali never recognized Abubakar as Khalifah until after six months when he realized people started having animosity towards him.

Source: Sahih bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 546}

[size=15pt]DO THE SHIA BELIEVED THE CALIPHS TAMPERED WITH THE QURAN?[/size]

Ayatullah Abul Qassim al-Uzma al-Khoei writes:

Some hold that the interpolation, alteration, omission may have occurred after the death of the Prophet (‘s), perpetrated by the first two Caliphs or by Uthman when he came to power, or by someone of the later period.

All these claims are invalid. If abu Bakr or Umar did it, then there can be two assumptions. They either did it unintentionally, because, as it is believed, the Qur’an was not available in its entirety as it had not yet been compiled. Or they did it intentionally. In any case, the verses in which they interfered by way of Tahrif would be those concerning their leadership or even others.

In all, there are three considerations:

First, to say that they had no access to the whole of the Qur’an is totally out of question. The Prophet (‘s) had taken great pains to see that it was committed to memory, and was constantly recited, slowly and elegantly, and the companions had compiled during the Prophet's time and after his passing away. This makes us certain that the Qur’an was with them, well guarded, all in one place or at various places, in the hearts of people or noted down on the papers. They were the people who had proudly preserved the poems and speeches of the pre-Islamic era. How could they be expected to ignore the great Book whose laws they proclaimed, for which they had staked their lives, left their homes, spent their wealth, abandoned their families and children, and had taken a firm stand in the brilliant history of Islam. Can a reasonable person believe that they would be so indifferent so as to cause any loss of the Qur’an? A loss which could not be retrieved without the evidence of two witnesses? Is it not tantamount to believing that there has been an addition or an omission in the Qur’an which was revealed to the Prophet (‘s)?

Then there is the famous and widely acknowledged tradition of thaqalayn which invalidates all presumption, about Tahrif. The Prophet (‘s) said: '[b]I leave behind me two weighty things: the Book of Allah and my Ahl ul-Bayt'. This statement becomes meaningless if it is believed that the Qur’an had been lost during his time, because that which was lost would definitely be parts of the Book.

In fact, this tradition points to the collection of the Qur’an during the Prophet's era; because scattered or memorised literature cannot be termed a book....The question is that if the Muslims did not care to collect the Qur’an while the Prophet (‘s) lived, why did the Prophet (‘s) himself neglect it, in spite of his vehement emphasis on its importance? Did he not foresee the result of such carelessness? Or was it impossible for him to do so? Obviously, these are all invalid excuses.

If we were to propose that the first two Caliphs effected Tahrif in those verses which did not deal with their leadership, and the leadership of their friends, then this seems to be unlikely because it serves no purpose. Definitely, this did not occur. The Caliphate was a political matter, ostensibly based on their concern for the religion, and as such there was no need for touching the Qur’an. Even those like Sa’ad b. Ubadah and his companions who objected to the rule of Abu Bakr, and those who refused to swear oath of allegience to both of them, never accused the Caliphs of having tampered with the Qur’an. Did Ali b. Abi Talib (‘a), in his famous discourse of Shaqshaqiyyah or elsewhere where he objected to Abu Bakr taking precedence over him, mention anything about the Caliphs effecting any changes in the Qur’an?

It is not conceivable that the Muslims cited any such instance without us knowing about it. Therefore, this proposition cannot be true. Finally, it is an indisputable fact that the two Caliphs did not cause any purposeful interpolation or omission of those verses which may have dealt adversely with their leadership. Ali b. Abi Talib (‘a) along with his wife Fatimah Zahra (‘a) and certain friends from the companions of the Prophet (‘s) protested against the two Caliphs on matter of Caliphate, basing their objection on what they had heard from the Prophet (‘s), presenting witnesses from among the Muhajirin and Ansar, and also on the famous tradition of Al Ghadir and others.

In the book of Al‑Ihtijaj, it is reported that twelve men protested against the Caliphate of Abu Bakr, quoting the text of what they said. Allamah Majlisi has set out a complete chapter on the subject of the objections by Ali b. Abi Talib in the matter of Caliphate ( Bihar al anwar, Majlisi, v8, p.79) .

Had there been anything in the Qur’an disparaging their leadership, they would have definitely quoted them in their protests, and so would all the Muslims. The Caliphate is a matter which came to transpire well before the so‑called collection of the Qur’an. The silence of the companions on this subject, from the beginning till the end when Ali b. Abi Talib (‘a) became the Caliph, is an indisputable evidence that such an interpolation or omission never occurred.


It is all the more difficult to accept that Tahrif was caused by Uthman, for the following reasons:

(a) Islam had gained a strong foothold by the time of Uthman, and was widely spread. It was not possible for Uthman to tamper with the Qur’an, nor for anyone else more influential and higher in status than him.

(b) If it were presumed that he tampered with the verses which had no bearing on the question of wilayah or the Caliphate of his predecessors, then it would be a futile exercise. And if he tampered with those verses which had such connections, then the Caliphate, in the first instance, would not have come to him, because the Qur’an would have guided the Muslims against him.

(c) His tampering with the Qur’an would have become a major and prominent reason for his assassination. There would have been no need to ascribe to Uthman other reasons like squandering the Baitul Mal of the Muslims unlike his predecessors, or other such reasons.

(d) It would have become incumbent upon Ali (‘a) to restore to the Qur’an what had been interpolated or omitted, and to bring it up to date with the original as it existed during the time of the Prophet (‘s) and the first two Caliphs. In so doing he could not have been censured. In fact, Ali (‘a) could have advanced a convincing reason against those who accused him of having condoned the killing of Uthman, and sought revenge from him. It is known that Ali (‘a) returned all the lands to their rightful owners which had been wrongfully granted to others by Uthman.

In his sermon, he said: "By God, if I were to find that some women were married by that wealth or some maidservants were owned by it, I would return it to their rightful owners. Whoever finds justice stifling, must find injustice and tyranny all the more so".(Nahj al-Balagha)

This is what Ali (‘a) said in respect of the wealth. One can easily imagine what his stand would be if he found out that the Qur’an was interpolated or tampered with. The fact that he accepted the Qur’an as it existed in his time is a convincing proof against any Tahrif.

Source: The collection and preservation of Quran, p. 20

[size=15pt]# Second issue: Imam Ali's "Quran"[/size]

Shi'a opponents submits their argument thus:

Imam Ali (‘a) had a codex of his own, other than the existing one. He brought it to the people, but they did not accept it from him. His codex contained certain sections which are not to be found in the Qur’an we have, and so it proves that the present Qur’an is lesser than the one Imam Ali (‘a) had collected. This then is the Tahrif which is said to have occurred. It is supported by many traditions... for example, Allamah al-Majlisi documents:

Kitāb al-Kāfī, vol. 1, p. 228, # 1:

Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā – Aḥmad b. Muḥammad – Ibn Maḥbūb – ‘Amr b. Abī al-Miqdām – Jābir:
I heard Abū Ja’far, peace be upon him, saying: “No one from mankind claims that he has compiled the entire Qur’ān as it was revealed except a liar. None compiled it and memorized it as Allāh the Most High revealed it except ‘Alī b. Abī Ṭālib, peace be upon him, and the Imāms after him, peace be upon them.”


First, this ḥadīth has a ḍa’īf chain. ‘Amr b. Abī Miqdām is a disputed figure. Shaykh ‘Alī Āl Muḥsin explains more about him, while commenting on the above ḥadīth, in his Kashf al-Ḥaqāiq, pp. 51-52:

"In its chain is ‘Amr b. Abī al-Miqdām, and there is dispute concerning his trustworthiness. Mūllā al-Majlisī, may his sanctity be preserved, said: “The first ḥadīth [has a narrator who] is disputed.” And what is clear from the words of the great scholars is that the majority are of the opinion that he was ḍa’īf."


Then, Shaykh ‘Alī Āl Muḥsin concludes:

"Based upon this, the man is not relied upon, due to his unknown (majhūl) status."


Besides, what exactly is the weak ḥadīth saying? It is only saying that the Twelve Imāms, peace be upon them, used to compile and memorize the Qur’ān in exactly the same manner in which Allāh revealed it. This means that in the Qur’ānic manuscripts written by the Imāms, Sūrat al-‘Alaq (chapter 96) is the first sūrah, then Sūrat al-Qalam (chapter 68), then Sūrat al-Muzammil (chapter 73), then Sūrat al-Mudaththir (chapter 74) and so on. So, what is the problem with that?

Ayatullah al-Uzma al-Khoei also writes:

The answer to all this is very simple. The codex prepared by Ali (‘a) differed from the existing Qur’an in the arrangement and order of the Surahs. This is beyond any doubt, and has been accepted by the great scholars to an extent that we do not have to go to any length to prove it. Similarly, if we were to accept that the contents of his copy were more than the contents of this Qur’an, there is no evidence to prove that the addition found in his copy belonged to the text of the Qur’an. The truth is that those additions were by way of interpretation, explaining the original intention of the revelation. Or, even if they formed a part of what was revealed by Allah, they came as interpretation, indicating the true meaning.

In fact, this doubt originates from the meaning given to the two words: tanzil and tawil by the later scholars, in that they construe tanzil as that which was sent down as the Qur’an, and 'tawil' as that which is supposed to be the true meaning or interpretation of the word, a meaning which may differ from the immediate sense of the word. But these interpretations. have been fabricated, because they are not in any way supported by the language nor are they in any way indicated by the authentic traditions of Ahl ul-Bayt (‘a)...

Source: The collection and preservation of Quran, pg. 23

# DOES IT REALLY MATTER?
To Umm al-Mu'minin Aisha, arrangement doesn't matter.


Narrated Yusuf bin Mahk:


While I was with Aisha, the mother of the Believers, a person from Iraq came and asked, "What type of shroud is the best?" `Aisha said, "May Allah be merciful to you! What does it matter?" He said, "O mother of the Believers! Show me (the copy of) your Qur'an," She said, "Why?" He said, "In order to compile and arrange the Qur'an according to it, for people recite it with its Suras not in proper order." `Aisha said, "What does it matter which part of it you read first? (Be informed) that the first thing that was revealed thereof was a Sura from Al-Mufassal, and in it was mentioned Paradise and the Fire. When the people embraced Islam, the Verses regarding legal and illegal things were revealed...

Sahih al-Bukhari, Kitab fadail Quran, Chapter: The compilation of the Qur'an, hadith 4993
http://sunnah.com/bukhari/66

ALI'S CHALLENGE OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF QURAN - citing Sunni Sources

# Al-Hafiz Ibn Kathir (d.774 H):

Shu'bah b. al-Hajjaj, from Simak, from Khalid b. Ar'arah that he heard 'Ali; and Shu'bah again narrated from al-Qasim b. Abi Barrah from Abu al-Tufayl that he heard 'Ali; and it is also authentically transmitted through many chains that Amir al-Muminin 'Ali ibn Abi Talib climbed the pulpit of Kufah and said, "You will not ask me about ANY VERSE in the book of Allah, or about ANY Sunnah from the Messenger of Allah, except that I will inform you of that.
Source: Tafsir al-Quran al-Azim (Dar al-Taybah Li al-Nashr wa al-Tawzi; 2nd edition, 1420H) [annotator: Sami b. Muhammad Salamah], vol.7, p.413}


# Imam Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (d. 310H) further documents:

Ibn al-Muthanna - Muhammad b. Jafar - Shu'bah - al-Qasim b. Abi Bazzah - Abu al-Tufayl:

I heard 'Ali, may Allah be please with him, saying, "You will not ask me about ANY articulate BOOK or any bygone Sunnah, except that I will tell you." So, Ibn al-kawa asked him about al-Zariyat, and he replied, "It is the winds"

Source: Jami al-Bayan fi Tawil al-Quran (Dar al-Fikr; 1415H) [annotator: Sadafi Jamil al-Attar], vol. 26, p.240}

NB: This same Sanad (chain of narrators) is relied upon by Imam Muslim in his Sahih {vol.3, p.1567, #1978(45)}.

# Imam Abd al-Razzaq also records:

'Abd al-Razzaq - Ma'mar - Wahb b. Abd Allah - Abu al-Tufayl:

I witnessed Ali while he was delivering a sermon and saying, "Ask me! I swear by Allah, you will not ask me about ANYTHING that will occur up till the Day of Resurrection except that I will inform you of it. Ask me about the Book of Allah. I swear by Allah, there is NOT a single verse except that I know whether it was revealed during the night or during the day, or on a level land or on a mountain.

Source: Abd al-Razzaq b. Hamam al-Sana'ani, Tafsir al-Quran (Riyadh: Maktabah al-Rushd; 1st edition, 1410H) [annotator: Dr. Mustafa Muslim Muhammad], vol.3, p.241.


IMPLICATION OF THIS HADITH
Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal records:

'Abd Allah (b. Ahmad b. Hanbal) - Uthman b. Abi Shaybah - Sufyan - Yahya b. Sa'id - Sa'id:

There was NEVER ANYONE among the Sahabah of Prophet, peace be upon him, who used to say "Ask me!" except 'Ali b. Abi Talib.

Dr. Abbas comments: Its chain is Sahih

Source: Fadail al-Sahabah (Beirut: Muasassat al-Risalah; 1st edition, 1403H) [annotator: Dr. Wasiyullah Muhammad Abbas], vol. 2, p.646, #1098}

[size=15pt]Third issue: Recitation different from today[/size].

In this postulation, it is meant Shi'i several narrations which says for example:

* What was narrated from Muhammad bin Ya’aqoub al-Kulayni: [Salim bin Salamah said: A man recited to abu ‘Abdullah (as) and I heard letters unlike those recited by the people, abu ‘Abdullah (as) said: “Enough of this recitation, recite as the other people recite until al-Qaem(Mahdi) rises, when he does he shall recite the Quran properly and reveal the Quran written by ‘Ali (as)]{source: al-Kafi 2/633.}

* {[What was narrated from Muhammad bin al-Hassan al-Saffar: [From Salim bin abi Salamah that he said: A man recited to Imam abu ‘Abdullah (as) and I heard letters from the Quran that are different than those recited by the people, so the Imam (as) said: “Meh meh! stop this reading, recite it the way other people recite it until al-Qaem(Mahdi) rises, when he does he shall recite the Quran properly and reveal the Quran written by ‘Ali (as)]. source: Basaer al-Darajat pg.213.]}


There is absolutely no doubt that all these ahadith refer to Tahrif (in recitation) of the Quran. Some of these ahadith are strong based on their Sanad (chain) but very weak based on their mutoon (contents).

# In Sunni traditions also, Sahih al-Bukhari, Kitab fadail Quran, we read that:

* Uthman committed to compilation of the Quran after he found out that people were reciting it differently. Uthman ordered that Quran should be writing down (and recited) in Quraishi tongue.
Source: http://sunnah.com/bukhari/66 : Chapter - the collection of the Quran, hadith 4987]

* In contrast, there is The case of seven different recitations revealed by Jibril
Source: [sahih al-Bukhari, Kitab fadail Quran, Chapter: The Qur'an was revealed to be recited in seven different ways, hadith 4991, http://sunnah.com/bukhari/66

Interestingly, Umar was reported to have fought with Hisham ibn Hakim because of certain recitation different from what he (Umar) knew. See hadith 4992^.

We can simply advance another argument here concerning the so-called Uthman's compilation (reading and recitation) in Qureishi tongue when seven different reading existed.

* Imam al-Hakim (d. 410H) document:

“Abū Naḍrah: I read to Ibn 'Abbās: {Those of them with whom you contract mut'ah, give them their prescribed dowries} [4:24]. He said: “{Those of them with whom you contract mut'ah FOR A SPECIFIED PERIOD (ilah ajalin musama) }”.

Abū Naḍrah said: I said, “[color=006600]We do not recite it like that!” Ibn 'Abbās replied, “I swear by Allāh, Allāh certainly revealed it like that."

Al-Ḥākim and Imām al-Dhahabī (d. 748 H) comments: This ḥadīth is ṣaḥīḥ upon the standard of (Imām) Muslim.

Ref: {al-Mustadrak 'alā al-Ṣaḥ īḥ ayn (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyyah; 1st edition, 1411 H), vol. 2, p. 334, # 3192}

Imam Ibn Kathir gives further information]: “Ibn 'Abbās, Ubayy b. Ka'b, Sa'īd b. Jubayr and al-Suddī used to recite: {Those of them with whom you contract mut'ah FOR A SPECIFIED PERIOD, give them their prescribed dowries}

Source:
Imam Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (d.310H) in his Tafsir [Jāmi al-Bayān fī Tāwīl al-Qur'ān (Dār al-Fikr; 1415 H), vol. 5, p. 19], Imam 'Abd al-Razzaq (d. 211H) in his al-Musannaf [vol. 7, p. 498, # 14022], Imam al-Hafiz ibn Kathir (d. 774H) in his Tafsīr alQur'ān al-'Aẓīm [( 2nd edition, 1420 H), vol. 2, p. 259

In summary, all these are cases of Tahrif, and all these ahadith altogether are in contrast with the Quran [the fact that Allah promise to protect it absolutely], and other ahadith which clearly Quran to be free from Tahrif.

Continuation...

The third belief:

The Quran collected by ‘Ali (ra) and rejected by the Caliphs contains the explanation of the Prophet (SAWS) to the verses and the reasons of revelation of each verse.

Grand Ayatullah al-Khoei says in “al-Bayan fi Tafseer al-Quran” pg.223-225:

[The additions found in his (as) Quran that are not found in ours, even if it is true yet there is no proof that they were a part of the Quran and were dropped by Tahreef, what is correct is that those additions were explanations and interpretations, and what can the words be interpreted as, or as a revelation from Allah to explain what was intended]

Grand Ayatullah Nasir Makarim al-Shirazi says in “al-Amthal fi Tafseer Kitab Allah al-Munazzal” 8/27-28:

[By taking a good look at those narrations, we reach the conclusion that the Quran of ‘Ali (as) does not differ with the rest of the copies in terms of content, except the difference in presentation and arrangement in three things:

The first: Its verses and chapters were organized based on the date or time of revelation.

The second: Specifying the reasons for the revelation of each verse and chapter.

The third: It contained the Prophet’s (SAWS) explanation of the verses in addition to mentioning the Nasikh and the Mansoukh (Abrogated verses and Abrogating verses).]

Ayatullah ‘Ali al-Milani says in his book “‘Adam Tahreef al-Quran” pg.37:

[It differs from this Quran in that ‘Ali had added in the margins of the verses some benefits he heard from the Prophet (SAWS) concerning the verses (…) All there is to it is that it differed with this Quran in how it is ordered and that it has additions that Ameer al-Mumineen heard from the Prophet (SAWS) concerning the verses so he wrote them in the margins.]

Shia scholar Mir-Muhammadi Zarandi says in “Buhooth fi Tareekh al-Quran wa-‘Uloumih” pg.127-128:

[As for the Quranic compilation of ‘Ali (as), what is meant is: He wrote it based on that of the Prophet (SAWS), and added to it the Tanzeel(revelations) and the Taaweel(interpretations) like in the narration, meaning he added everything revealed concerning the Quran even if it wasn’t a part of it (…) In conclusion: there is no conflict between saying that the Quran was gathered in the time of the Prophet (SAWS) and saying that it was collected by the hands of his gate of knowledge(‘Ali) after he passed away with the explanations and interpretations and other properties of the Quran (…) and maybe the copy of the Prophet (SAWS) was with ‘Ali at that time and he copied it adding the explanations and interpretations so Abu Bakr couldn’t get to it.]

He said on pg.152:

[In conclusion: we summarize the above: some of the companions had a Mushaf the used to read from, they are: 1- ‘Ali bin abi Talib (as), he compiled a copy of the Quran and added interpretations and revelations, and it was not burned in the days of ‘Uthman, and the Imams from his pure children inherited it, until it reached the Imam al-Qaem (as) and he will reveal it to the people.]

‘Allamah Muhsin al-Ameen al-‘Amili relays to us an account by one of their scholars in “A’ayan al-Shia” 1/89:

[al-Muhaqqiq al-Sayyed Muhsin bin al-Sayyed Hassan al-A’araji al-Kathimi said in his book “‘Iddat al-Rijal” after copying this from al-Ma’alim: I say it seems that he counted the collection of the glorious Quran as a compilation because he meant general authorship or because he (as) did not only collect the revelation but he also added clarifications and interpretations so it became the greatest compilation.]

Grand Ayatullah ‘Abdul-Hussein Sharaf-ul-Deen al-Musawi says in “Kitab al-Muraja’at” pg.411 #110:

[As for ‘Ali and his followers, they stood up for this in the first era, and the first thing Ameer al-Mumineen wrote down was the book of Allah. After he (as) finished preparing the Prophet (SAWS), he decided not to leave the house except for Prayer, he wanted to collect the Quran and he collected it and organized it in the order of revelation, and he highlighted the general verses and the specific verses, and the limited ruling and its general rulings, and the abrogated and abrogating verses, and its traditions and ethics, and explained the reasons of revelation of its clear verses, and clarified what could have been problematic (…) And more than one companion decided to gather the Quran but they weren’t able to collect it based on its revelation, nor did they include any of the properties mentioned above, so his collection (as) was closer to being a Tafseer.]

The seal of Shia Muhadditheen Hussein al-Noori al-Tabrasi says in “Khatimat Mustadrak al-Wasael” 4/113:

[As for what is in the narration through his words (as): {None touch it except the purified.} (Quran 56:79) after describing the book of ‘Ali (as) as {A register well-protected} (Kitabun Maknoun), it’s either a sign by him (as) pointing to the book gathered by Ameer al-Mumineen (as) after the Prophet (SAWS) passed away, it was known as “Mushaf ‘Ali” by everyone, he (as) clarified in it the abrogated and abrogating verses, and the Muhkam(precise verses) and the Mutashabih(unspecified verses), and the general and specific verses, and what is limited and what is absolute, and the reasons for the revelation, and some problematic areas.]

al-‘Allamah Ja’afar al-Subhani says in “‘Aqaiduna al-Falsafiyah wal-Quraniyah” pg.120-121:

[What is said about ‘Ali (as) collecting the Quran after the passing of the Prophet (SAWS), this means that he wrote the Quran in a way that is identical to how to was revealed, and he placed the abrogated verses before the abrogating verses as al-Majlisi stated in “Bihar al-Anwar” and according to what the author of “Tareekh al-Quran” says (…) What is recognized is that the Quran of the Imam (as) contained notes and clarifications about the revelation and the abrogated and abrogating verses and the precise and unspecific verses.]

Sheikh ‘Ali al-Kourani al-‘Amili says in “Alf Soual wa Ishkal” 1/256:

[What his death (SAWS) and the events of Saqifah and the pledge given to Abu Bakr, ‘Ali brought them a copy of the Quran in his own hand writing as the Prophet (SAWS) ordered but they refused to adopt it, because it contained in their opinion the explanations of some or many verses and it is all in favor of ‘Ali and his progeny peace be upon them, so ‘Ali took it and said: “You will not see it after this day.”]

Coontinuation...

Sheikh Hassan ‘Abdullah says in “Waqfah ma’a al-Jazaeri” pg.24:

[And they also inherited the mentioned, meaning: The one collected by Ameer al-Mumineen (as) and it is no different than the Quran in the hands of the Muslims except in the way it is ordered and the interpretation of verses according to the divine inspiration. Today it is found with al-Imam al-Hujjah al-Muntazar(Mahdi) may Allah hasten his honored appearance (…) And they (as) are the most knowledgeable when it comes to its interpretation and knowing its rulings and sciences that no one else knows]

Sheikh ‘Abdul-Latif al-Baghdadi says in “al-Tahqeeq fi al-Imamah” pg.235:

[Yes, that Quran remained with its correct explanations and interpretations with ‘Ali (as) and then to al-Hassan (as), and so it became from the private inheritance of the pure Imams, and now it is with Imam al-‘Asr wal-Zaman al-Mahdi from the family of Muhammad (aj).]

Observe dear reader this dangerous belief, that the Caliphs have stripped the book of Allah from its correct interpretations that were revealed by Allah to explain the meanings of the verses and the reasons for their revelation. This is a great crime the Shia scholars attributed to the Caliphs as it resulted in splitting the Muslims and dividing them on the interpretation of the verses of Allah, it states that the Muslim nation was denied the authentic revelation concerning the meaning of the verses.

Listen to what their grand Ayatullah Muhammad Hussein al-Tehrani says in “Noor Malakut al-Quran” 4/347:

[As for the fact that the Quran of ‘Ali (as) is not found in our hands, although it will cause harm in the sense of not being able to know the reasons and causes of the revealed Quranic verses, nor their explanations and interpretations, nor the correct order of verses and chapters, this matter results in not knowing the Quranic sciences and makes learning and spreading it harder.]

‘Abdullah ‘Ali al-Daqqaq says in “Haqiqat Mushaf al-Imam ‘Ali bayn al-Fariqayn” pg.285:

[So what is meant by al-Tanzeel(revelation) is the interpretation and explanation of the verses of the holy Quran, in this sense we can clearly see the great loss we suffered as a result of the refusal of the Caliphate, which caused it to be hidden from us.]

The Moustabsir shia writer, Salih al-Wardany says in “al-Khid’ah, my journey from Sunnah to Shia” pg.197:

[No doubt, stripping the Quran of these interpretations makes it even more vague, and makes understanding its texts harder and opens a door for conflict over the correct interpretation of these texts causing division between the Muslims, and this has happened.]

Contemplate with me O impartial Shia readers, contemplate this poisonous belief that turns the Quran to nothing more than empty letters we utter without being able to learn its correct meanings nor touch its true substance after the Caliphs supposedly stripped it of all of this.
Will this corrupt ‘Aqeedah plant in your heart the love and passion to read the Quran and contemplate its meanings!? Or will it further alienate you from it after knowing that the enemies of Ahlul-bayt have manipulated it and removed its soul and beauty?

# Shaykh Muḥammad Muḥammad ‘Abd al-Laṭīf Ibn al-Khaṭīb (died 1981 CE), one of the Sunnī scholars of Egypt, wrote a book called al-Furqān – first published in 1948 in Cairo by Dār al-Kutub al-Miṣriyyah, and then later re-published in Beirut by Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah – to prove that taḥrīf truly took place. The book is 247 pages long; and in it, he has gathered Sunnī reports which support taḥrīf in it. Whosoever wishes to download that book in a scanned, PDF version should click this link( http://www.4shared.com/get/B0haEOof/___________.html). In Egypt, Ibn al-Khaṭīb was a member of the Qur’ān Society, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Supreme Ṣūfī Council, and the Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs.


# Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah, for instance, states in his Majmū’ al-Fatāwā, vol. 12, p. 492:
http://islamport.com/d/3/tym/1/40/304.html

"Moreover, a lot of the Salaf made mistakes in a lot of these issues, and they agreed not to make takfīr on account of that. For instance, some of the Ṣaḥābah denied that the dead could hear the call of the living, and some of them denied that the mi’rāj took place in a state of wakefulness, and some of them denied that Muḥammad saw his Lord, and the opinion of some of them concerning the khilāfah and superiority (among them) is well-known. Likewise, there are well-known statements from some of them about the fighting of some others among them, the cursing of some others among them, and the total takfīr against some others among them.

Qāḍī Shurayḥ used to deny the qirāat of those who recited bal ‘ajibttu (“Nay, I wondered”) [37:12] and used to say that Allāh never wondered. This reached Ibrāhīm al-Nakha’ī and he said, “Shurayḥ is only a poet, who is dazzled by his knowledge. ‘Abd Allāh was more knowledgeable than him and he used to recite bal ajibttu.” So, he had denied a well-established qirāat and also denied a Divine Attribute which is proved by the Book and the Sunnah. Yet, the Ummah are unanimous that he was one of the Imāms.

Some of the Salaf were like that too. Some of them denied expressions used in the Qur’ān. For instance, one of them denied His Statement afalam yay-as al-ladhīna āmanū [13:31] and said, “It is only awalam yatabayan al-ladhīna āmanū.” Another (from the Salaf) denied the qirāat of His Statement wa qaḍā Rabbuka al-lā ta’budū’ ila iyyāhu [17:23] and said, “It is only wawaṣā Rabbuka.” One of them also expunged Sūrat al-Falaq and Sūrat al-Nās (from the Qur’ān), and another wrote Sūrat al-Qunūt, and this was an error by consensus and mutawātir reports."

So, where exactly do you find yourself Mr Sino? I hail thee in copy-pasting!

AlBaqir:
# Shaykh Muḥammad Muḥammad ‘Abd al-Laṭīf Ibn al-Khaṭīb (died 1981 CE), one of the Sunnī scholars of Egypt, wrote a book called al-Furqān – first published in 1948 in Cairo by Dār al-Kutub al-Miṣriyyah, and then later re-published in Beirut by Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah – to prove that taḥrīf truly took place. The book is 247 pages long; and in it, he has gathered Sunnī reports which support taḥrīf in it. Whosoever wishes to download that book in a scanned, PDF version should click this link( http://www.4shared.com/get/B0haEOof/___________.html). In Egypt, Ibn al-Khaṭīb was a member of the Qur’ān Society, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Supreme Ṣūfī Council, and the Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs.


# Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah, for instance, states in his Majmū’ al-Fatāwā, vol. 12, p. 492:
http://islamport.com/d/3/tym/1/40/304.html

"Moreover, a lot of the Salaf made mistakes in a lot of these issues, and they agreed not to make takfīr on account of that. For instance, some of the Ṣaḥābah denied that the dead could hear the call of the living, and some of them denied that the mi’rāj took place in a state of wakefulness, and some of them denied that Muḥammad saw his Lord, and the opinion of some of them concerning the khilāfah and superiority (among them) is well-known. Likewise, there are well-known statements from some of them about the fighting of some others among them, the cursing of some others among them, and the total takfīr against some others among them.

Qāḍī Shurayḥ used to deny the qirāat of those who recited bal ‘ajibttu (“Nay, I wondered”) [37:12] and used to say that Allāh never wondered. This reached Ibrāhīm al-Nakha’ī and he said, “Shurayḥ is only a poet, who is dazzled by his knowledge. ‘Abd Allāh was more knowledgeable than him and he used to recite bal ajibttu.” So, he had denied a well-established qirāat and also denied a Divine Attribute which is proved by the Book and the Sunnah. Yet, the Ummah are unanimous that he was one of the Imāms.

Some of the Salaf were like that too. Some of them denied expressions used in the Qur’ān. For instance, one of them denied His Statement afalam yay-as al-ladhīna āmanū [13:31] and said, “It is only awalam yatabayan al-ladhīna āmanū.” Another (from the Salaf) denied the qirāat of His Statement wa qaḍā Rabbuka al-lā ta’budū’ ila iyyāhu [17:23] and said, “It is only wawaṣā Rabbuka.” One of them also expunged Sūrat al-Falaq and Sūrat al-Nās (from the Qur’ān), and another wrote Sūrat al-Qunūt, and this was an error by consensus and mutawātir reports."

So, where exactly do you find yourself Mr Sino? I hail thee in copy-pasting!

Unfortunately for you AlBaqir, the above does not help your case in trying to excuse your early scholars, do you mind quoting the whole statement of Sheikh Ibn Taymiyah?! What we are discussing here is the Qur'an where Allah (SWT) had sworn to protect, and majority of your early scholars do believe is incomplete and distorted, and the Imams have the complete Qur'an. The transmission from your early scholars and some present ones have reached tawatur, and they are no mistakes, they are clear belief in the tahreef of the Qur'an.

I repeat, who ever believes the Qur'an is incomplete i.e not 100%, that it had been tampered with by the sahabahs, and the complete Qur'an is with the Imams is a Kafir....SIMPLE

By the way, the book you posted is just a joke, you yourself had presented a link explaining the ahl-Sunnah's position on tahreef, so what new narrations would be presented in the book that had not been analyzed already?!

And I have not finished posting the original article wherein more evidences abound... so chill, i dey come...

Ask any Sunnī Muslim: “How many versions of the Qur’ān do we have today?” He is most likely to answer: “Only one.” However, according to “authentic” Sunnī aḥādīth, the Book of Allāh was actually revealed in SEVEN different versions. So, where are the other six?! The popular Salafī fatwā website, IslamQA, tells us about the seven versions of the Qur’ān, according to Sunnī Islām:

"You should note, may Allaah bless you, that the Qur’aan was revealed in one style at the beginning, but the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) kept asking Jibreel until he taught him seven styles, all of which were complete. The evidence for that is the hadeeth of Ibn ‘Abbaas who narrated that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Jibreel taught me one style and I reviewed it until he taught me more, and I kept asking him for more and he gave me more until finally there were seven styles.” (narrated by al-Bukhaari, 3047; Muslim, 819)

In that case, what were these seven styles? The Salafī fatwā continues: https://islamqa.info/en/5142

Secondly, what is meant by styles (ahruf, sing. harf)?

"The BEST of the scholarly opinions concerning what is meant is that there are seven ways of reciting the Qur’aan, where the wording may differ but the meaning is the same; if there is a different meaning then it is by way of variations on a theme, not opposing and contradiction."

In other words, you could recite Sūrat al-Fātiḥah in seven different styles. The words of Sūrat al-Fātiḥah in Style A were different the words of the same Sūrat al-Fātiḥah in Style B. The words of this Sūrat al-Fātihah in Style C were different from the words of both Style A and Style B; and this was how all the seven styles were different from one another. Their words were different; but they all had the same meanings. IslamQA emphasizes this point again in the same fatwā:

"It seems that the seven styles were revealed WITH DIFFERENT WORDINGS, as indicated by the hadeeth of ‘Umar, because ‘Umar’s objection was to the style, not the meaning. The differences between these styles are not the matter of contradiction and opposition, rather they are SYNONYMOUS, as Ibn Mas’ood said: “It is like one of you saying halumma, aqbil or ta’aal (all different ways of saying ‘Come here’)."

Now, tell any Sunni to read, for example, Sūrat al-Fātiḥah in the seven styles. He will not be able to do that. Why? The Salafī fatwā tells us:

"When ‘Uthmaan made copies of the Qur’aan, he did so according to one style (harf), but he omitted the dots and vowel points so that some other styles could also be accommodated. So the Mus-haf that was copied in his time could be read according to other styles, and whatever styles were accommodated by the Mus-haf of ‘Uthmaan remained in use, and the styles that could not be accommodated fell into DISUSE. The people had started to criticize one another for reciting differently, so ‘Uthmaan united them by giving them one style of the Qur’aan."

This fatwā has slightly contradicted itself here. It states that the words in each of the style were different from those in the others (even though their meanings were the same). It even gives the examples of haluma, aqbil, and ta’āl. Then, the same fatwā argues that when we remove the dots and vowel points from the verses of the Qur’ān, it became possible to recite them in some of the other styles. Is that not a clear contradiction? For instance, let us write halumma without the dots and vowel points: هلمّ. Can anyone ever recite it as أقبل or تعال? It is impossible! So, when ‘Uthmān decided to compile the Qur’ān in only one style out of seven, he was essentially getting rid of all the others. The Salafī fatwā agrees that what Caliph ‘Uthmān did led to the “disuse” of some of the revealed styles. However, the reality is that, according to Sunnī Islām, all of the six other styles became “lost” as a result of what the third caliph did!

Imām Ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī in his Tafsīr al-Ṭabarī (Cairo: Maktabat Ibn Taymiyyah; 2nd edition) [annotators: Maḥmūd Muḥammad Shākir and Aḥmad Muḥammad Shākir], vol. 1, pp. 63-64 gives more details:


"And there are similar reports which would make the book long if all of them were quoted, as well as the reports which prove that the Imām of the Muslims and Amīr al-Mūminīn ‘Uthmān b. ‘Affān, may the mercy of Allāh be upon him, united the Muslims – due to his care and compassion for them and his kindness towards them, his concern that some of them might apostatize from Islām and become disbelievers after having believed, when some of them, in his presence and in his absence, denied some of the seven styles in which the Qur’ān was revealed, despite that the Ṣaḥābah of the Messenger of Allāh, peace be upon him, had heard the Messenger of Allāh, peace be upon him, forbidding the denial of any of them and informing them that disputation about them (i.e. the seven styles) was kufr. So, when he saw this (i.e. disputation about the seven styles) occurring among them during his rule, and due to the closeness of their time to the (time of the) descent of the Qur’ān and the separation from the Messenger of Allāh, peace be upon him, from them, he (i.e. ‘Uthmān), may the mercy of Allah be upon him, placed them upon what would protect him and them from a terrible calamity in the religion resulting from the recitation of the Qur’ān: upon a single ḥarf.

He united them upon a single muṣḥaf, and upon a single style, and he burnt everything other than the muṣḥaf upon which he united them. He resolved that whosoever possessed any muṣḥaf which was different from the muṣḥaf upon which he united them, must burn it. The Ummah obeyed him, and they saw that there was guidance in what he did. So, they abandoned the recitation of the six styles which their just Imām resolved that they must abandon, out of obedience to him, and out of care for themselves and for future adherents of their religion, to the extent that they obliterated knowledge of them (i.e. the six styles) within the Ummah and wiped out their traces. Therefore, it is not possible for anyone today to recite them, due to their extinction and the obliteration of their traces. The Muslims continued to reject their recitation, without denying their validity, without denying the validity of any of them. However, they did this out of care for themselves and for all the other followers of their religion. As a result, the Muslims have no other recitation today except with the single style which their kind-hearted, well-meaning Imām chose for them, at the expense of the other six style."


When Allāh promised to protect and preserve His Book, He was referring to all the seven styles – as “authentic” Sunnī aḥādīth indicate. All of them together made up the Holy Qur’ān, according to Sunnī Islām. However, the third caliph, in the view of the Ahl al-Sunnah, was able to permanently destroy six of the seven styles. This, without doubt, is a taḥrīf belief of mammoth proportions! No wonder, Imām Sa’īd b. Manṣūr recorded in his Sunan, published in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia by Dār al-Ṣamī’ī, 1st edition, 1414 H, annotated by Dr. Sa’d b. ‘Abd Allāh b. ‘Abd al-‘Azīz Āl Ḥumayyid, vol. 2, p. 432, # 140:

Sa’īd – Ismā’īl b. Ibrāhīm – Ayyūb – Nāfi’:

Ibn ‘Umar said, “Let none of you say: ‘I have got the whole of the Qur’ān.’ How does he know what the whole of it is? A lot of the Qur’ān has been lost. Instead, he should say: ‘We have got what emerged of it.’”

Dr. Sa’d Āl Ḥumayyid comments: Its chain is ṣaḥīḥ.

Eyah, your plight is really pathetic since you keep jumping from piller to post looking for what would stick. Bro, 7 types of qira'ah and abrogation does not mean the Qur'an with us is incomplete and that it was distorted by the sahabahs like your scholars believe and their followers, such beliefs already pointed out previously are "kufrutic" or do you also believe the complete Qur'an is with the Imams?!

Anyways, the narration of Ibn Umar (ra) is what interest me in refuting, and Alhamdulilah, there is an academic refutation online...

NB: It is pertinent to mention here that the author of this research work was refuting the critics of Islam, non-Muslims who are just looking for anything to hang on to, to destroy Islam and Muslims...When a supposed Muslim brings up such claims, one needs to probe the authenticity of the Islam such person professes...

Meaning of Ibn ‘Umar’s statement, “Much of the Qur’an is Gone”
By Waqar Akbar Cheema & Gabriel Al Romaani

Abstract

One subject of Islam that is constantly under attack from its critics is the preservation of the Qur’an. Muslims are proud to state that the Qur’an is completely intact, as Allah has promised to protect it from any changes. There have been many failed attempts by skeptics to prove that the Qur’an is not in its original form. They often jump at any opportunity to prove this point because it is essential to their argumentation to refute the most important aspect of Islam – its miraculous Noble Book. One such claim that has appeared has to do with a statement of Ibn ‘Umar, one of the Companions who was very knowledgeable about the Qur’an. It was misconstrued by some to mean that “much of the Qur’an is lost,” but this is not what it means at all. This article will explain this mistranslation of Ibn ‘Umar’s statement and provide a reason why this statement does mean what the critics of Islam want to make it appear to mean.

1. Introduction
The critics of Islam take much of their inspiration from Orientalists of the past, some sincere (but mistaken) while others had destructive agendas. Some of these missionaries have lacked the desire and sincerity to look at Islam from a neutral point of view. In an attempt to delegitimize Islam, they have often dealt with translations (since they cannot understand the source language) which are often inaccurate and do not encompass the full meaning of the original text in Arabic. Despite their claim that the Qur’an has not been perfectly preserved, we will show beyond the shadow of a doubt Allah has protected the Qur’an as promised:

“Verily, We have revealed the Reminder (the Quran) and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption).”[1]

A narration from ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar quoted by Hafidh as-Suyuti (d. 911 A.H.) in his al-Itiqan fee ‘Uloom al-Qur’an has become a source of joy for some of these skeptics.

One critic of Islam translates this narration as the following:

‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar reportedly said: “Let none of you say, ‘I have got the whole of the Qur’an.’ How does he know what all of it is? MUCH OF THE QUR’AN IS GONE. Let him say instead, ‘I have got what has survived.’”[2]

(Sino's comment: Fortunately for our brother shi'ah, his translation is different a little compared to the above from the non-Muslim critics, but note how he said "Much of the Qur'an has been lost" this is a very bad, nay worst and deceitful translation than the above as we shall soon see)


Not only are the meanings that these critics try to superimpose on this narration totally wrong, but this translation is also misleading. We shall first clarify the real meaning of this narration and then give its rightful translation supported with due reasoning.

2- The true meanings of the narration

To every ardent student of the Qur’anic sciences it is known that there were many verses first revealed as part of the Qur’an and later abrogated.

(Sino's Comment: well sure not up to 10,000 verses like an auithentic narration from Al-Kafi of the shi'a suggests)

As-Suyuti brings this narration in the section of his work titled as, “Section forty-seven: About the Abrogating and the Abrogated.”[3]

Likewise it is in the section about abrogation in another work of as-Suyuti.[4]

In Abu ‘Ubayd’s (d. 228 A.H.) work, from which as-Suyuti quotes this, it is the first narration in the chapter titled, “[About] what all was abrogated from the Qur’an after revelation and is not put in the Masahif.”[5]

Most important is the narration quoted by Ibn Hajr (d. 852 A.H.) which compliments and fixes the meaning of the report we are discussing. Ibn Hajr writes:

“Ibn ad-Durays has narrated a report of Ibn ‘Umar that he used to dislike the person who said, ‘I have recited the whole of the Qur’an.’ He (Ibn ‘Umar) used to say, ‘But (the reality is) a part of the Qur’an has been abrogated.’”[6]

This report confirms that Ibn ‘Umar’s statement simply refers to what was abrogated from the Qur’an.

Abu Bakr bin Tayyib al-Baqilani (d. 403 A.H.) in his amazing work al-Intisar lil-Qur’an (In Defence of the Qur’an), quotes another narration on the similar lines and then explains the two together. He writes:

“And similar is the report of ‘Abdullah bin ‘Abbas from Ubayy, that he heard a man said to him: ‘O Abul-Munzar, verily I have gathered (i.e. memorized) the whole of the Qur’an.’ He (Ubayy) said to him, ‘He does not know (what the whole of it was) because so much of the Qur’an was abrogated and it was not found afterwards.’[7]

And then explaining it he writes:

“And it is not possible for anyone to claim that he has learnt (all) what was revealed as Qur’an – the abrogating part of it and the abrogated. And their words ‘it was not found afterwards’ (underscore) that we do not find in our day one who has memorized all that was abrogated and whose recitation was given up. And this is something which was bound to happen.”[8]

To be continued...

Continuation...

3. Nothing has been lost of what the Prophet left of the Qur’an

Narrated ‘Abdul-‘Azeez bin Rufai’: “Shaddad bin Ma’qil and I entered upon Ibn ‘Abbas. Shaddad bin Ma’qil asked him, ‘Did the Prophet leave anything (besides the Qur’an)?’ He replied, ‘He did not leave anything except what is between the two bindings (of the Qur’an).’ Then we visited Muhammad bin al-Hanafiyyah and asked him (the same question). He replied, ‘The Prophet did not leave except what is between the bindings (of the Qur’an).’”[9]

This hadith is categorical evidence that nothing was lost of the Qur’an because all that the blessed Prophet – peace and blessings of Allah be upon him – left for his people is what was put between the two bindings.

Ibn Hajr writes:

“And this chapter is made to refute those who assume that a lot from the Qur’an was lost with the death of those who knew it.”[10]
Al-‘Ayni (d. 855 A.H.) also makes exactly the same point.[11]

Shahab ud-Deen al-Alusi’s (d. 1270 A.H.) comment helps explain the issue:

“Verily they (i.e. people of Sunnah) have agreed on there being no loss in the Qur’an as is continuously reported like we today find between the two bindings. Yes during the time of (Abu Bakr) as-Sidiq the part which was not reported continuously and was (rather) abrogated was dropped (out of the official mushaf)…and to this relates that which is reported by Abu ‘Ubayd from Ibn ‘Umar, who said: ‘None of you should say that he has taken the whole of the Qur’an; how could he know what all of it was! A lot of the Qur’an has passed him by! Let him say instead: I have taken of the Qur’an that which became apparent.’”[12]

The above mentioned narration of Sahih Bukhari is very significant. One of the two who said “The Prophet left nothing except what is between the two bindings” was Ibn ‘Abbas, and in the narration quoted by al-Baqilani we find him reporting and listening to the comment of his teacher Ubayy bin Ka‘b which is same as that of Ibn ‘Umar. Connecting the dots we make out that he understood Ubayy did not mean to say that some part of the Qur’an that the Prophet had left for the Ummah might have been missed and could not be found anymore by the person claiming to have memorized the whole of it. It rather shows that Ibn ‘Abbas fully knew that what Ubayy referred to was something exclusive to what the Prophet had left for the Ummah as eternal guidance (i.e. it was the abrogated part). And we have already seen that the narration of Ibn ‘Umar quoted by Ibn Hajr on the authority of Ibn ad-Durays makes the same point very plainly.

Another significant observation about Bukhari’s narration is that the two who testified for the Qur’anic preservation are Ibn ‘Abbas, the cousin of ‘Ali bin Abi Talib, and Muhammad bin al-Hanafiyyah, the son of ‘Ali bin Abi Talib. Their testimony is quite sufficient to lay to rest any arguments by some extreme Shiites who say the Qur’an was tampered with to remove verses in favor of ‘Ali. Had this been the case these two close relatives of ‘Ali would have not failed to make a mention of it.

(Sino's comment: To be continued.... )

4- Two objections answered

Having explained the narration let us now turn to two possible questions.

4.1 Why did Ibn ‘Umar refer to the abrogated verses as the Qur’an?

Before finding the answer to this question let us have another look at the narration of Ibn ad-Durays:

“‘Ibn Umar used to dislike the person who said, ‘I have recited the whole of the Qur’an.’ He (Ibn Umar) used to say, ‘But (the reality is) a part of the Qur’an has been abrogated.’”

Very much like our explanation to the narration we are discussing, this report shows that Ibn ‘Umar referred to the abrogated verses as Qur’an. With the clarity in its last words this narration takes away all the rhetoric power of the question and reduces it to a mere query having no ability whatsoever to cast doubts on the validity of the explanation offered.

Dr. Sa‘d bin ‘Abdullah al-Humayyid comments on this narration in his research of Sunan Sa‘eed bin Mansoor:

“And it appears from the words of Ibn ‘Umar that in his opinion even the abrogated verses could also be called Qur’an after their being abrogated or (they could be so called) by the way what they once were.”[13]

This is understandable given the fact that Qur’an is nothing but the word of Allah and abrogated verses, although they are not required to be
followed, were nevertheless revered due to their divine origin. In this regard, there is one important difference between Ibn ‘Umar and the people of later generations like us. As there is no authority of continuous (mutawatir) reports, we cannot be as certain as him about some abrogated words once being a part of the Qur’an. We may however refer to them as such for academic purposes on the basis of lesser proofs. However, for Ibn ‘Umar this was not the condition as he must have listened to some verses from the Prophet in person for which he later learned that they were abrogated. Therefore, he was particular about the words that emanated from the Almighty as part of the Qur’an though abrogated afterwards.

Furthermore, it also has an indication of an attitude of extreme care on such matters that involves goodness on one part because this can in a way lead to self-glorification. One might see it akin to the following hadith:

Narrated Abu Bakrah: The Prophet said: “One of you should not say: ‘I fasted the whole of Ramadan, and I prayed during the night in the whole of Ramadan.’ I do not know whether he disliked the self-praise; or he (the narrator) said: ‘He must have slept a little and taken rest.’”[14]

We can see that even though it is natural that one who would fast as such for the whole month of Ramadan, will break the fasts at night and will also sleep besides standing in late-night prayers, yet an out of the way step is taken in instructing not to make such a claim. The fact that narration of Ibn ‘Umar is in essence similar to this and involves the idea of claim as well; it can help us appreciate the real message in the words of Ibn ‘Umar.

4.2 Was “much” of the Qur’an abrogated?

We know the actual text involves the words “qur’an katheer” therefore one may tend to translate it as “much of the Qur’an” with a stress on “much.” In fact one critic asks, “What kind of revelation is this that MUCH (not some) of it consists of verses that have been abrogated?” This may appear to be a very strong point but actually speaks of the lack of proper understanding of the Arabic language.

The Arabic word katheer does not mean ‘much’ in the comparative sense. In the comparative sense it can even be used to mean less than what it is compared to as shown below. The same is the case with abrogation that we are discussing. The abrogated part of the Qur’an was definitely less than what remains.

A simple proof for this assertion is the narration in which Sa‘d bin Waqqas asked the Prophet about the share of his wealth that he might give away in charity while he feared to die. Sa‘d bin Abi Waqqas himself narrated his dialogue with the blessed Prophet on the subject:
“I said, ‘Should I give two-thirds of my property in charity?’ He said, ‘No.’ I asked, ‘Half?’ He said, ‘No.’ Then he added, ‘One-third, and even one-third is much (wal-thuluthu kathir).’”[15]

Certainly one-third is not “much” in the comparative sense of being more than the rest and no person of reason can ever claim that. Ibn ‘Umar only aimed to highlight the fact that verses of the Qur’an were abrogated and no one should say that they have memorized the whole of the Qur’an (including those verses) as it rests in the guarded tablets with Allah. The Qur’an that we have between the two covers today, the Qur’an given to us by the Messenger of Allah, collected by Abu Bakr and ‘Uthman, is the Qur’an that Allah revealed and decreed to remain as the guiding message for humanity till the Day of Judgment, without any addition, subtraction or alteration.

5. Summary and Conclusion

Ibn ‘Umar only referred to the abrogated part of the Qur’an and his comment in no way suggests of even a single letter of the Qur’an being lost.
Ibn ‘Umar’s other narration quoted by Ibn Hajr on the authority of Ibn ad-Durays plainly establishes this meaning.

Abu ‘Ubayd and as-Suyuti have both placed the narration in the sections about abrogated verses which shows they also understood it likewise. Comments of al-Baqilani and al-Alusi also support the same.

The word katheer does not mean ‘much’ in the comparative sense.

The rightful translation of the meanings of this narration is:

Ibn ‘Umar said: “None of you should say that he has taken the whole of the Qur’an; how could he know what all of it was (before some of it being abrogated)! Substantial parts of the Qur’an has passed him by (due to abrogation)! Let him say instead: ‘I have taken of the Qur’an that which (remained and) became apparent (after abrogation).”


References & Notes
________________________________________
[1] Qur’an 15:9
[2] as-Suyuti, Jalal ad-Deen, al-Itiqan fee ‘Uloom al-Qur’an, (Cairo: al-Halabi, 1935) Vol.2, 25
[3] Ibid., Vol.3, 66, 82-83
[4] as-Suyuti, Jalal ad-Deen, Mu’tarik al-Aqran fee Aijaz al-Qur’an, (Beirut: Dar al-Kotob al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1988) Vol.1, 95
[5] Abu ‘Ubayd, Fada’il al-Qur’an, (Damascus; Dar Ibn Katheer, 1995) Vol.1, 320
[6] al-Asqalani, Ibn Hajr , Fath al-Bari, Vol.9, 65
[7] al-Baqilani, al-Intisar lil-Qur’an, (Beirut: Dar Ibn Hazm, 2001) 406
[8] Ibid., 408
[9] al-Bukhari, as-Sahih, Hadith 5019
[10] al-Asqalani, Ibn Hajr, Fath al-Bari, (Beirut: Dar al-Ma’rifah, 1379 A.H.) Vol.9, 65
[11] al-‘Ayni, ‘Umdah al-Qari, (Beirut: Dar al-Ahya al-Turath al-‘Arabi, n.d.) Vol.20, 36
[12] al-Alusi, Shahab ud-Deen, Tafseer Ruh al-M’ani, (Beirut: Dar al-Kotob al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1415 A.H.) Vol.1, 26
[13] al-Humayyid (editor), Sunan Sa’eed bin Mansoor, (Beirut: Dar as-Sami’i, 1993) Vol.2, 433
[14] as-Sajistani, Abu Dawood, as-Sunan, Translated by Ahmad Hasan (Lahore: Sh. Muhammad Ashraf Sons, 1984) Hadith 2409
[15] al-Bukhari, Muhammad bin Isma’il, as-Sahih, Translated by Muhammad Muhsin Khan (Riyadh: Maktabat Dar-us-Salam, 1997) Hadith 2742

Continuation of the topic...

The fourth belief:

The Quran collected by the Caliphs is different than that of ‘Ali (ra) in terms of order of chapters and verses. This belief was adopted by Shia scholars either directly and apparently or they pointed to it indirectly.

A- Examples of Shia scholars that openly declared it:

Shia scholar ‘Ali al-Kourani says in his book “Mu’ujam Ahadith al-Mahdi” 3/126, under the chapter “The Mahdi’s (as) renewal of Islam and the Quran”:

[What’s apparent is that he (as) means that they teach them the Quran in its complete rulings, and it was reported that the Quran in the hand writing of ‘Ali and inherited by the Imams (as) differs with this Quran in the order of chapters and maybe verses.]

He also says in “Kitab ‘Asr al-Zuhour” pg.88-89:

[And what may have been meant by the “New Book” is the new Quran with its new order of verses and chapters, it was reported that this copy is preserved with the Mahdi (as) along with other things inherited from the Prophets (SAWS), and that it is no different than the one in our hands, it has no addition or subtraction of any letter, but it differs in the order of chapters and verses, spoken by the Prophet (SAWS) and with ‘Ali’s (as) hand writing.]

Ayatullah Sheikh abu Talib al-Tajlil al-Tabrizi in “Tanzeeh al-Shia al-Ithna ‘Ashariyah ‘an al-Shubuhat al-Wahiyah” 2/526:

[I say: (…) As for the Quran, it can only be new in the order of its chapters or the interpretation of its verses.]

Ayatullah ‘Ali al-Milani says in “‘Adam Tahreef al-Quran” pg.38:

[All there is to it is that it differed with this Quran in how it is ordered and that it has additions that Ameer al-Mumineen heard from the Prophet (SAWS) concerning the verses so he wrote them in the margins.]

B- They accepted this belief in practice:

They accepted it by saying that ‘Ali (ra) wrote it in the order of revelations and wrote the Abrogating verses before the abrogated verses, so it definitely has to be different than the Quran in our hands in how it looks and how it is understood, we give some examples:

al-Mufid who was the leader of the sect in his time says in “Masael Saruriyah” pg.79:

[And Ameer al-Mumineen (as) had collected the revealed Quran from beginning to end, and compiled it the way it was supposed to be compiled, he placed the Makki verses before the Madani verses, and the abrogated verses before the abrogating verses.]

‘Allamah Muhammad Hussein al-TabaTabaei says in “al-Quran fil-Islam” pg.137:

[And the Imam Ameer al-Mumineen (as) although he was the first to collect the Quran and compile it based on the date of revelation of verses.]

Grand Ayatullah ‘Abdul-Hussein Sharaf-ul-Deen al-Musawi says in “al-Muraja’at” pg.411:

[After he (as) finished preparing the Prophet (SAWS), he decided not to leave the house except for Prayer, he wanted to collect the Quran and he collected it and organized it in the order of revelation.]

Ayatullah Muhammad al-Hussein al-Tehrani says in “Anwar Malakut al-Quran” 4/344:

[From the properties of this Quran, alongside the order of chapters and verses according to their time of revelation.]

And everyone knows that changing the order of verses in the chapters, placing the Makki before the Madani, placing the abrogating before the abrogated, all of this changes the context of the verses and thus the way people understand them, because the context plays a vital role in how a verse is interpreted.

Ayatullah Sayyed ‘Ali al-Milani say in “Ayat-ul-Tathir” pg.23:

[In the science of Usool, we say: The context is a proof, meaning that when we need to know the meaning of some words or the meaning of a word, we look at what surrounds it and in what context it is found in, because the words that surround it and the context of the phrase that contains it will aid us in understanding that word or phrase, this is something they mention in ‘Ilm al-Usool and this is something Sahih(correct) and no one argues about it.]

Here are the words of some of their scholars pointing to this reality, al-‘Allamah Muhammad Hadi Ma’rifah says in “Siyanat al-Quran min al-Tahreef” pg.230:

[The narrations pointing to this are not small in number, and they show us that there is a difference between his (as) Quran and the current Quran, is the difference in the text itself or how it is arranged or something else? This is what the narrations do not state, except the first Hadith we pointed to, it is explicit in specifying what the difference is, it is only in how it is arranged and compiled (…)

The difference in the arrangement of the text alone, is enough to make the recitation harder and it makes understanding the meaning harder, because understanding the meaning is directly tied to the arrangement of the parts of the text, if it is to be changed, most definitely the meaning will change. Also placing the sentences in their positions according to the will of the speaker is the best way to understand the intended meaning, because the context surrounding the speech can only be used as indication if it were placed according to how the speaker wants, not so in case it is changed intentionally or by mistake.]

This belief means that the Caliphs changed the order of verses and chapters based on their desires, to hide the truth and misguide the people. In other words, the current Quran was corrupted by altering the locations of the verses which led people to understand it differently than was originally intended by Allah. We give a few examples of such cases according to the Shia scholars:

Grand Ayatullah ‘Abdul-Hussein Sharaf-ul-Deen al-Musawi author of “al-Muraja’at” wrote on pg.63 concerning the verse of completion of religion {This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion.} [Quran 5:3] he said that this was revealed about the Imamah of ‘Ali (ra) after the Prophet (SAWS) appointed him as Caliph for the nation but the context of the verse rejects this interpretation so he accused the Caliphs of changing its location:

[Why is it forbidden that the verse starting with {This day those who disbelieve have despaired} until {approved for you Islam as religion} (Quran 5:3), why can this not be a separate verse independent of what surrounds it? and that it was revealed alone on the day of Ghadeer, then the people in the days of ‘Uthman have placed it and pushed it into the middle of that noble verse, because of an objective they had or because of their ignorance or something else!?]

al-‘Allamah Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi claimed a similar thing concerning the verse of purification {Allah intends only to remove from you the impurity [of sin], O people of the [Prophet’s] household, and to purify you with [extensive] purification.} [Quran 33:33] because the context completely contradicts his belief that the verse was revealed only about ‘Ali’s (ra) family, he said in “Bihar al-Anwar” 35/234:

[Maybe the verse of purification was placed in a location that they claimed was suited for it, or they inserted it between the verses addressing the wives for worldly purposes.]

Ayatullah ‘Ali al-Milani says in “Muhadarat fil-I’itiqadat” 2/590-591:

[b][Tahreef(corruption) has many meanings: al-Tahreef bil-Tarteeb (corruption of arrangement): There is no difference between the Muslims that this type of corruption has happened to the glorious Quran, everyone agrees that the current Quran was not written down according to how it was revealed, it’s different than how it was revealed and organized, this is what the scholars of Quran in their books, refer to al-Itqan of al-Suyuti and you’ll see him mentioning the names of the chapters according to their time of revelation. So why did they do this? what was their objective? I had told you that one lecture was not enough. The order of chapters and the order of verses is different than how it was originally revealed, take for example the verse of al-Mawaddah (Quran 42:23) it was placed in a location other than its original location, the Verse of al-Tathir (Quran 33:33) it was also placed in a location other than its original location, the chapter of al-Maedah (5th chapter) according to the consensus of Muslims this is the last chapter revealed, you will see that it is not at the end but at the beginning of the Quran. What is the purpose of this? this is a type of corruption and it has undoubtedly occurred.]
[/b]
[b]The danger of this Shia ‘Aqeedah must be obvious to all Muslims with healthy minds and beliefs, they openly accuse the Caliphs of changing the locations of the verses and their contexts to hide the true meaning of the verses that are supposedly proofs for Imamah and infallibility!!! This belief is just as dangerous as the belief of the Shia scholars who openly claim the Quran is corrupted in means of deletion, because the result is exactly the same, that the Caliphs corrupted the Quran to hide the truth of the Imamah from the Muslims. In both cases the Quran was manipulated and changed to hide the truth and the only difference here is the method, so who are they fooling!?

I turn now towards the honest Shia, will your soul feel at ease when you read the Quran while knowing that the book you have in your hands was changed and distorted and manipulated by the evil Imams!? Will you feel at ease while knowing that Allah is not pleased with what you have between your hands!?

What about the saying of Allah: {Behold, it is We Ourselves who have bestowed from on high, step by step, this reminder? and, behold, it is We who shall truly guard it [from all corruption].} [Quran 15:9]

How is it that Allah exactly “protected” it according to the saying of the Shia scholars? when the explanations and interpretations were removed and the methods of reading and recitation are wrong and the verses were scrambled and mixed changing their meanings and hiding the most important pillars of the Shia faith such as Imamah and infallibility?
[/b]

To be continued...

The fifth belief:

The Quran collected by ‘Ali (ra) has acquired miraculous power and all matter of perfection and accuracy in compilation as opposed to the one spread all over the world today.

‘Allamah Muhammad Hadi Ma’rifah says while describing the transcript of ‘Ali (ra) in “Talkhees al-Tamheed” pg.152, under the title “Describing the Mushaf of ‘Ali (as)”:

[His (as) Quran was distinguished with:

A- An objective arrangement, based on the time of revelation of each verse, in high precision.
B- Affirmation of the texts of the book as they are, without modification or change, with no exception of any verses or words.
C- Affirmation of the reading of the Prophet (SAWS), letter for letter.
D- It incorporates clarifications -on the margin of course- and it shows the event that caused the verse to descend, the location it descended, the hour it descended and the persons that the verse was aimed at.
E- It contained the general aspects of the verses in a way that is not specific for a certain time or place or person, it flows like the sun and the moon, this is what was meant by Taaweel in his (as) saying: “I came to them with the book containing the Tanzeel and he Taaweel.”

So al-Tanzeel is the temporal occasion that called for the revelation of the verse, and al-Taaweel is clarifying the general flow of the verse.
‘Ali’s (as) transcript contained all of these minute details which he took from Rassul-Allah (SAWS) without forgetting or confusing anything.]

And he said on pg.148-149:

[The first one to rise for the duty of collecting the Quran, directly after the death of the Prophet (SAWS) and by his command, was ‘Ali bin abi Talib (as) who sat at home busy with collecting it and arranging it according to revelation, with explanations and interpretations of the vague parts of the verses, and with reasons for revelation and locations of revelation in detail until he finished it in this magnificent style.]

And he said in “Siyanat al-Quran”pg.229:

[Because the transcript of the Imam Ameer al-Mumineen (as) was collected in the most precise arrangement exactly like the revelation of Allah without change, he did not miss any of it properties]

Shia scholar ‘Ali al-Kourani al-‘Amili says in “Tadween al-Quran” pg.254-255:

[As for us the Shia, we believe that it happened and that our Prophet (SAWS) had given as inheritance his knowledge and the copy of the Quran that was compiled in a miraculous manner that touches the substance and the soul greatly, and shows the miraculous power of the Quran and its interpretation to al-Hassan and al-Hussein (…) until it reached the hands of the seal of successors as promised by the seal of Prophets, al-Imam al-Mahdi (…) And what can we do if the texts in our sources state this.]

Notice the hidden attacks on the Quran of the Muslims, by saying that the Quran of ‘Ali (ra) is distinguished from our common Quran by its perfection and accuracy and its miraculous ability to reach the soul, and how the exaggerate in describing how great and unique it was and how it is written word for word in a way that pleases Allah without any changes and modifications. We ask them: Are these properties also found in our Quran? Do these descriptions also fit the book in our hands? If the answer is “Yes” then how come you are mentioning them as features that distinguish the other Quran and show its uniqueness!? This dear reader is the malicious strategy adopted by these men to lower the importance of the book of Allah.

Finally, abu Muhammad al-Khaqani stated in “Ma’a al-Khutout al-‘Areedah li-Muhibb al-Deen al-Khateeb” pg.51:

[And on this basis, he (as) did not participate in correcting the Quran of ‘Uthman as long as he (as) had the corrected Quran that was collected according to what was revealed on the Prophet (SAWS), and the existence of ‘Ali’s (as) Quran does not lower the status of the Quran because it is the best collection after the Quran of ‘Ali (as), and the existence of what is Best does not raise the status of what is Good.]

As you can see they continue to attack our Quran in an indirect and twisted way, although the writer was cautious at the end and he didn’t want to hurt the feelings of the Muslims so he said that our Quran was “Good”, although it is no match for ‘Ali’s (ra) perfect Quran which he described as being better and labeled it as “Best”.

They continue to tell you how good and unique that Quran was, while indirectly telling us that our own Qurans do not posses any of those miraculous features. We ask the average Shia, will your heart then turn towards this Quran? or towards the Quran of the Mahdi that has all of those unique miraculous features and bonuses!?

The sixth belief:

The Quran of ‘Ali (ra) that the 12th hidden Imam al-Mahdi shall reveal is a new Quran, different than the one the Muslims are used to because of its miraculous power and difference in interpretation and accuracy and the perfection of its collection.

Since ‘Ali’s (ra) Quran had all those unique aspects that allow it to touch people’s hearts, to truly display the miraculous power of the Quran, to be understood in the proper way as Allah intended ect…, thus they began calling it “The new Quran” in their narrations, such as the Hadith(narration) of Muhammad bin Ibrahim al-Nu’umani:

[From abu Baseer, he said: abu Ja’far (as) said: al-Qaem (as) will rise in a new order, a new book, a new judgment, Harsh on the Arabs. He will only use his sword and will not accept the repentance of anyone, nor will he fear anyone but Allah.]

sources: Ghaybat al-Nu’umani pg.237, Bihar al-Anwar 52/354, Ithbat al-Hudat 3/540, Mu’ujam Hadith al-Mahdi 3/253.

Grand Ayatullah and Muhaqqiq al-Muntaziri says about this in “Dirasat fi Wilayat al-Faqih” 1/521:

[And in the narration of abu Baseer, from abu Ja’far (as) regarding the Qaem (as): “By Allah, it is as if I am looking at him between al-Rukn and al-Maqam and the people are giving him Baya’ah on a new order and a new book and a new authority from the sky.] (…) And by New Quran he means its explanation dictated by the Prophet (SAWS) and in Ameer al-Mumineen’s (as) own handwriting, as we have read in many narrations.]

Sheikh ‘Ali al-Kourani says in “Kitab ‘Asr al-Zuhour” pg.88-89:

[And what may have been meant by the “New Book” is the new Quran with its new order of verses and chapters, it was reported that this copy is preserved with the Mahdi (as) along with other things inherited from the Prophets (SAWS)]

Sheikh ‘Abdul-Latif al-Baghdadi says in “Tahqeeq fil-Imamah” pg.235-236:

[Yes, and this Quran remained with its correct explanation with ‘Ali (as) and after him with al-Hassan (as), and so on until it became from the private inheritance of the pure Imams, and now it is with Imam al-‘Asr wal-Zaman al-Mahdi (aj). It was reported from al-Baqir (as) that he said: “If he arose (al-Mahdi) he will start with a new order, a new book, a new Sunnah, a new judgment, he shall be Harsh with the Arabs.” (al-Majalis al-Sunniyah). And from him (as) in another Hadith: ” By Allah, it is as if I am looking at him between al-Rukn and al-Maqam and the people are giving him Baya’ah on a new order and a new book and a new authority from the sky, his flag will not be held back until his death.” and what is meant here by New order and New Book and New Sunnah and judgment and authority is bringing the true laws of Islam as Allah had wanted, and bringing the Quran with its Tanzeel and Taaweel and the explanation of its laws.]

I have to say here, that it is sad and ironic that these people are saying that the true religion and the true Shari’ah and laws shall only appear with the Mahdi (as), Isn’t that a bit too late? is this considered fair?

al-Mirza Muhammad Taqi al-Isfahani says in “Mikyal al-Makarim” 1/184-185:

[Allah says: {And We had already given Moses the Scripture, but it came under disagreement.} (Quran 41:45). al-Tabrasi (rah) says in “Majma’a al-Bayan” that what is meant is that his people differed and disagreed on it, meaning on the authenticity of the book revealed on him. There will also be a disagreement on the book that al-Qaem (as) will bring, the complete book preserved with al-Hujjah (as).

-What points to this, is what we find in Rawdat al-Kafi with its Isnad from abu Ja’far on Allah’s saying: {And We had already given Moses the Scripture, but it came under disagreement.} (Quran 41:45), he (as) said: “They disagreed on it just like this nation disagreed on its book and they will disagree on the book of al-Qaem which he will bring to them, many people will deny it so he will execute them and cut off their necks.”]

He says in the same book pg.197:

[‘Aziz (as) when he returned to his people and appeared to them, he read the Torah exactly as it was revealed on Musa bin ‘Imran (as). al-Qaem (as) when he will appear to the people of the earth shall read the Quran as it was revealed on the seal of the Prophets (SAWS).]

He also said on pg.63:

[I say: This could be the secret as to why al-Qaem (as) was called “The great Quran”, considering that he orders u to follow it and pushes the people to read it and he reveals it and promotes it]

So this belief like those before it, makes the Shia ignore this Quran and not pay much attention to it, instead he’d just wait for the arrival of his Imam and the other Quran. It is as if the Shia are saying: “Forget about this Book collected by the Caliphs, let us all wait for the Mahdi to reveal the New Quran, the complete Quran that pleases Allah and is hidden with his Imams.”

Chapter 3: Presenting some of the manifestations of this crisis from the reality of the Shia.

After presenting some of those beliefs that make the Shia avoid and doubt the Quran, it is time to show how these beliefs affect the reality of the Shia.

The first manifestation: Their refusal to make Takfeer on those who believe in Tahreef al-Quran.

When this team of Shia scholars decided that they do not believe in the distortion of the Quran, they were expected to take a strong stance towards the scholar who believe in its distortion, such as making Takfeer on them, declaring them apostates and heretics, disowning them and their beliefs, so that Allah may not place them all together in the same place on the day of judgment, but they surprised everybody with their weak stance as a result of the weakness of their spiritual link to the Quran.

Grand Ayatullah al-Marji’I Muhammad Sa’eed al-Hakeem says in “Fi Rihab al-‘Aqeedah” 1/149, under the chapter “The correct stance from those who declare Tahreef”:

[Yes, it is not good to go all out in attacking those who believe in Tahreef, even if they made a huge error, but it is considered a scientific mistake as a result of inattention and it does not drop their right to be treated as Muslims nor necessities their Kufr.]

One of the biggest Shia scholars who believes in the distortion of the book of Allah is al-Mirza al-Noori al-Tabrasi, he wrote an entire book to prove that the book of all has been distorted and called it “Fasl al-Khitab fi Ithbat Tahreef Kitab Rabb al-Arbab” or in English “The Decisive Speech Concerning the Distortion of the Book of the Lord of Lords “, this scholar wrote in the introduction of this book on pg.2:

[This is a subtle book, a noble compilation, that I have written to prove the distortion of the Quran and the disgraces of the people of tyranny and oppression.]

There is no doubt among healthy Muslims on the Kufr of this evil individual. However, the Shia scholars decided to praise him and venerate him instead of condemning him, Sheikh ‘Ali bin Hassan al-Biladi says about him in “Anwar al-Badrayn” [/b]pg.129-130:

[b][The other brilliant contemporary, the trustworthy personage of Islam, the imitated and skilled scholar of narrations, al-Mirza Hussein al-Noori al-Tabrasi—May Allah’s mercy be on him—: Author of several venerable works, such as Nafs al-Rahman fi Fadail Salman, Fasl al-Khitab, Jannat al-Maawa, Mustadrak al-Wasael wa Mustanbat al-Dalael and other splendid books. This Shaykh was a proof among the proofs of Allah with respect to study, scrutiny, research, ample perception such as that of Master al-Majlisi, godwariness and scrupulosity.]


Ayatullah ‘Ali al-Milani write about al-Tabrasi in “al-Muhadarat fil-I’itiqadat” 2/602:

[It is certainly correct that al-Mirza al-Noori is from among major scholars of narrations and we respect al-Mirza al-Noori. al-Mirza al-Noori is one of our major scholars, and neither is it possible for us to even slightly be hostile towards him, nor is it permissible; (doing) this is forbidden [Haram]! Verily, he is a major expert in the field of narrations from among our scholars.]

And he further says in his defense on pg.608:

[As for our anathematizing and repulsing of him from our faction, and expelling him from our circle, as demanded by some of the contemporary writers from Ahl al-Sunna, then that is wrong and absolutely impossible. Do they do this with the major Companions who were proponents of deletions (from the Quran) and with their scholars of narrations who related these opinions?]

To be Continued...

Shia scholar ‘Ali Aal Muhsin writes about him in “Li-Allah Thumma lil-Haqiqa” pg.542:

[al-Mirza Hussein al-Nouri—May Allah’s mercy be upon him—has many grateful efforts and well-known impacts in regard to the assistance of Islam. And contesting him, and his slip in this book (i.e. Fasl al-Khitab), will neither make us ignore all his efforts nor take away anything from his credibility, for every pious man has a slight fault; for every man of knowledge has a slip.

This, is along with the fact that he did not say: “The Quran present in our hands is distorted in terms of addition and deletion,” rather what he said is: “Indeed, some words or verses of the Quran were omitted from the Quran present in our hands.”]

Grand Ayatullah al-Khomeini says about him in “al-Arba’oun Hadith” pg.21-22:

[The master, the scholar, the altruistic, the jurist, the Muhaddith al-Mirza Hussein al-Noori may Allah fill his noble shrine with light]

Another of the big Shia scholars, Muhammad Baqir bin Muhammad Taqi al-Majisi, author of “Bihar al-Anwar” who also declared his belief in Tahreef in his other book “Miraat al-‘Uqool” 12/525:

[So the narration is Sahih(authentic), and it is no secret that this narration and many of the other authentic narrations are explicit in expressing the loss of Quran and its manipulation, I find that the narrations in this regard are Mutawatir in their meaning (i.e. delivered by many narrators) and the rejection of all of them requires directly not to rely on(any) narrations at all. Even more, it is my opinion that the narrations in this regard are not inferior to the narrations about the Imamah. So how do they prove it(the Imamah) relying on narrations?]

The leader of the Hawza al-‘Ilmiyah in Najaf and the biggest of their contemporary scholars, grand Ayatullah abu al-Qassim al-Khoei writes statements of praise in several locations of his “Mu’ujam Rijal al-Hadith” such as in 15/221:

[9940 – Muhammad Baqir Muhammad Taqi: al-Sheikh al-Hurr said in “Tathkirat al-Mutabahireen” (733): Our master the venerable Muhammad Baqir son of our master Muhammad Taqi al-Majlisi: The scholar, the virtuous, the skillful, the examiner, the scrutinizer, the learned, the understanding, the jurist, the out-spoken, scholar of Hadith, Thiqahtun Thiqah(Trustworthy Trustworthy), owner of all good traits and virtues, a man of great value may Allah prolong his stay. He has many beneficial works, such as: Bihar al-Anwar (…)

al-Ardabili said about him in his “Jami’i al-Ruwat”: Muhammad Baqir bin Muhammad Taqi bin al-Maqsoud ‘Ali, called al-Majlisi may Allah extend his high shadow: Our teacher, our scholar, the scholar of Islam and Muslims, the seal of Moujtahideen, the learned Imam, the examiner, the scrutinizer, of great value, of high rank, the unique in his era, unparalleled in his time, trustworthy (…) may Allah reward him with the best reward of good doers, he has good valuable books and he gave me Ijazah to narrate all of them from him, such as: Bihar al-Anwar]

Grand Ayatullah al-Khomeini says about him in “al-Arba’oun Hadith” pg.143:

[The expert examiner and unique Muhaddith our master al-Majlisi says]

and on pg.144:

[al-Majlisi may Allah have mercy on him reports]

and on pg.587:

[And the venerable Muhaddith al-Majlisi may the mercy be upon him explained]

Observe with me their shameful stance towards the book of Allah as they did not make Takfeer on those who declared its corruption nor did they even criticize them, but instead they praised them in the most eloquent style.

The second manifestation: Their great rage against some scholars in matters that are less important than the corruption of the Quran.

1- Their stance from one of their biggest scholars and writer of one of their four main books, ibn Babaweih al-Qummi al-Saduq (d.381 AH) who affirmed al-Sahu(forgetfulness) for the Prophet (SAWS).

al-Saduq said in “Man la Yahduruhu al-Faqih” 1/359-360:

[The extremists and the Mufawwidah may Allah curse them deny the forgetfulness of the Prophet (SAWS) (…) and our sheikh Muhammad bin al-Hassan bin Ahmad bin al-Walid may Allah have mercy on him used to say: “The first step towards extremism is to deny the forgetfulness of the Prophet (SAWS), and if it were permissible to deny the narrations in this regard then it would also be possible to reject all of our narrations and this would cancel the religion and the Shari’ah.” and I hope for the reward by compiling the first book that proves the forgetfulness of the Prophet (SAWS) and refutes all those who deny this]

The violent and angry reply to al-Saduq by their great scholar and leader al-Mufid (d.413 AH) in his book “‘Adam Sahu al-Nabi” pg.20:

[Know that the one whom we’ve reported this from has gotten himself into a matter that does not concern him, and he has shown how little knowledge he has and his incapability (…) he confronted an issue that he is not good at, nor is it from his specialization, nor would he be guided to it(knowledge), but the desire leads this person]

And he said about him on pg.30:

[No one would believe in it, not a Muslim, nor a person who embraced Islam then rejected it, nor a monotheist, not even a godless person would accept it for the concept of Prophet-hood, and the one whom I mentioned previously deserves this because of his Fatwa on the forgetfulness of the Prophet (SAWS), it shows the weakness of his brains and the evils of his choice and the corruption of his imagination (…) just like that reckless man claimed in his saying: that the one who denies forgetfulness of the Prophet (SAWS) is an extremist]

He also said other horrible things about him but what is above is sufficient, and as you can see this is similar to the eruption of a volcano of rage and anger, all of this because the man claimed that the Prophet (SAWS) can forget some things like the average humans. On the other hand, if al-Saduq were to claim that the Quran we have is missing a page for example, al-Majlisi would have praised him as: “Our master, the great scholar of Islam, may Allah sanctify his noble secret and fill his shrine with light.”

2- Their stance on one of their biggest scholars and the Marji’i in Lebanon grand Ayatullah Muhammad Hussein Fadlullah (d. July 4th, 2010) because he questioned the Sanad of Hadith al-Ghadeer and the infallibility of Fatima (ra) and the story of the broken ribs.

Fadlullah said in “al-Nadwah” magazine 1/422:

[Our problem is that Hadith al-Ghadeer is from the narrations that are massively narrated in both Sunni and Shia books, this is why many of our Sunni brothers discuss the content not the chain of transmission]

Let us see what this small hint towards the Sanad(chain) of Hadith al-Ghadeer created, one of the most important religious and political figure in ‘Iraq, sheikh Jalal-ul-Deen al-Sagheer said while commenting on the above in his book “Lihatha Kanat al-Muwajaha” pg.74:

[This text is one of the texts that have been relied upon by our Religious Marji’i in order to issue a ruling on Fadlullah that he is misguided and he is misguidance and he is outside the folds of the truthful sect.]

Fadlullah said in “Taamulat Islamiyah Hawl al-Maraah” pg.8-9 while commenting on Fatima (ra) and Mariam (as):


[And we cannot say that there are any hidden elements that would differentiate them from the average woman, because there is no explicit proof or this]

al-Sagheer reported in “al-Muwajaha” the saying of the other Marji’is and scholars about Fadlullah on pg.13-15:

[And most of them declared that he is misguided and he is the cause of misguidance, and their stances ranged between condemning him in a written format and between those who stated that he reached a level of corruption that they placed him in the circle of Kufr (…) and we mention some of their noble names: 1- Sayyed ‘Ali al-Sistani. 2- Sayyed Muhammad al-Roohani (Teacher of Fadlullah). 3- Sayyed Muhammad Sa’eed al-Hakeem. 4- Sheikh al-Waheed al-Khurasani. 5- Sheikh Jawad al-Tabrizi. 6- Sayyed Taqi al-Qummi. 7- Sheikh Muhammad Taqi Bahjat. 8- Sayyed Muhammad Husseini Shahroudi. 9- Sayyed Mahdi al-Husseini al-Mur’ashi. 10- Sayyed Muhammad al-Husseini al-Waheed al-Tabrizi. 11- Sheikh Bachir al-Najafi. 12- Sheikh Noori al-Hamdani. 13- Sheikh Ishaq Fayyad. 14- Sheikh al-Fadil al-Lankarani. 15- Shaheed Sheikh ‘Ali al-Gharawi. 16- Shaheed Sheikh Murtada al-Barujurduri.]

al-Sagheer even called Fadlullah names on pg.55:

[And it is sufficient honor for him that the people describe him as the lady’s man and the sexy man.]

So all of this anger and Takfeer and name calling is because he questioned that Fatima (ra) was infallible and the Sanad of the narration of Ghadeer Khum but if he had attacked the book of Allah then all you’d see is praise and respect.

3- Their stance on their scholar Ayatullah Muhsin al-Ameen al-Husseini al-‘Amili (d. March 30th, 1952) who prohibited hitting one’s self with swords and chains in ‘Ashuraa.

Ja’far al-Shakhouri wrote in the introduction of his book “Marji’iyat al-Marhala wa Ghubar al-Taghyeer” some of the reactions of the Shia scholars to his Fatwa and I shall state some, briefly:

A- Sayyed Saleh al-Helli wrote a poem to attack him, calling all travelers who pass by Syria(Where al-Ameen was) to spit in his face.

B- Sayyed Reda al-Hindi also wrote a poem calling on the Shia to remove al-Ameen from the progeny of Fatima (ra).

C- Another stated that his Fatwa destroys the religion and the Madhab, then he likened him to Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab al-Najdi (rah) who forbade touring and circling the graves.

This fierce attack can only be equaled with the fierce attack they did on the scholars who declared the corruption of the Quran by calling them: “Scholar of scholars, may Allah prolong his life, may Allah raise his level, may the mercy of God shower him ect…”

These three small examples show you the eruption of their rage on some of their scholars for disagreeing on small secondary issues that can never be compared to the magnitude and seriousness of the declaration of the corruption of the book of the Lord. This shows the amount of love and respect they have for the Quran, and now I ask the impartial reader: Does this show the importance and the dignity of the book of Allah in the eyes of the Shia scholars?

The third manifestation: The reluctance of teaching the Quran in the Shia Hawza(School where Shia clerics are trained).

This is the dark reality that their biggest scholars admit.

Grand Ayatullah al-Khomeini writes about it in “al-Quran al-Thaqal al-Akbar” pg.32:

“I call on the Hawzat(Plural of Hawza) of knowledge and the universities of researchers, rise and save the glorious Quran from the evils of the ignorant and immoral scholars that attacked it and continue to attack the Quran intentionally. From my knowledge I say in all seriousness that I feel sorry for my life that I’ve wasted on the path of ignorance and misguidance, and you O brave sons of Islam, wake up the Hawzat and the universities so they may pay attention to the Quran and all the sciences related to it, and make the Quranic education your aim and your highest goal. So that you may not regret it at the end of your lives when old age strikes you, then you feel sorry for the days of youth, like the author himself.]


This document alone is more than enough to prove this dark reality that hit the Shia as a result of their beliefs, it comes from their biggest contemporary scholar and the creator of the Islamic state of Iran himself, when he admits the seriousness of the situation in the Shia schools and universities and how Quranic studies have been abandoned. He regrets this and feels sorry for the life he wasted in ignorance and misguidance away from the book of Allah al-Quran.

The current leader of Iran ‘Ali al-Khaminaei also writes about this Quranic crisis in several locations, we quote some from the book “al-Hawza al-‘Ilmiyah fi Fikr al-Imam al-Khaminaei” pg.59-60:

[al-Hawza al-‘Ilmiyah, as a result of circumstances and certain conditions and because of a specific view, was distanced historically from paying great attention to the Quran and the Quranic studies. This distance from the Quran and its sciences has left plenty of negative marks on the course of studies and teaching in al-Hawza al-‘Ilmiyah]

And he said:

[The isolation away from the Quran which has taken place in the Hawzat, because we are not delighted with it(Quran), has caused many problems in our present and future, also distancing ourselves from it(Quran) causes short-sightedness]

And he said:

[What causes one to wonder, is that the student of religious studies can become a ‘Alim(scholar) and a Moujtahid in Islamic thought and jurisprudence without (the need of) the glorious Quran “The book of revelation”.]

And he said:

[It is unfortunate that we can begin our studies and continue them until receiving an Ijazah of Ijtihad without the need of checking the Quran even once (…) Why is this? because our studies do not depend on the Quran.]

And he said:

[From here, we find that the solution lies in returning the matters to their proper courses, and building the base of our Islamic studies from “al-Kitab wal-Sunnah”, we shouldn’t allow the knowledge that was created beside the book and the Sunnah to be the primary basis in a way that the study of the book and the Sunnah turn into secondary sub-studies]

And he said:

[We must not overlook the Quran, and the Quranic studies, and understanding the Quran and being delighted with it, and the Quran has to be a part of our studies in al-Hawzat al-‘Ilmiyah, and our students need to memorize it or at least a part of it.]

Grand Ayatullah Muhammad Hussein Fadlullah says in the book “Thawabit wa Mutaghayirat al-Hawza al-‘Ilmiya” by Dr. Ja’far al-Baqiri pg.111:

[We may be surprised to find out that the Hawza al-‘Ilmiyah in Najaf or Qum or others do not possess a curriculum for teaching the Quran!!]

Grand Ayatullah Muhammad al-Ya’aqoubi leader of the Shia “al-Fadeelah” party in ‘Iraq admits to this reality in several locations in the book “Thalathah Yashkoun: al-Quran, al-Masjid, al-Imam” pg.39:

[And I had previously stated in some of my books that it is really unfortunate, that the Quran is missing from the curriculum of the Hawzat, it was planned in a way that the student does not need to dive into the glorious Quran from the beginning of his studies until their end]

And he said:

[And maybe the student at the Hawza might reach a high rank in Fiqh and Usool but he never go to live the life of the Quran nor did he have the experience of interacting with the Quran and understanding it as a message of restoration, and you would see days and weeks passing by and the student of knowledge has not touched the Quran to recite its verses and think about them, because there is no deep spiritual connection between him and the Quran (…) And this is a great disaster for the Hawza and society, and maybe some of them do not know how to read it correctly.]

Ayatullah Muhammad Baqir al-Hakeem writes about teaching Tafseer courses in the Hawza, in “Tafseer Surat al-Hamd” pg.4-5:

[And I had taught this course in a time when the Arabic Hawza in Qum, was unfortunately not committed to teaching it in its general curriculum]

Dr. Ja’far Baqiri also wrote about this in several locations in “Thawabit wa Mutaghayirat al-Hawza al-‘Ilmiyah”pg.109-110:

[From the main foundations that were not met with appropriate attention from the Hawza which suits their importance is the Quran, and all that is related to it from knowledge and facts and secrets, it is the most weighty thing and the origin of the Islamic entity in general.]

And he said:

[And it was not integrated into the curriculum adopted by the student of religious sciences during the entire period of his studies, and his knowledge of it is not examined at any point during the course of his studies]

And he said:

[It is possible for the student of religious sciences to rise in the ranks of knowledge, and to reach the farthest point (The rank of Moujtahid) without having been introduced to the Quranic studies and secrets, or without having given it attention even as far as how to recite it properly.]

The fourth manifestation: Shia scholars and students of knowledge avoiding its recitation.

Abandoning the Quran in one’s daily life was an inevitable consequence caused by their deviant beliefs and twisted look at the Book of Allah.

Ayatullah Muhammad al-Ya’aqoubi says in “Thalathah Yashkoun” pg.10, footnote #3:

[I read a number of random samples from students who wished to enroll in the honorable Hawza, to discover their relation to the Quran, and supposedly they had to represent a certain level of awareness and faith that pushes them into following this path, but I found out that some of them had not finished reading the entire Quran even once, and one individual who delivers sermons on the Mimbar only finished it twice in his entire life, and many of them read some chapters in religious occasions and seasons. That was as far as reciting it, but as far as understanding its meanings and contemplating on its notions and contents, there was absolute ignorance.]

That quote above is the testimony of an expert who teaches at the Hawza and has a lot of contact with the students and knows the secrets that are hidden from the average Shia laymen.

The fifth manifestation: Mocking those who emerge themselves in Quranic studies and lowering their status.

We saw their abandonment of the book of Allah and how even their students of knowledge and scholars never paid much attention to reciting it or teaching it, and here we will see their reaction to those that decided learn it, explain it and teach it.

Supreme leader of Iran ‘Ali al-Khaminaei says in “al-Hawza al-‘Ilmiyah fi Fikr al-Imam al-Khaminaei” pg.59-60, and in “Thawabit wa Mutaghayirat al-Hawza” pg.110-112:

[The matter did not stop at this point in the Hawza al-‘Ilmiyah, but it surpassed it, as being interested in Quranic studies has become an object of mockery in the eyes of some who claim knowledge, those who declare that all the knowledge is restricted in the circle of Usooli and Fiqhi research. This was what fired the arrows of criticism towards those who busy themselves with the Quran and its studies]

And al-Khaminaei said:

[If a person wanted to attain any scholarly rank in the Hawza al-‘Ilmiyah he had to avoid explaining and making Tafseer of the Quran otherwise he’s be accused of ignorance (…) they looked at the scholar who makes the Tafseer and benefits the people by his interpretations as an ignorant who has no real scholarly weight, so he’d be forced to abandon his study (…) Do you not consider this a disaster!?]


Famous Iranian scholar and philosopher al-Shaheed Murtada Mutahhari talks about this in several locations in his book “Ihyaa al-Fikr al-Deeni fil-Islam” pg.44-46:

[The old generation itself has abandoned the Quran and left it, then they blame the new generation for being ignorant in the Quran!? It is we who have abandoned the Quran and we expect from the new generation to be attached to it, and I shall prove to you that the Quran is abandoned among us (…) leaving the Quran is the cause of our current sadness and depression, we are included among those that the Prophet (SAWS) complained about: {And the Messenger has said, “O my Lord, indeed my people have taken this Qur’an as [a thing] abandoned.”} (Quran 25:30).]

And he says:

[If a certain individual was knowledgeable about the Quran, meaning he would contemplate its deep meanings a lot, and studies its interpretation thoroughly, how much respect do you think he would have among us!? Nothing. On the other hand, if an individual reads the book of “Kifayah” by al-Mulla Kazim al-Khurasani, he would be a respected and distinguished personality.]

And he said:

[A month ago, one of our close virtuous men was privileged by visiting the holy steps, when he came back he said that he was honored by visiting Ayatullah abu al-Qassem al-Khoei may Allah preserve him, and he asked him: “Why did you leave the lectures of Tafseer you used to deliver in the past!?” He replied: “There are obstacles and problems in teaching Tafseer.” so I said: “But al-‘Allamah al-TabaTabaei still continues to deliver his lectures of Tafseer in Qum.” So he said to me: “al-TabaTabaei is sacrificing himself!” meaning he is sacrificing his social image and that was true.]

In other words, being knowledgeable about the Quran is considered an act of suicide among the Shia scholars. These O dear readers are the effects of the fractious schizophrenia and the continuing crisis between the Shia scholars and the Holy Quran, and all of it resulting from their adoption of those poisonous beliefs, and maybe some of the good hearted Shia will not allow their scholars to place a solid huge Dam between them and the Quran.

{ Thereafter they could neither scale it, nor could they pierce it. } [al-Quran 18:97]

– The End –

Written by the ex-Shia, our respected Sheikh ‘Abdul-Malik al-Shafi’i under the original title of “al-Fesam al-Nakid”, translation done by Hani al-Tarabulsi al-Shafi’i on February/28/2012.

sino:

Unfortunately for you AlBaqir, the above does not help your case in trying to excuse your early scholars, do you mind quoting the whole statement of Sheikh Ibn Taymiyah?! What we are discussing here is the Qur'an where Allah (SWT) had sworn to protect, and majority of your early scholars do believe is incomplete and distorted, and the Imams have the complete Qur'an. The transmission from your early scholars and some present ones have reached tawatur, and they are no mistakes, they are clear belief in the tahreef of the Qur'an.

I repeat, who ever believes the Qur'an is incomplete i.e not 100%, that it had been tampered with by the sahabahs, and the complete Qur'an is with the Imams is a Kafir....SIMPLE

By the way, the book you posted is just a joke, you yourself had presented a link explaining the ahl-Sunnah's position on tahreef, so what new narrations would be presented in the book that had not been analyzed already?!

And I have not finished posting the original article wherein more evidences abound... so chill, i dey come...

@Bolded Yes he is Kafir. Even a bigger Kafir amongst Kafiruns

And al-Khaminaei said:

[If a person wanted to attain any scholarly rank in the Hawza al-‘Ilmiyah he had to avoid explaining and making Tafseer of the Quran otherwise he’s be accused of ignorance (…) they looked at the scholar who makes the Tafseer and benefits the people by his interpretations as an ignorant who has no real scholarly weight, so he’d be forced to abandon his study (…) Do you not consider this a disaster!?]

No wonder Albaqir and shiamuslim are so ignorant of the Qur'an.