Doubts and responses to claims of distortion of the Holy Quran

 

On the authority of Al-Zuhri that it reached him (((and I repeat))) --- it reached him--- that the Prophet, Abu Bakr, Omar, Othman, Muawiyah and his son Yazid used to recite Malik Yawm al-Din. Al-Zuhri said: And the first one to innovate: Malik was Marwan.


In response, we say:

1- I think that the wording of the hadith is sufficient and every intelligent person understands by the allusion ((if he is intelligent at all))

2- Ibn Kathir said, commenting on what Al-Zuhri said: Marwan had knowledge of the correctness of what he recited, Ibn Shihab did not see it, meaning that what Al-Zuhri said is wrong and his statement is not supported

. The question now is what is the evidence for what Ibn Kathir said??

3- Narrations were also reported by those who transmitted the hadith of Al-Zuhri that the Prophet used to recite: “Malik Yawm Al-Din” without an alif,

on the authority of Umm Salamah, that she mentioned the recitation of the Messenger of Allah: “In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Malik Yawm Al-Din,” cutting off his recitation verse by verse

. And on her authority also, she said: The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, used to cut off his recitation, saying: “Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds,” then he would stop, “Al-Rahman, the Most Merciful,” then he would stop. And he used to He reads it: Maliki Yawm al-Din

4- The Uthmanic copies of the Qur’an agreed on writing (Malik) like this without an alif, and this writing is possible for both readings, with extension and shortening.



Fayd al-Mannan in response to those who claimed that al-Hajjaj distorted the Qur’an of Uthman:

Praise be to Allah, and that is enough, and peace be upon His chosen servants. Now,

the Christians raise the suspicion that al-Hajjaj distorted and changed the Qur’an when he came to punctuate it

, and here is the suspicion quoted from their website:

al-Hajjaj changed the letters of the Qur’an and changed at least ten words, and al-Sijistani wrote a book called “What al-Hajjaj changed in the Qur’an of Uthman.”


In response, we say:

1- The rational evidence: How can any of the hadith masters criticize him if al-Hajjaj changed these letters??

Or do the Christians want to convince us that no one memorized the Quran during the days of Al-Hajjaj?

2- The textual evidence: First, the story of the dotting of the Qurans is not as the Christians narrated it, but rather it is as follows ((as mentioned in Madahil Al-Irfan, Part One, from page 280 to page 281))

Al-Zarqani said: It is known that the Uthmanic Quran was not dotted... Whether this or that, the dotting of the Qurans did not occur, according to the popular opinion, except during the reign of Abdul Malik bin Marwan,

so Abdul Malik bin Marwan ordered Al-Hajjaj to take care of this great matter, and Al-Hajjaj, in obedience to the Commander of the Faithful, appointed two men for this, who are:

1- Nasr bin Asim Al-Laithi
2- Yahya bin Ya’mar Al-Adwani

, and they are the students of Abu Al-Aswad Al-Du’ali.

The question now is, is this the first dotted Quran????

We say no, because Abu Al-Aswad Al-Du’ali had dots in the Qur’an, and Ibn Sirin had a dotted Qur’an, but both Qur’ans were specific, not general.


As for what was raised about Al-Hajjaj distorting the Qur’ans, here is the complete narration:

On the authority of Abbad bin Suhaib, on the authority of Awf bin Abi Jamila, that Al-Hajjaj bin Yusuf changed eleven letters in Uthman’s Qur’an. He said: In Surat Al-Baqarah: 259, it was {lam yatasanna wa anzur} without a ha’, so he changed it to “lam yatasannahu.”
It was in Al-Ma’idah: 48 {A law and a way},
so he changed it to “A law and a way”. It was in Yunus: 22 {He is the One who resurrects you},
so he changed it to “He guides you”. It was in Yusuf: 45 {I will bring you its interpretation}, so he changed it to “I will inform you of its interpretation”.
It was in Az-Zukhruf: 32 {We have divided among them their livelihood}, so he changed it to “their livelihood”.
It was in At-Takwir: 24 {And He is not a doubter of the unseen}, so he changed it to “a miser”… etc.
The book “Al-Masahif” by Al-Sijistani (p. 49).


Here is the ruling on Ibad bin Suhaib:

1- Ali bin Al-Madini said: His hadith is lost.
2- Al-Bukhari said: He is rejected.
3- Al-Tirmidhi said: He is rejected.
4- Ibn Hibban said: He was a Qadari and a preacher, and despite that he narrated things that if a beginner in this profession heard them he would testify to their fabrication.
5- Al-Dhahabi said: He is rejected

and the narration is fabricated


. Here is the opinion of the Rafidah on this matter:

Al-Khoei - who is one of the Rafidah - said: This claim resembles the delirium of the feverish and the fables of the insane. How is it that no historian has mentioned this great sermon in his history, nor a critic in his criticism, despite its importance and the many reasons for transmitting it? How is it that no Muslim at his time discussed transmitting it? How did the Muslims ignore this action after the end of Al-Hajjaj’s era and the end of his authority? Suppose he was able to collect all copies of the Qur’an, and not a single copy from the distant Muslim countries deviated from his ability, would he have been able to remove it from the hearts of the Muslims and the memorizers of the Qur’an, whose number at that time is known only to Allah?


By the way:

Imam al-Sijistani did not write a book called “What al-Hajjaj changed in the Mushaf of Uthman.” All that is there is that Imam al-Sijistani translated the aforementioned narration from al-Hajjaj by saying: (Chapter: What al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf wrote in the Mushaf).



The abundance of the Lord in response to those who claimed that there are two additional Surahs in the Mushaf of Ubayy ibn Ka’b:

Praise be to Allah, and that is sufficient, and peace be upon His chosen servants. The ignorant

Christians said:

1- On the authority of al-A’mash, he said: In the recitation of Ubayy ibn Ka’b: O Allah, we seek Your help and ask Your forgiveness. We praise You and do not disbelieve in You. We abandon and forsake those who disbelieve in You. O Allah, You alone do we worship. To You we pray and prostrate. To You we strive and hasten. We hope for Your mercy and fear Your punishment. Indeed, Your punishment will overtake the disbelievers.

2- On the authority of Ibn Sirin, he said: Ubayy ibn Ka'b wrote in his copy of the Qur'an the opening chapter of the Book and the two Mu'awwidhat, and O Allah, we seek Your help, and O Allah, we worship. Ibn Mas'ud left them out, and Uthman wrote from them the opening chapter of the Book and the two Mu'awwidhat. And on the authority of Ubayy ibn Ka'b, he said

that he used to recite the two Surahs in supplication, and he mentioned them, and that he used to write them in his copy of the Qur'an.

3- On the authority of Abdur-Rahman ibn Abza, he said: In the copy of the Qur'an of Ibn Abbas, the reading of Ubayy ibn Ka'b and Abu Musa is: In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. O Allah, we seek Your help and ask for Your forgiveness. We praise You for goodness and do not disbelieve in You. We abandon and forsake whoever disobeys You. And in it: O Allah, You alone do we worship. And to You we pray and prostrate. And to You we hasten and hasten. We fear Your punishment and hope for Your mercy.

4- It was also reported that some of the Companions used to recite these two Surahs in supplication :
On the authority of Omar bin Al-Khattab that he recited the supplication after bowing, and said: In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. O Allah, we seek Your help and ask for Your forgiveness. We praise You and do not disbelieve in You. We abandon and forsake whoever disobeys You. In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. O Allah, You alone do we worship. To You we pray and prostrate. To You we hasten and hasten. We hope for Your mercy and fear Your punishment.Your punishment will surely overtake the disbelievers.


In response to these ignorant people, we say:

1- I want any Christian jurist to mention to me one of these narrations and prove to me that it is authentic,

and just to give an example, the first narration is from the book Gharib al-Hadith wa al-Athar by Ibn al-Athir. As

usual, you will not find Christians except ignorant people who do not know which hadith to accept...or ignorant people who do not know anything about the science of hadith at all.

2- Is Qunut from the Qur’an????!!!!

3- The companions used to include in their copies of the Qur’an things that are not from the Qur’an, such as interpretations, meanings, and supplications, based on the fact that it was not difficult for them to believe that they were not from the Qur’an, and this is what Ubayy ibn Ka’b did.

4- Some of this supplication was a revealed Qur’an, then it was abrogated, and supplication with it was permitted, and mixed with it was what is not Qur’an, so Ubayy’s proof of this supplication

5- It was transmitted from Ubayy ibn Ka’b that he recited it as narrated by Nafi’, Ibn Kathir, Abu Amr, and others, and it does not contain the two Surahs of Al-Hafd and Al-Khal’ - as is known

6- Also, his Mushaf was in agreement with the Mushaf of the group.

Abu Al-Hasan Al-Ash’ari said: I saw the Mushaf of Anas in Basra, with some of his descendants, and I found it equal to the Mushaf of the group, and the descendants of Anas used to narrate that it was the handwriting of Anas and the dictation of Ubayy ibn Ka’b



Fayd Al-Ma’bud in response to the doubt about the Mushaf of Ibn Mas’ud:

Praise be to God, and that is sufficient, and peace be upon His chosen servants. As for what follows,

this doubt that the Christians and the Qur’anists before them raise is nothing but evidence of their ignorance, and we will prove through the response to them that by raising this doubt, they have responded to all The doubts they raised themselves!!!!!


We now mention the hadith from Bukhari:

On the authority of Zur bin Hubaish, he said: I asked Abi bin Kaab, I said, O Abu Al-Mundhir, your brother Ibn Masoud says such and such. My father said, I
asked the Messenger of Allah, and he said to me: I was told, so I said,
we say as the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said.

The end of the hadith from Bukhari’s narration.

Of course, the obvious question now is: Where is Ibn Masoud’s denial????

The hadith was mentioned vaguely and there was absolutely no explicit statement in it!!!

And here is the comment of Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar in Al-Fath,

he said, may Allah have mercy on him: The hadith was mentioned vaguely, and I thought that what was vague was Bukhari, but I went back to Al-Ismaili’s narration and found it vague as well, meaning there was no explicit statement in it!!!

Of course, the Christians and their Quranic brothers will now smell the scent of false victory and accuse us of ignorance, because the statement was mentioned in the narration of Imam Ahmad in his Musnad, where the hadith came as follows: ((Your brother is erasing it from the Mushaf))

and in a narration of Imam Ahmad also ((Abdullah did not write the two Mu’awwidhat in his Mushaf))

and in a narration in the additions of the Musnad ((Ibn Masoud was erasing it from his Mushaf and saying that they are not from the Book of Allah))

I said: So the Christians and Quranic brothers now recognize what is called ((combining the paths of the hadith)) so

they interpret the hadith of Bukhari with the hadith of Musnad of Imam Ahmad and they make the hadith of Imam Ahmad binding on the hadith of Bukhari

if the Christians and their Quranic brothers agree with us on that, then I say that all doubts have now ended because their problem is cutting up the verses and hadiths and not combining the paths of the hadith

And I will give you an example of the hadith ((I have only come to you with slaughtering)) This hadith is in Musnad Al-Imam Ahmad and it has an interpretation in Sahih Al-Bukhari. So if you read the two hadiths, you will understand the meaning of the hadith in Musnad Al-Imam Ahmad. So if the ignorant Christians and their brothers address us about this, they will say (No, we do not accept this, rather we want an interpretation for each hadith separately!!!)

Then now they combine the chains of transmission of the hadith to prove what they call the doubt!!!!


In general and in any case we say with the help of Allah:

The response to them with one hadith, and this response is sufficient to completely remove the doubt and remove it,

and the response is in the form of a hadith in the Musnad of Imam Ahmad as well, which is: On the authority of Zur bin Hubaish, he said: I said to Ubayy bin Ka’b that Ibn Mas’ud did not write the two Mu’awwidhat in his Mushaf, so he said: I bear witness that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, informed me that Gabriel, peace be upon him, said to him: Say: I seek refuge in the Lord of the daybreak, so I said it, and he said: Say: I seek refuge in the Lord of mankind, so I said it, so we say what the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said

. What do you think of this hadith?

Of course, the Christians and their brothers will rejoice and say: This is evidence of the doubt

. I say: Rather, this is evidence of your ignorance,

for At-Tabarani narrated in Al-Awsat that Ibn Mas’ud said the same as Ubayy!!! So what do you think?

That is, Ibn Mas’ud proved that they are from the Qur’an!!!

Here the infidels among the Quranists revolted, and one of them said, “Rather, the one who said the hadith of al-Tabarani was Abi bin Ka’b, and there was a “reversal” from the narrator.” He provided evidence for what al-Hafiz said in al-Fath when he said, “And perhaps the one who said it was Abi, and there was a reversal from the narrator.”

I said, “First, Ibn Hajar says this from the point of view of reconciling the two hadiths, and Ibn Hajar did not confirm the statement that the hadith was reversal from its narrator, but rather he said, “Perhaps.” The text of Ibn Hajar’s statement is, “And it was stated in al-Awsat that Ibn Mas’ud also said the same thing, and it is well-known that it is from the statement of Abi, so perhaps it is a reversal from the narrator.” So

the ignorant people used the word “perhaps” as confirmation!!!! It seems that we are facing a compound ignorance of religious sciences to ignorance of language sciences


in general. Let us move to another point, which is:

All the hadiths in this story are about Zur ibn Hubaish and they are all on his tongue, meaning that there is no explicit statement from Ibn Masoud.

For example: There is not a single hadith, for example, that says about Zur, on the authority of Ibn Masoud, that he said: The two Mu’awwidhat...

In general, we are still with the Musnad of Imam Ahmad, in which the Christians completely ignored this hadith:
Sufyan ibn Uyaynah told us, on the authority of Abdah and Asim, on the authority of Zur, who said: I said to my father: Your brother is scratching them out of the Mushaf, and he did not deny it.
It was said: Ibn Masoud. He

said: Yes, and they are not in the Mushaf of Ibn Masoud. He used to see the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, seeking refuge with them for Al-Hasan and Al-Husayn, and he did not hear him recite them in any of his prayers, so he thought that they were two Mu’awwidhat and he insisted on his thought. The rest were certain that they were from the Qur’an, so they deposited them in it

. This hadith is an interpretation from Zur and Sufyan that Ibn Masoud (((thought))) that they were not from the Qur’an. Why did he think so? Because he did not hear the Prophet recite them.... Where????

In prayer..... And the explanation of this will come later.

I said: All and all of these hadiths are as we mentioned from the path of Zur bin Hubaish. Zur often asked Ibn Masoud about the issue, but he did not understand from him, so he would return to Ubayy bin Ka’b and ask him, either to increase his understanding or to be sure.


An example of this is from the Musnad of Imam Ahmad also:

Hadith Al-Qadr
Hadith Laylat Al-Qadr


So these Hadiths that were mentioned in the mention of the two Mu’awwidhat are all inferences from the button, so:

1- Al-Nawawi in his explanation of Al-Muhadhdhab
, Ibn Hazm in Al-Mahalli
, Fakhr Al-Razi in the beginning of his interpretation,
and Al-Baqillani


have agreed that these Hadiths ((i.e. the Hadiths of Musnad Al-Imam Ahmad)) are anomalous ((in the text, I mean, not the chain of transmission of course))


and here is their evidence:

1- In the chains of transmission of the ten readings there are readings that revolve around Abdullah bin Masoud, and we did not find in these readings any denial of the two Mu’awwidhat, and the owners of these readings are:
The reading of Abu Amr Al-Basri,
Asim bin Abi Al-Najoud, Hamza bin
Habib Al-Zayyat
, Ali bin Hamza Al-Kisa’i,
Ya’qub bin Ishaq Al-Hadrami,
Khalaf bin Hisham Al-Bazzar,

for none of them denied the two Mu’awwidhat, even though they all took from Abdullah bin Masoud!!! ((Al-Nashr fi al-Qira’at al-‘Ashr))

2- Ibn Mas’ud did not memorize the entire Quran, and it was said that he learned it after the death of the Prophet, and it was said that he died before completing it ((Al-Qurtubi))

3- That is, Ibn Mas’ud was a reader and not a memorizer like Zaid bin Thabit, so he took from Ibn Mas’ud in reading and not in memorization. If Ibn Mas’ud took 70 surahs from the mouth of the Messenger of Allah, then Zaid took the entire Quran from him, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and we will explain that in detail in a separate post, God willing.

4- The Mushaf of Ibn Mas’ud was not a comprehensive Mushaf, but rather some surahs were written in it and others were not written. An example of that is his not writing Al-Fatihah.

5- The Mushaf of Ibn Mas’ud was a Mushaf specific to him, and he only wrote what he heard from the Prophet in prayer. The evidence for that is:
A- The order of the surahs in his Mushaf is Al-Baqarah, then An-Nisa, then Al-Imran, and that is because the Prophet prayed with them in the night prayer in this order.
B- Ibn Mas’ud not writing Al-Fatihah is the greatest evidence for that, as he said when he was asked why he did not write Al-Fatihah? He said: If I wanted to write it, I would have written it at the
beginning of every surah. When do Muslims recite Al-Fatihah at the beginning of every surah?
Of course, this only happens in the audible prayer, which proves that Ibn Masoud used to write only what he heard from the Messenger in prayer.
A- His not writing Al-Fatihah is also evidence that he (may Allah be pleased with him) did not write the entire Quran in his copy of the Quran, but rather it was a special copy of the Quran for him.

6- We do not have a single explicit hadith in which Ibn Masoud says that he denies the two Mu’awwidhat.

7- The narrator said: “And he used to scratch them out from his copies of the Quran.” So what are the copies of the Quran of Ibn Masoud?

Did he (may Allah be pleased with him) write more than one copy of the Quran?

And if he was the one who wrote them, then why did he scratch out what he wrote? Or rather, why did he write what he scratched?

8- Why did Ibn Masoud’s denunciation of Uthman or Zaid (may Allah be pleased with them) not spread? And we did not hear any of the companions denouncing him or him denouncing any of the companions?


As for those who went to correct these hadiths, they answered by saying:

1- What is meant by the two Mu’awwidhat is the wording, i.e. what was written, for example, the two Mu’awwidhat were: Say, I seek refuge in the Lord of the daybreak...

So Ibn Mas’ud used to order the wording to be erased, not the Surah itself. The evidence for that is:

Ibn Abi Dawud narrated on the authority of Abu Jamrah, who said: I brought Ibrahim a copy of my Qur’an in which was written: Surah such and such and Surah such and such, verses. Ibrahim said: Erase this,

for Ibn Mas’ud hated this and said: Do not mix with the Book of God what is not from it.

((And it is the same wording of Ibn Masoud ((if it is authentic)) in the two Mu’awwidhat)) So they went that his intention, may Allah be pleased with him, was to write the name and not write the surah, especially since it was never explicitly mentioned in any hadith by saying ((Say I seek refuge in the Lord of the daybreak or Say I seek refuge in the Lord of mankind, they are not from the Qur’an))

The author of Manahil al-Irfan said that Ibn Masoud saw them written in the wrong place or written incorrectly, so he ordered them to be written ((i.e. corruption of composition or corruption of organization))..... ((Manahil al-Irfan))

Al-Baqillani said that Ibn Masoud denied that they were in the Mushaf and not that they were the Qur’an.... ((If the Qur’anists who claim that they are the people of the Qur’an do not know the difference between the Qur’an and the Mushaf, then this is another calamity!!))

And Al-Razi said that he denied it and then it was transmitted to him, so he confirmed it..... ((Tafsir al-Razi))

The conclusion is that there is not a single proof of Ibn Masoud’s denial of Al-Fatihah or the two Mu’awwidhat, whether in Bukhari or others, and all of this evidence indicates On one of two matters :
1- The text of the hadith is odd, and this is in the hadith of Musnad Imam Ahmad.
2- The interpretation is

odd, and as for the hadith of Bukhari, its wording was mentioned ambiguously, and the hadith of Bukhari does not explain the hadith of odd text, or a hadith does not explain it with an odd interpretation.

In both cases, this proves to us one thing: The ignorance of the Quranists and their brothers from the Christians is compound ignorance

, and thus their argument is weak and their mother is the abyss.



Surat Al-Wilaya or Al-Noorayn:

This surah does not have the ability to do anything except claim that it is from the Holy Quran, and he is not able to mention that with a single chain of transmission, even if it is weak. We repeat: he is not able to mention that with a single chain of transmission, even if it is weak. Rather, a slanderer fabricated it and attributed it to what the companions omitted from the Quran, so the people of misguidance after him from his followers followed him in his lies and slander because they thought that it would support what they belong to.

Otherwise, can they come with a single chain of transmission for these texts called Surat Al-Wilaya??



Hadith of the rooster:

Abu Salamah Yahya bin Khalaf told us, Abd al-A’la told us, on the authority of Muhammad bin Ishaq, on the authority of Abdullah bin Abi Bakr, on the authority of Umrah, on the authority of Aishah, and on the authority of Abd al-Rahman bin al-Qasim, on the authority of his father, on the authority of Aishah, who said: The verse of stoning and ten breastfeedings for an adult were revealed, and they were on a sheet of paper under my bed. When the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, died and we were preoccupied with his death, a rooster came in and ate it.

The hadith was narrated by Imam Ibn Majah 1/625, al-Darqutni 4/179, Abu Ya’la in his Musnad 8/64, al-Tabarani in his Mu’jam al-Awsat 8/12, and Ibn Qutaybah in Ta’wil Mukhtalif al-Hadith. Its origin is in the two Sahihs, and Ibn Hazm included it in al-Muhalla 11/236 and said: This is a sahih hadith.

To explain and clarify this hadith, we say: Islamic legislation in the life of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, went through several stages until his death, may God bless him and grant him peace, and his passing to the highest companion, including the occurrence of the abrogation of some rulings and verses. Abrogation was defined by scholars as: the Lawgiver removing an earlier ruling from Him for a later ruling from Him.

There was no disagreement among nations about abrogation, nor did any religion ever deny it. The Jews differed in this and denied the permissibility of abrogation rationally, and based on that, they denied the prophethoods after Moses, peace be upon him, and raised doubts, claiming that abrogation is impossible for God Almighty because it indicates the emergence of an opinion after it did not exist, and likewise the approval of something that was known after it was not known, and this is impossible for God Almighty.

The Holy Quran responded to these people and their likes regarding abrogation with a clear response that does not accept any type of interpretation that is permissible in language and reason. This is in the Almighty’s saying: “Whatever verse We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?” (Al-Baqarah: 106). So the Almighty explained that the issue of abrogation arose from treating and curing people’s problems, to ward off corruption from them and bring benefits to them. Therefore, the Almighty said: “We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it.” Then He continued by saying: “Do you not know that Allah has power over all things? Do you not know that to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and that you have not besides Allah any protector or helper?” Abrogation is of three types:

The first: Abrogation of recitation while the ruling remains, and an example of this is the verse of stoning, which is: “The old man and the old woman, if they commit adultery, stone them both to death.” This is one of the things whose wording was abrogated, but whose ruling remains.

Second: Abrogation of the ruling and recitation together: An example of this is the statement of Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her): “Among what was revealed in the Qur’an were ten known breastfeedings that prohibit marriage, then it was abrogated by five known breastfeedings that prohibit marriage.” The first sentence was abrogated in recitation and ruling, while the second sentence was abrogated in recitation only, and its ruling remains according to the Shafi’is.

And her statement (may Allah be pleased with her): “And it was…” meaning that the Qur’an after its recitation was abrogated (in a scroll under my bed). And the domesticated: the sheep that people feed from their homes, and it may also apply to other than the sheep from everything that accustoms to homes, such as birds and others.

Ibn Hazm, may God have mercy on him, said: (Its wording was abrogated, and the page on which it was written remained as Aisha, may God be pleased with her, said, and the rooster ate it, and there was no need for it... until he said: The proof of this is that they had memorized it. If it had been established in the Qur’an, then the rooster eating the page would not have prevented it from being established in the Qur’an from their memorization. And God is the Grantor of success.)

Ibn Qutaybah said:
(If the wonder is in the page, then the pages in the time of the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, were the highest of what the Qur’an was written on, because they used to write it on palm leaves, stones, pottery, and the like.

If the wonder is in placing it under the bed, then the people were not kings who would have had safes, locks, and chests. When they wanted to protect something or preserve it, they would place it under the bed to protect it from being trampled on and from the mischief of a child or an animal. How can someone who did not have a safe, lock, or closet in his house protect himself, except with what he could and could reach and find? And with the prophecy of modesty and vulgarity, the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, would patch his clothes, mend his shoes, and repair He said: “I am only a slave who eats as a slave eats.”

If the wonder is from the sheep, then the sheep is the best of the livestock, so what is wonder at the sheep eating that page, and this mouse is the worst insect on earth, it gnaws at the Qur’an and urinates on it, and if the fire had burned the page or the hypocrites had taken it, the wonder from them would have been less.

The scholars have answered this hadith with simpler answers than this, in which those who want more can refer to their statements, and Allah the Almighty spoke the truth when He said: (And if they had referred it back to the Messenger or to those in authority among them, then what they deduce from them would have been known to him) [An-Nisa’: 83] So praise and thanks be to Allah, for we are certain that no two Muslims differ that Allah the Almighty has made it obligatory for the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) to convey the message, and that he (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) conveyed it as he was commanded, Allah the Almighty said: (O Messenger, announce that which has been revealed to you from your Lord, and if you do not, then you have not conveyed His message) [Al-Ma’idah: 67]

Allah the Almighty said: {Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur’an and indeed, We will be its guardian.} [Al-Hijr: 9] It is clear that the verses that were lost, if the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) had ordered them to be conveyed, he would have conveyed them, and if he had conveyed them, they would have been preserved, and if they had been preserved, his death would not have harmed them, just as his death, peace be upon him, did not harm everything he conveyed of the Qur’an. Even if he (peace be upon him) did not convey it, or if it was conveyed but he was not ordered to be written in the Qur’an, then it is abrogated by clarification from Allah the Almighty, and it is not permissible to add it to the Qur’an.

Question:

I recently read a study by German scholars on the authenticity of the Qur’an. Some of what they said was discussed in an article in the Atlantic Monthly entitled “What is the Qur’an?” by Toby Lester, published in the January 1999 issue of that magazine. The crux of the matter was that there was a very old copy of the Qur’an in a mosque in Yemen that he believed had been distorted in the existing Qur’an. In some places the writing that used to be in this copy had been erased and written over.
The article tried to cast doubt on Muslims’ view of the Qur’an as being completely reliable, and tried to prove that the Qur’an is a word that is subject to change like any other word.
I am not a Muslim, but I know that the Qur’an has the same status in Islam as Christ has in Christianity.
Given this, how would you respond to those who try to discredit the Qur’an? Do you have any other response to this attack on the authenticity of the Qur’an?


Answer:

Praise be to Allah.

1. The authenticity of the copies of the Holy Qur’an that we have in our possession has not been proven to us by one or two pieces of evidence, rather it has been proven by many available pieces of evidence that no fair-minded person would come across without being certain that it is as Allah revealed it to the heart of Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.

2. Generations have passed one after the other, reciting the Book of Allah and studying it among themselves, memorizing it and writing it down. Not a single letter has escaped them, and no one can change the vowel of a single letter in it. Writing was only a means of memorizing it, otherwise the original state of the Qur’an is in their hearts.

3. The Qur’an was not transmitted to us alone, so that the alleged distortion could have occurred. Rather, the interpretation of its verses, the meanings of its words, the reasons for its revelation, the grammar of its words, and the explanation of its rulings were transmitted. How could such care for this book be exposed to sinful hands that distort a letter in it, add a word, or omit a verse?

4. If the Qur’an speaks about future unseen matters, which Allah revealed to His Messenger Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, to show that they are from Allah, and that if humans wanted to write a book, they could be creative in describing an event or conveying a situation, but for someone to speak about an unseen matter, he can only speculate and lie in this area. As for the Qur’an, it spoke about the defeat of the Romans by the Persians, and there were no means of communication to convey this event to them, and it spoke in the verses themselves that they would be victorious later on in a certain period of time, and if that had not happened, the infidels would have had the greatest opportunity to attack the Qur’an.

5. If you came to a verse from the Book of Allah Almighty and went to America, Asia, the jungles of Africa, or came to the desert of Arabia, or to any place where there are Muslims, you would find this same verse in all of their hearts or in their books, not a single letter of it having been changed.

So what is the value of an unknown copy in (Yemen) that we have not seen, in which one of the frivolous people in this era could distort a verse or a word?

And does such talk stand in the market of research and consideration? Especially since these people claim to be researching, fair and just in their speech.

So what would be their response if we came to one of their reliable books by well-known authors, and this book has many copies in the world, all of them in the same format, and then a claimant claimed the existence of a copy of this book in a certain country, and it contains additions and distortions from what is in their copies, so would they take it into account?

Their answer is our answer.

6. The handwritten copies of the Muslims are not proven in this simple way. We have experts who know the history of writing, and we have rules that control the proof of the authenticity of this manuscript, such as the presence of hearings and readings on it, and the name and signature of the one who heard and read it.

We do not think that this was found in this alleged copy from Yemen or elsewhere.

7. We are pleased to conclude our response with this true story that happened in Baghdad during the Abbasid era, where a Jew wanted to know the truth of the books attributed to God by its people, which are the Torah for the Jews, the Gospel for the Christians, and the Qur’an for the Muslims. So

he went to the Torah and added and subtracted things that were not very obvious, then he gave it to a scribe - writer - from them and asked for a copy of this copy. He said: It was only a short time before my copy was in the temples of the Jews and among their senior scholars.

Then he went to the Gospel and added and subtracted from it as he did with the Torah, and gave it to their scribe and asked for a copy of it, so he copied it. He said: It was only a short time before it was read in their churches and the hands of their scholars reached it.

Then he went to the Qur’an and added and subtracted from it as he did with the Torah and the Gospel, and gave it to the Muslim scribe to copy it for him.

When he returned to him to receive his copy, he threw it in his face and informed him that this was not the Qur’an of the Muslims!

From this experience, this man learned that the Qur’an is truly the Book of Allah and that everything else is nothing more than a human creation.

If the Muslim scribe knew that this copy had been distorted, could this copy be accepted by Muslim scholars?

If the questioner wants to turn this ancient experience into a current reality, all she has to do is do what the Jew who converted to Islam did and add and subtract from these three books and see the result of her experiment.

We will not tell her to show her copy of the Qur’an to a scribe, rather we will tell her to show it to Muslim boys and children so that they can reveal to her the errors in her copy!

Some Muslim countries have printed copies of the Qur’an that contain errors that were discovered by young children before adults.

And Allah is the Guide.

Islam Question and Answer ( www.islam-qa.com )

A response regarding the alleged Surahs Al-Wilayat and Al-Noorayn.

This response is from a Shiite website (with the caveat that we do not endorse the Shiite doctrine):

Question: Is it true that the Shiite Quran differs from the Quran of all other Muslims, and that it contains a Surah called Al-Wilayat and another called Al-Noorayn?

Answer: It has become very clear to those with understanding and insight that there are spiteful and paid parties behind such accusations, lies and slander against the Imami Shiites, followers of the Household of the Prophet (peace be upon them) . These parties naturally only want to stir up sectarian strife and love nothing but to spread division among the ranks of Muslims. Sometimes they accuse the Shiites of saying that the Qur’an has been distorted, clinging in their accusation to a single statement by one of the scholars, despite it being a personal opinion that does not express the opinion of the Shiites, ignoring the rest of the strong and clear opinions and statements in defense of the Holy Qur’an, which were made by the great Shiite scholars and thinkers since the first day this accusation was directed at them. Sometimes they invent something from themselves and call it a surah and attribute it to what they call the Qur’an of the Shiites, despite the absurdity and weakness of what they invent and fabricate. It is known that attributing something to someone is simple, but proving it is difficult and requires strong proof, which I lacked. Claims of the slanderers.
Shiite scholars have proven the preservation of the Holy Quran from any kind of verbal distortion in all its forms and colors with strong evidence and proofs. There are dozens of books written by Shiite scholars in this field, but despite all that, you find those who have disease in their hearts and those who only seek discord searching for every sick saying and deviant opinion in order to cling to it to stir up discord in order to please the accursed Satan.
Of this type is the accusation of the Shiites that their Quran is not the Quran of all Muslims, claiming that it contains a Surah called Al-Wilaya, and recently they extracted from the belly of this alleged Surah another Surah which they called Surah Al-Noorain, all of this based on the saying of an anonymous speaker or a book that has no external existence, out of their hatred for the doctrine of the family of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and his family) and enmity towards the Holy Quran.
There is no doubt that the promotion of these falsehoods and the opening of exposed and paid websites on the Internet is only intended to mislead the naive among the people. As for the people of knowledge, investigation, reading, and the educated, they are of a higher status than to be influenced by these nonsense and fabricated and slanderous topics.
However, we see it as our duty to answer this question so that the truth becomes clear and the dust of misleading disappears, despite the fact that the Shiite scholars have answered these accusations whenever the spiteful ones raise such slanders.
The origin of this accusation:
Kaykhusraw Isfandiyar, the author of the book "Dabestan al-Madhahib" claimed that the Shiites believe in the distortion of the Qur’an, and he said among other things: ... and some of them say that Uthman burned the Qur’ans and omitted Surahs that were revealed about the virtues of the Ahl al-Bayt, including this Surah: ... then he mentioned weak, fabricated sentences that he claimed were Surah al-Wilayah, so the words of this writer and his book became a reliable source for the enemies and opponents of the Shiites.
Who is Kaykhusraw Isfandiyar:
Kaykhusraw Isfandiyar is the author of the book "Dabestan al-Madhahib" and he is the son of Azar Kaywan, the founder of the Kaywani sect during the reign of Akbar Shah Timurid 963-1014 in India.
The author was born in the town of "Patna" in India in the middle of the third decade of the eleventh century AH, and he lived until after the seventh decade, as it appears from the dates recorded in his book.
The author was a preacher of the Kaywani sect that believes in the unity of existence and rejects sects, and agrees on the book "Al-Dasatir" which he claimed is the mother of books and the collection of all laws, and he attributed it to a prophet who is said to be "Sasan".
Thus, the author in his book “Al-Dabistan” tries to weaken the beliefs of the followers of religions and to promote - secretly and crookedly - the newly founded doctrine of his father, Azar Kaywan.
The first to praise the book was “Francis Gladwin” who translated it into English in the year: 1789 AD, and in the year 1809 AD - Dhu al-Qi’dah 1224 AH the book was printed for the first time in “Calcutta” by order of the English representative “William Bailey”, and thus its printing continued by the agents of colonialism in India and Iran as well as its translations in other countries [1] .
Yes, this is the story of Kaykhusraw Isfandiyar and his book “Al-Dabistan al-Madhahib” which the enemies of the Shiites rely on.
The text of the alleged surah:
As for the text of the alleged surah, it is: “In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. O you who have believed, believe in the two lights which We have sent down, reciting to you My verses and warning you of the punishment of a tremendous Day. Two lights, one from the other, and I am the Hearing, the Knowing. Indeed, those who fulfill the covenant of God and His Messenger in the verses will have gardens of pleasure. And He chose from among the angels and the messengers and made from among the believers those among His creation. God does what He wills. Indeed, those who turned away from My verses and My judgment have lost. And indeed, Ali is among the righteous. And indeed, We will give him his due on the Day of Judgment. We are not unaware of his injustice. O Messenger, indeed We have sent down to you clear verses in which whoever takes him as a believer and whoever takes him as a guardian after you will prevail. And We had certainly sent Moses and Aaron with that which he had been appointed as a successor, but they oppressed Aaron. So patience was most fitting. And We had certainly given you, through you, the judgment as those before you of the messengers. And We made for you Among them is a guardian, perhaps they will return. Indeed, Ali is devoutly obedient, prostrating at night, fearing the Hereafter and hoping for the reward of his Lord. Say, “Are those who do wrong equal while they know of My punishment?” [2 ]
It is worth mentioning that Al-Nuri, to whom the statement of the distortion of the Qur’an is attributed, and whose statement the enemies of the Shiites cling to in order to accuse them of saying distortion, says in his book “Fasl Al-Khitab” commenting on this alleged surah, saying: “I did not find any trace of it in the books of the Shiites except what is narrated about the book “Al-Mathalib” attributed to Ibn Shahr Ashub: that they omitted the entire Surah of Al-Wilaya, so perhaps it is this surah [3] .
The book of Al-Mathalib:
Yes, upon research, investigation and tracking, it becomes clear that the primary source of this attribution is the book “Al-Mathalib” attributed to Ibn Shahr Ashub, which has no external existence and no one has seen it. Our teacher, the scholar and researcher, Ayatollah Sheikh Muhammad Hadi Ma’rifah (may Allah protect him)
said : As for the book “Al-Mathalib” about which that statement was narrated, no one has seen it at all, nor have the biographers mentioned it, except what came in the presentation of the words of Ibn Shahr Ashub himself in the book “Ma’alim Al-Ulama” when translating himself, so he mentioned a book among his compositions with this name, but did he leave it out? To bleaching, and did its version spread? This is something that no one mentioned nor did Diyar witness
it [4] . He also said in another place: “As for the narrated expression, we did not find anyone who claimed to have seen it, except for its transmission with the wording ‘it was narrated’ anonymously, as occurred in the expression of al-Nuri and al-Ashtiani” [5] .
And the investigator al-Ashtiani, the author of the commentary, said after transmitting this alleged surah: “...and I did not find it in any book other than this, except what is said about the book “al-Mathalib” by Ibn Shahr Ashub...” [6] .
The scholar and rhetorician (may God have mercy on him) said:When he was exposed to this accusation and slander, which he described as a farce, he then said: “...and the author of “Fasl al-Khitab” is one of the most prolific hadith scholars who are diligent in tracking down the anomalies, and he considers such narrations in “Dabestan al-Madhahib” to be his sought-after goal, and despite that he said: he did not find any trace of this narration in the books of the Shiites, and in which book of theirs did he find it? Is this how the narration is in the books?! How many have they transmitted from the Shiites such false narrations!! [7] .
Evaluating the alleged surah:
As for evaluating this alleged and fabricated surah and proving that it is among the fabrications and fabricated lies, it does not require effort, as every person of sound Arabic tongue discovers its falsehood as soon as he reads it, and it itself testifies to its falsehood and fabrication. Our teacher, the scholar and researcher, Ayatollah Sheikh Muhammad Hadi Ma’rifah (may Allah protect him)
said : “Among the vulgar, common fabrications is what the author of the book “Dabestan al-Madhahib” attributed to an unknown group of The Shiites claimed that they believe in the distortion of the Qur’an. He said: Some of them say that Uthman burned the Qur’ans and omitted surahs that were revealed about the virtues of the People of the House, including this surah [8] .
And he said in another place: “As for the alleged surah itself, it claims that it is a fabricated hadith that is nothing but crude fabrications and hybrid expressions that do not belong to a righteous father or a righteous mother. It violated the rules of grammar, in addition to high literature, which confirms the strangeness of attributing it to any group of Shiites, and they, in their various classes, were and still are the imams of criticism and scrutiny, and the professors of literature and rhetoric, and those well-versed in the Arabic sciences throughout history. There is no doubt that they are ridiculous trivialities woven by immature minds, which are avoided by those with sound dreams.
Yes, except for the hatreds of ignorance that lead to this false fabrication. God Almighty said: {Only those who do not believe in the signs of God invent lies...} [9] . It is foolishness and stupidity, along with malice of the heart, which constitutes the character of the author of Al-Dabstan. The poor vagabond [10] .
And the investigator Ashtiani, the author of the footnote, said after quoting this alleged surah: “...but you are well aware that it does not compare to anything in the wise Qur’an that was revealed as a miracle to the heart of the Master of Messengers, since it is certain that anyone can fabricate such words and phrases that have no connection or harmony between them, let alone the correct meaning. And God Almighty said regarding the Noble Qur’an: {Say, “If mankind and the jinn gathered to produce the like of this Qur’an, they could not produce the like of it, even if they were to each other assistants. ” } [11] [12] .
Evaluation of the book Dabestan al-Madhahib and its author:
The researcher of the book “Dabestan al-Madhahib” Professor Rahim Reza Zadeh Malik said: “What the author has established in his book about religions and sects are mostly common aspects taken from the mouths of people or witnessed in the behavior of some of those who follow those religions in markets, cafes, and public clubs, and perhaps on the edges of roads and travels. He used to meet with those common people and exchange conversations with them, then record them in his book, which he composed in this style over twenty years or more between the years 1040 and 1065. Then there was a group of charlatans from the people of seduction, as they sensed his urgent desire to collect strange and wonderful things, and they began to flatter him, desiring a rich meal or a gift or a connection, so they would weave lies and fabricated stories for him, and due to his naivety, he would record them in his book, and sometimes on their tongues accompanied by grand titles and titles to elevate their status, according to his claim.” [13] The great scholar and researcher Sheikh Agha Bozorg al-Tehrani (may God sanctify his pure soul) said about the book “Dabestan al-Madhahib” and its author: “Dabestan al-Madhahib ” or “Dabestan” on religions and sects, Persian, printed in Bombay: 1262, arranged into twelve teachings, and in each teaching there are views, and the index of the teachings in order: 1. Persian. 2. Hinduvan. 3.
Qarabitian . 4. Jews. 5. Christians. 6. Muslims. 7. Sadiqism. 8. Wahdism. 9. Roshninan. 10. Divinity. 11. The wise. 12. Sufism. Since the author did not mention his name in it, there was a difference of opinion about its authorship, as mentioned by Sayyid Muhammad Ali Dai al-Islam in the beginning of the book “Farhang Nizam”. He narrated from Sirjan Malikam in the History of Iran that the author’s name was Muhsin al-Kashmiri, whose poetry was known as Fani. He narrated from the author of Ma’athir al-Umara that the author’s name was Dhu al-Fiqar Ali. He narrated from the margin of a copy written in (1260) that he was Mir Dhu al-Fiqar Ali al-Husayni, whose name was Bhushiyar. He himself chose that some of the tourists in the middle of the eleventh century met many dervishes in India and narrated the good and bad about them in this book. I say: It is said about some orientalists that in the library of Brussels there is a copy of the book of doctrines by Muhammad Fani, in which he mentioned that he went to Khorasan (1056) and saw there Muhammad Quli Khan, who believed in the prophethood of Musaylimah the Liar, and just as the author concealed his name, he also deliberately concealed his doctrine so that his words would not be interpreted as fanaticism [14] . Yes, this is the truth regarding this alleged surah in brief. So how can a wise and prudent person believe this claim and ignore the great and deep-rooted interest of the Shiites in the Holy Qur’an, which Muslims believe in all over the world, an interest that is not limited to reading and memorization, but extends to their activities and aspects of their lives, as they care about it in reading, memorization, interpretation, printing, and dissemination, and in the field of jurisprudence, doctrine, ethics, education, and other fields. [1] Protecting the Qur’an from distortion:192, by our distinguished scholar, Ayatollah Sheikh Muhammad Hadi Ma’rifah (may God protect him)




















[2] Dabestan al-Madhahib: 1/246-247, edited by: Rahim Reza Zadeh Malik, edition: Tehran/Iran, quoted from: Siyanaat al-Quran min al-Tahrif: 188.

[3] Fasl al- Khitab : 179-180, No. (Sah 68) of the eighth guide, as well as from Siyanaat al-Quran min al-Tahrif: 188.

[4] Siyanaat al-Quran min al-Tahrif: 189.

[5] Siyanaat al-Quran min al-Tahrif: 189.

[6] Bahr al-Fawa’id fi Sharh al-Fara’id: 1/101. The author finished writing the book in the year: 1307 AH in Tehran, and the book was printed in the year: 1314 AH.

[7] Introduction to the interpretation of Ala’ al-Rahman in the interpretation of the Qur’an: 1/24-25, the fifth matter, by the scholar and researcher Sheikh Muhammad Jawad al-Balaghi al-Najfi (may God sanctify his pure soul) , who died in the year: 1352 AH, published by the Library of Wajdani, Qom/Iran.

[8] Preservation of the Qur’an from distortion: 187.

[9] Surat al-Nahl (16), verse: 105.

[10] Preservation of the Qur’an from distortion: 189, by the scholar and researcher Sheikh Muhammad Hadi Ma’rifa, second edition: 1418 AH, published by the Islamic Publishing Foundation, Qom/Iran.

[11] Surat al-Isra’ (17), verse: 88.

[12] Bahr al-Fawa’id fi Sharh al-Fara’id: 1/101. The author finished writing the book in the year 1307 AH in Tehran, and the book was printed in the year 1314 AH.

[13] Rahim Reza Zadeh Malik, Dabestan al-Madhahib: 2/126 and 129, Comments section, Tehran edition, year 1362 AH.

[14] Al-Dhari’ah: 8/48: by the great scholar and researcher Sheikh Agha Buzurg al-Tehrani (may God sanctify his pure soul) .

Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction , and argue with them in a way that is best. Indeed, your Lord is most knowing of who has strayed from His way, and He is most knowing of the [rightly] guided.
[An-Nahl: 125]

And do not insult those they invoke other than God, lest they insult God in enmity without knowledge. [Al-An`am 6:108]