There are many deviants who claim that some Muslims do not accept the integrity of the Quran, these accusations are often sectarian and designed to create friction and hostilities among Muslims, this process of causing trouble, known as fitnah is a common trait within those who have deviated far from the path of Islam.
This article will refer to all major early scholars and books, showing that there is no ikhtilaf (difference) on this topic, it is unanimously agreed that the Quran is complete and free from any physical distortion.
The article is quite long, and just to summarise, there are hadith that imply some kind of tahreef, these hadith are in 3 groups:
1. Suggest a reduction, essentially they are abrogated, to the Quran we have today which is the intended version.
2. Then there are hadith which allude to tahreef in a general way, which is in terms of the meaning, which is undeniably true.
3. That the wording we have today is wrong, and these hadith are weak and rejected.
Quotes of the Major Scholars
“Our belief is that the Quran which Allah revealed to His Prophet
Muhammad is (the same as) the one between the two covers (daffatayn).
And it is the one which is in the hands of the people, and is not
greater in extent than that. The number of surahs as generally
accepted is one hundred and fourteen …And he who asserts that we say
that it is greater in extent than that, is a liar.”
al-I’tiqadat al-Imamiyyah by Shaykh Saduq, English version, p77.
Who is the famous student of Sheikh Suduq wrote a following book to the one above, and he fine tuned it, correcting some things, but he did not correct the above statement. However Al Mufeed has written books in which he clearly states the Quran is preserved and agrees with the texts in our hands, in Awail al-Maqalat page 81 (Qum, published 1413 AH) says:
“And the group from the people of Imamah says there is no shortening in the words, and not in the ayah, and not in the Surah, but the cancellation of what was established in the mushaf of Amir al-Mumineen from his tawil/interpretation of its meanings”
From his other books such as Kitab al-Irshad, again Sheikh Al Mufeed explains how it is more difficult to understand the Quran now , as the notes form the Imams are missing and the order has changed. This is not contentious, no one thinks the Quran was revealed and structured in the way it is now, however the content is the same. There is a special copy of the Quran which is with the Imams which contains the verses in the original order with a tafseer and taweel of every ayat. This was unfortunately rejected by Uthman.
Masail al-Sarawiya, which is a book attributed to Sheikh Al Mufeed, in it contains the following statement:
All of what is between the two covers of the Quran is the Speech of Allah Ta’ala and His revelation; it does not contain any sayings of human beings, and it is most of what has been revealed, and the rest of what Allah Ta’ala has revealed as Quran is bestowed with (Al-Qaem) the Preserver of Shariah and Custodian of Rulings with none of it being omitted, even though the one who has compiled what is between the two covers as present today (Uthman) did not include this in the compilation due to reasons such as: his shortcomings in knowing some (of it), what he had doubts about, and some which he included and others he meant to exclude, while Amir al-Mu’mineen (Ali) compiled the revealed Quran from beginning to end, and collated it as it is supposed to be collated: so he put the Makki (verses) before Madani, and abrogated verses before those abrogating them, and put all of it as it is required to be put, and for this reason (Imam) Jafar ibn Muhammad as-Saddiq said: “By Allah if the Quran was read as it was revealed you would have found our names as those before us were named”…
Authentic Hadiths have passed from our Imams (A.S.) that they have ordered (us) to read what is between the two covers, and that we do not resort to any other, be it in addition or subtraction until the Qaem emerges and he would read to people the Quran as Allah Ta’ala revealed it and as collected by Amir al-Mu’mineen (Ali) and they forbade us from reading what is mentioned in Hadith of words that are in excess of what is established in the Mushaf because it did not come through Mutawatir (narrations), but through individual (narrations), and a person can commit mistakes in conveying it, and whenever a person reads what is contrary to what is in the two covers he will make himself prone to (the attacks) of those who differ with us (i.e. Sunnis), and to the mighty (Sunni rulers) and thus he would expose himself to perishing. Thus, they (A.S.) prevented us from reading the Quran contrary to what is mentioned between the two covers.
Book Title: Masa’il as-Sarawiyya
Author: ash-Shaykh al-Mufid
Publisher: Dar al-Mufid in Lebanon, Beirut 
Editor: Sa’ib Abd al-Humayd
There is doubt if this book was indeed the work of the Al Mufeed, as al-Khoei says lists several arguments for this in his book Kuliyat fi Ilm ar-Rijal Page 316-7 that when Najashi (a prominent scholar of the time) in his rijal mention al-Mufid, he doesn’t mention any work by the name of Masail al-Sarawiya, therefore this work is not proven to be from al-Mufid.Also :Shaykh Tusi also did not mention any work with this name.
Sheikh Al Mufeed had written a book which is a like an amendment of the above, and he does not criticise or mention Sheikh Saduq view on the Quran, where as he did disagree on other subjects, his silence is taken that he agrees with Sheikh Saduq view.
Regarding those who believed in tahrif, Sharif al-Murtada (ar) said. . .
“Only a group of traditionalists who do not understand what they are saying nor know where they are going, those who always follow narratives and submit to whatever is quoted, whether true or false, without any thought or reflection, whose views are not worth attention. As for the scholars, theologians, and rational debaters of our schools such as Abu Jafar ibn Qiba, Abu’l Ahwas, the Nawbakhtis, and their predecessor and successors, we have never come across any opinion among them concerning alleged omission in the text of Qur’an.”
Commander of the Faithful Imam Ali (as)
“We did not make humans rulers, but we made the Qur’an the ruler over humans. This Qur’an is free from change but does not speak on its own accord, an interpreter is needed for this task.” Nahjul Balagha part 6 page 7.
Often people ask, but what about the people who do say such things? Are they Kafir? Now the only argument that any shia scholars believe that the current Quran in our hands is not 100% correct, (as explained above), also believe that the Quran is preserved 100% perfectly with the Imam of the time AS. For this reason, it is not applicable to call these people kafir, but rather they are a minority belief that is incorrect. If however, someone was to say, all qurans any where and at all time are wrong, or false, then this person is certainly a kafir.
Sunni’s on the other hand have a different dilemma in that they actually have 7 different types of Quran. The sunnis also differ on if “bismillah arrahman arraheem” is part of the Quran. Al-Khoei has written an excellent book called Al Bayan fee tafsir al Quran,in which he address hadiths that imply tahreef in the Quran.
There are some hadith that are interesting, they say such things like ” there were 17,000 verses in the Quran when it was revealed”, and some of these hadiths are rated as having a sahih chain. The way they are to be understood is that it is very likely the number of verses was significantly more than what we have today, however, they were either abrogated, caused to be forgotten, or not part of the Quran (hadith Qudsi). Here is a selection of such a hadith:
عَلِيُّ بْنُ الْحَكَمِ عَنْ هِشَامِ بْنِ سَالِمٍ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع قَالَ إِنَّ الْقُرْآنَ الَّذِي جَاءَ بِهِ جَبْرَئِيلُ ع إِلَى مُحَمَّدٍ ص سَبْعَةَ عَشَرَ أَلْفَ آيَةٍ
“Aboo ‘Abd Allah , has said, ‘The Holy Quran that Jibra’eel brought to Muhammad (SAWAS) had seventeen thousand verses (17,000).’”
- Al-Kulaynee, Al-Kaafi, vol. 2, pg. 634, hadeeth # 28
- Al-Majlisi said this hadeeth is Muwaththaq (Reliable)
–> Mir’aat Al-’Uqool, vol. 12, pg. 525
- Al-Majlisi I (Majlisi’s Father) said this hadeeth is SaHeeH (Authentic)
–> RawDah Al-Muttaqoon, vol. 10, pg. 21
- Hoor Al-’Aamilee said this hadeeth is SaHeeH (authentic)
–> Al-Fuwaa-id Al-Toosiyyah, topic # 96, pg. 483
There isn’t a statement from al-Kulayni that says that he believes in tahreef, sure, he might have incorporated narrations that may allude to tahreef in his al-Kaafi, but that is mere conjecture that he believes in the authenticity of those narrations or that he interpreted those narrations as tahreef. The very same narrations can be found in al-Sadooq’s books, and we all know that al-Sadooq was anti-Tahreef.
It is the same as above, there is no statement from al-`Ayyashi himself, just narrations that may allude to tahreef. Not to mention if you read the introduction of Tafsir al-`Ayyashi, you will realize that we cannot rely on this book as a way to accurately tell the view of al-`Ayyashi himself.
I am guessing you are getting a quote from a book that is dubiously attributed to al-Mufid, the authenticity of the book is heavily in question. My response to those who bring the statement from that book is twofold. First, the authenticity of such a book is highly questionable. Second, the book that is authentically attributed to al-Mufid is his Tasaheeh of al-Sadooq’s `Itiqaadaat, and in his corrections of al-Sadooq’s beliefs, he never “corrects” al-Sadooq on his opinion of anti-Tahreef. Instead, he criticizes his opinion if the Qur’an was revealed all at once in the beginning and then revealed throughout the 23 years. He never says that the belief of anti-Tahreef of al-Sadooq is wrong and that it goes against mutawaatir narrations (as you may know, al-Mufeed was big on mutawaatir narrations). Not to mention his two major students al-Murtada and al-Tusi both never believed in tahreef, and the former was the biggest proponent of mutawaatir hadith
This statement shows that Hurr al-`Amili was anti-Tahreef:
إنّ من تتبّع الأخبار وتفحّص التواريخ والآثار علم ـ علماً قطعيّاً ـ بأنّ القرآن قد بلغ أعلى درجات التواتر ، وأنّ آلاف الصحابة كانوا يحفطونه ويتلونه ، وأنّه كان على عهد رسول الله عليه وآله وسلّم مجموعاً مؤلّفاً
“If someone follows narrations, and examines history, the result is knowledge – definitive knowledge – that the Qur’an had reached the highest degree of tawaatur, And there were 1000s of companions that protected it and recited it, and that during the time of the Messenger of Allah it was collected and compiled”
Source: Hurr al-`Amili, Fusool al-Muhimmah, pg. 166
A group from the people of Imaamah say: ‘That there is no lessening in words, nor from a verse, nor from a Surah, but the deletion of what was established in the Mushaf of Amir al-Mu’mineen from his explanations (ta’wil), and tafsir of the meaning of the reality of its revelation, and that was its established revelations, and its is not from the collective words of Allah, the Most High, which is the miraculous Qur’an…
According to me this belief is more likely (i.e. correct belief) than those who claim the lessening of words from the Qur’an itself upon the reality not the ta’wil. I am inclined to it (i.e. view of no tahrif)’
Source: al-Mufid, Awaa’il al-Maqaalaat, pg. 80
For if it is the Qeel (قيل / It was said): Its a “must” to lift the trust on the Quran, because if it is proved its distortion, then in every verse it is possible, and permitting (The Imams) peace be upon them on reading the Quran and acting on it is “Mutwa’atir and known, if non copied from the companions (of the Imams) that one of our Imams gave him a Quran or taught him recitations, and this is clear from thos who follow Al-Akhba’ar. And for Amm’r’ee ( لعمري ), how do they have the face (Audacity) on these “weak sayings” in this Akhb’a’ar, just like what is said in this Kha’bar that the verse are extra, example of the holy Akhba’ar or if it was “Al-Tajzee’iyah”. Rather the verses, in more than one Kha’bar, it was not the names written on the foot-notes on the sake of Tafs’ir and Allah knows best, and said Al-sayed haidar Al-Amuli ( السيد حيدر الآملي) in his Tafs’eer, the majority of the Reciters made clear that the Sur’ahs of the Quran, with all of them are One hundred and fourteen….”
1-Imam-Al-Khoemanei In Tahtheeb Al-usul, volume 2, page 165 ( لإمام الخميني (ر) – تهذيبب الأصول بقلم السبحاني):
2- Ali Bin Ibrahim Al-Qomi in his Famous Tafs’ir Al-Qomi, volume 1, page 26: (علي بن إبراهيم القمي – تفسير القمي):
3- Al-majlisi (العلامة المجلسي), in Biha’ar Al-Anwar (بحار الأنوار), volume 9, page 113:
– العلامة المجلسي : إنا نحن نزلنا الذكر أي القرآن : وأنا له لحافظون ، عن الزيادة والنقصان والتغيير والتحريف ، وقيل : نحفظه من كيد المشركين فلا يمكنهم إبطاله ولا يندرس ولا ينسى ، وقيل : المعنى : وأنا لمحمد حافظون.
4- Sheikh Ali Al-Kurani Al-Amuli (الشيخ علي الكوراني العاملي), In his book Tad’ween Al-Quran (تدوين القرآن), page 40:
– رأي الشيخ علي الكوراني العاملي : وفتاوى علماء الشيعة بعدم تحريف القرآن الذين يمثلون الشيعة في كل عصر هم علماؤهم ، فهم الخبراء بمذهب التشيع لأهل البيت (ع) الذين يميزون ما هو جزء منه وما هو خارج عنه .. وعندما نقول علماء الشيعة نعني بالدرجة الأولى مراجع التقليد الذين يرجع إليهم ملايين الشيعة ويقلدونهم ، ويأخذون منهم أحكام دينهم في كيفية صلاتهم وصومهم وحجهم ، وأحكام زواجهم وطلاقهم وإرثهم ، معاملاتهم .. فهؤلاء الفقهاء ، الذين هم كبار المجتهدين في كل عصر ، يعتبر قولهم رأي الشيعة ، وعقيدتهم عقيدة الشيعة ، ويليهم في الإعتبار بقية العلماء ، فهم يعبرون ، عن رأي الشيعة نسبياً .. وتبقى الكلمة الفصل في تصويب آرائهم وأفكارهم لمراجع التقليد ، وقد صدرت فتاوى مراجع الشيعة في عصرنا جواباً على تهمة الخصوم فأجمع مراجعهم على أن إتهام الشيعة بعدم الإعتقاد بالقرآن إفتراء عليهم وبهتان عظيم ، وأن الشيعة يعتقدون بسلامة هذا القرآن وأنه القرآن المنزل على رسول الله (ص) دون زيادة أو نقيصة … 5. Shiekh Al-Mufi’eed (الشيخ الصدوق), in Itiqad’at Al-Imamiah ( إعتقادات الإمامية), page 93 and page 94:
– رأي الشيخ الصدوق : إعتقادنا أن القرآن الذي أنزله الله على نبيه محمد (ص) هو ما بين الدفتين ، وهو ما في أيدي الناس ليس بأكثر من ذلك ، ومبلغ سوره عند الناس مائة وأربع عشرة سورة ، وعندنا أن الضحى وألم نشرح سورة واحدة ، ولإيلاف وألم تر كيف سورة واحدة ( يعني في الصلاة ) ومن نسب إلينا إنا نقول أكثر من ذلك فهو كاذب.
6. Sheikh Al-Mufid ( الشيخ المفيد), mentioned in Tad’ween Al-Quran (تدوين القرآن), page 41:
– رأي الشيخ المفيد : وأما الوجه المجوز فهو إن يزاد فيه الكلمة والكلمتان والحرف والحرفان ، وما أشبه ذلك مما لا يبلغ حد الإعجاز ، ويكون ملتبساً عند أكثر الفصحاء بكلم القرآن ، غير أنه لابد متى وقع ذلك من أن يدل الله عليه ، ويوضح لعباده ، عن الحق فيه ، ولست أقطع على كون ذلك ، بل أميل إلى عدمه وسلامة القرآن عنه.
7. Shiekh Al-Shareef Al-Murtatha ( الشريف المرتضى), same source, page 41:
– : المحكي أن القرآن كان على عهد رسول الله (ص) مجموعاً مؤلفاً على ما هو عليه الآن ، فإن القرآن كان يحفظ ويدرس جميعه في ذلك الزمان ، حتى عين على جماعة من الصحابة في حفظهم له ، وأنه كان يعرض على النبي (ص) ويتلى عليه ، وأن جماعة من الصحابة مثل عبد الله بن مسعود وأبي بن كعب وغيرهما ختموا القرآن على النبي (ص) عدة ختمات ، وكل ذلك يدل بأدنى تأمل على أنه كان مجموعاًً مرتباً غير منثور ، ولا مبثوث.
8 -Sheikh Al-Tusi ( الشيخ الطوسى), in his Tafs’eer Al-Tibyan (التبيان), volume 1, page 42:
– رأي الشيخ الطوسى : وأما الكلام في زيادته ونقصانه ، فمما لا يليق به أيضاًًً ، لأن الزيادة فيه مجمع علي بطلانها ، والنقصان منه فالظاهر أيضاًًً من مذهب المسلمين خلافه ، وهو الأليق بالصحيح من مذهبنا وهو الذي نصره المرتضى رحمه الله وهو الظاهر في الروايات .. ورواياتنا متناصرة بالحث على قراءته ، والتمسك بما فيه ، ورد ما يرد من إختلاف الأخبار في ألفروع إليه ، وقد روي عن النبي (ص) رواية لا يدفعها أحد أنه قال : إني مخلف فيكم الثقلين ، ما إن تمسكتم بهما لن تضلوا : كتاب الله وعترتي أهل بيتي ، وأنهما لن يفترقا حتى يردا عليَّ الحوض وهذا يدل على أنه موجود في كل عصر ، لأنه لا يجوز أن يأمر بالتمسك بما لا نقدر على التمسك به ، كما إن أهل البيت (ع) ومن يجب إتباع قوله حاصلٌ في كل وقت ، وإذا كان الموجود بيننا مجمعاًً على صحته ، فينبغي أن نتشاغل بتفسيره ، وبيان معانيه ، ونترك ما سواه .
9. Al-Tabrasi (الطبرسي) in his Taf’seer Majm’a Al-Bayan ( تفسير مجمع البيان) volume 1, page 15 and 42:
13. Sheikh Muhammad Hussain Kashif Gh’ata’a, same source, page 43:
: وإن الكتاب الموجود في أيدي المسلمين هو الكتاب الذي أنزله الله للإعجاز والتحدي ، وتمييز الحلال من الحرام ، وأنه لا نقص فيه ولا تحريف ولا زيادة ، وعلى هذا إجماعهم.
14. Al-Sayid Shareef Al-deen Al-Amuli (رأي السيد شرف الدين العاملي), same source, page 43:
– رأي السيد شرف الدين العاملي : والقرآن الحكيم الذي لا يأتيه الباطل من بين يديه ولا من خلفه ، إنما هو ما بين الدفتين ، وهو ما في أيدي الناس لا يزيد حرفاًً ولا ينقص حرفاًً ، ولا تبديل فيه لكلمة بكلمة ولا لحرف بحرف ، وكل حرف من حروفه متواتر في كل جيل تواترا قطعياً إلى عهد الوحي والنبوة ، وكان مجموعاً على ذلك العهد الأقدس مؤلفا على ما هو عليه الآن ، وكان جبرائيل (ع) يعارض رسول الله (ص) بالقرآن في كل عام مرة ، وقد عارضه به عام وفاته مرتين ، والصحابة كانوا يعرضونه ويتلونه على النبي (ص) حتى ختموه عليه (ص) مراراًًً عديدة ، وهذا كله من الأمور المعلومة الضرورية لدى المحققين من علماء الإمامية …. نسب إلى الشيعة القول بتحريف القرآن بإسقاط كلمات وآيات إلخ. فأقول : نعوذ بالله من هذا القول ، ونبرأ إلى الله تعالى من هذا الجهل ، وكل من نسب هذا الرأي إلينا جاهل بمذهبنا ، أو مفتر علينا ، فإن القرآن العظيم والذكر الحكيم متواتر من طرقنا بجميع آياته وكلماته وسائر حروفه وحركاته وسكناته ، تواتراً قطعياً ، عن أئمة الهدى من أهل البيت (ع) لا يرتاب في ذلك إلاّّ معتوه ، وأئمة أهل البيت كلهم أجمعون رفعوه إلى جدهم رسول الله (ص) عن الله تعالى ، وهذا أيضاًً مما لا ريب فيه ، وظواهر القرآن الحكيم – فضلاً ، عن نصوصه – أبلغ حجج الله تعالى ، وأقوى أدلة أهل الحق بحكم الضرورة الأولية من مذهب الإمامية ، وصحاحهم في ذلك متواترة من طريق العترة الطاهرة ، وبذلك تراهم يضربون بظواهر الصحاح المخالفة للقرآن عرض الجدار ، ولا يأبهون بها ، عملاًَ بأوامر أئمتهم (ع).
15. Al-Sayid Al-Broujordi Al-Tabtab’ai (السيد البروجردي الطباطبائي) same source, page 44:
16. Sayed Muhsin Al-hakeem Al-Tabtab’ei ( السيد محسن الحكيم الطباطبائي), same source page 44:
: وبعد ، فإن رأي كبار المحققين ، وعقيدة علماء الفريقين ، ونوع المسلمين من صدر الإسلام إلى اليوم على أن القرآن بترتيب الآيات والسور والجمع كما هو المتداول بالأيدي ، لم يقل الكبار بتحريفه من قبل ، ولا من بعد.
17. Sayed Muhammad Hussain A’-Tabtab’ai ( السيد محمد حسين الطباطبائي)same source, page 45:
فقد تبين مما فصلناه أن القرآن الذي أنزله الله على نبيه (ص) ووصفه بأنه ذكر محفوظ على ما إنزل ، مصون بصيانة إلهية عن الزيادة والنقيصة والتغيير كما وعد الله نبيه فيه ، وخلاصة الحجة أن القرآن أنزله الله على نبيه ووصفه في آيات كثيرة بأوصاف خاصة لو كان تغيير في شئ من هذه الأوصاف بزيادة أو نقيصة أو تغيير في لفظ أو ترتيب مؤثر ، فقد آثار تلك الصفة قطعاً ، لكنا نجد القرآن الذي بأيدينا واجداً لآثار تلك الصفات المعدودة على أتم ما يمكن وأحسن ما يكون ، فلم يقع فيه تحريف يسلبه شيئاًً من صفاته ، فالذي بأيدينا منه هو القرآن المنزل على النبي (ص) بعينه ، فلو فرض سقوط شئ منه أو إعراب أو حرف أو ترتيب ، وجب أن يكون في أمر لا يؤثر في شئ من أوصافه كالإعجاز وإرتفاع الإختلاف ، والهداية ، والنورية ، والذكرية ، والهيمنة على سائر الكتب السماوية ، إلى غير ذلك ، وذلك كآية مكررة ساقطة ، أو إختلاف في نقطة أو إعراب ونحوها.
18. Al-Sayed Muhammad Hadi Alm’ilani ( السيد محمد هادي الميلاني), same source page 45:
19. Al-Sayed Muhammad Al-gulbaigani ( السيد محمد رضا الكلبايكاني), same source, page 45:
– وقال الشيخ لطف الله الصافي دام ظله : ولنعم ما أفاده العلامة الفقيه والمرجع الديني السيد محمد رضا الكلبايكاني بعد التصريح بأن ما في الدفتين هو القرآن المجيد ، ذلك الكتاب لا ريب فيه ، والمجموع المرتب في عصر الرسالة بأمر الرسول (ص) ، بلا تحريف ولا تغيير ولا زيادة ولا نقصان ، وإقامة البرهان عليه : أن إحتمال التغيير زيادة ونقيصة في القرآن كإحتمال تغيير المرسل به ، وإحتمال كون القبلة غير الكعبة في غاية السقوط لا يقبله العقل ، وهو مستقل بإمتناعه عادة.
20. Sayed Abu Qa’asim Al-khoei ( السيد أبو القاسم الخوئ), same source, page 46:
– . إن حديث تحريف القرآن حديث خرافة وخيال ، لا يقول به إلاّّ من ضعف عقله أو من لم يتأمل في أطرافه حق التأمل ، أو من الجاه إليه حب القول به ، والحب يعمي ويصم ، وأما العقل المنصف المتدبر فلا يشك في بطلانه وخرافته.
21. Sheikh Lut’uf Allah Al-Safi ( الشيخ لطف الله الصافي), same source, page 46:
23. Sayid Al-Am’uli (السيد العاملي), in Mift’ah Al-karamah ( مفتاح الكرامة), volume 2, page 391:
– ا والعادة تقضي بالتواتر في تفاصيل القرآن من أجزائه وألفاظه وحركاته وسكناته ووضعه في محله ، لتوفر الدواعي على نقله من المقر لكونه أصلاًً لجميع الأحكام ، والمنكر لإبطاله لكونه معجزاً ، فلا يعبأ بخلاف من خالف أو شك في المقام.
24. Sheikh Hur Al-Am’uli (الشيخ محمد بن الحسن الحر العاملي) : We read in Maf’aheem Al-Quran Al-Adl Wa Al-Imamah ((مفاهيم القرآن (العدل والإمامة):, page 441-443, volume 10:
والمتتبع للتاريخ والأخبار والآثار يعلم يقينا بأن القرآن ثابت بغاية التواتر وبنقل الآلاف من الصحابة ، وأن القرآن كان مجموعا مؤلفا في عهد الرسول . هذه هي الشخصيات الكبيرة من الإمامية الذين عرفت تنصيصهم على عدم طروء التحريف على الذكر الحكيم ، وقد جئنا بأسماء القائلين بعدم التحريف إلى نهاية القرن الحادي عشر ، وأما الذين نصوا على عدم التحريف في القرون الأخيرة فحدث عنهم ولا حرج ، كيف وقد ألفوا رسائل كبيرة وصغيرة حول الموضوع ، ونحن نسأل من يرمي الشيعة بالقول بالتحريف بأنه بأي دليل يقول : بأن تنصيص الشخصيات الأربع الأول على عدم التحريف من باب التقية ، أهكذا أدب العلم وأدب الإسلام ؟ أليس الله تعالى يقول : ( ولا تقولوا لمن ألقى إليكم السلام لست مؤمنا ) ، والعجب أنه يستشهد على هذا النظر بقول أعداء الشيعة ويترك قول علمائهم ، وبما أن الكاتب يستند في بعض أبحاثه إلى كلمات قائد الثورة الإسلامية الإمام الخميني قدس سره نأتي بنص كلامه في هذا الموضع ، وهذا ما جاء في محاضراته التي ألقيت قبل خمسين سنة : إن الواقف على عناية المسلمين بجمع الكتاب وحفظه وضبطه قراءة وكتابة ، يعترف ببطلان تلك المزعمة ” التحريف ” ، وأنه لا ينبغي أن يركن إليها ذو مسكة ، وما وردت فيه من الأخبار ، بين ضعيف لا يستدل به ، إلى مجعول يلوح منه أمارات الجعل ، إلى غريب يقضي منه العجب ، إلى صحيح يدل على أن مضمونه تأويل الكتاب وتفسيره ، إلى غير ذلك من الأقسام التي يحتاج بيان المراد منها إلى تأليف كتاب حافل ، ولولا خوف الخروج عن طور البحث لأرخينا عنان البيان إلى تشريح تاريخ القرآن وما جرى عليه طيلة القرون ، وأوضحنا لك أن الكتاب هو عين ما بين الدفتين ، والاختلاف الموجود بين القراء ليس إلا أمرا حديثا لا ربط له بما نزل به الروح الأمين على قلب سيد المرسلين . الرسائل المفردة حول صيانة القرآن من التحريف : إن علماء الشيعة الإمامية لم يقتصروا على هذه الجمل القصيرة حول صيانة الذكر الحكيم من التحريف ، بل ألفوا حولها رسائل مفردة منذ أربعة قرون
و الشيخ الحر العاملي قد أفرد رسالة في هذا الموضوع أسماها ” تواتر القرآن
25. Al-Sheikh Al-Balaghi (الشيخ البلاغي), In his book Al’li Al Rahm’an (آلاء الرحمن), volume 1:
26. Al-Kalb’asi (المحقق الكلباسي), in Al-bayan In Tafseer Al-Quran ( البيان في تفسير القرآن), page 234:
27. Al-Mut’atha Ali bin hussain Alam Al-huda (المرتضى علي بن الحسين علم الهدى), in Maj’ma Al-bayan, volume 1, (مجمع البيان), page 15:
في رسالته الجوابية الأولى ، عن المسائل الطرابلسيات : إن العلم بصحة نقل القرآن كالعلم بالبلدان والحوادث الكبار والوقائع العظام والكتب المشهورة وأشعار العرب المسطورة ، فإن العناية إشتدت والدواعي توفرت على نقله وحراسته ، وبلغت إلى حد لم يبلغه فيما ذكرناه ، لأن القرآن معجزة النبوة ومأخذ العلوم الشرعية والأحكام الدينية ، وعلماء المسلمين قد بلغوا في حفظه وحمايته الغاية ، حتى عرفوا كل شئ أختلف فيه من إعرابه وقرائته وحروفه وآياته ، فكيف يجوز أن يكون مغيراً ومنقوصاً ، مع العناية الصادقة والضبط الشديد إلى أن يقول – إن من خالف في ذلك من الإمامية والحشوية لا يعتد بخلافهم ، فإن الخلاف في ذلك مضاف إلى قوم من أصحاب الحديث نقلوا أخباراًًً ضعيفة ظنوا صحتها ، لا يرجع بمثلها ، عن المعلوم المقطوع على صحته.
28. Al-Fathil Al-Tuni (الفاضل التوني ), in Al-Wafia (الوافية), page 147:
الفاضل التوني : والمشهور : أنه محفوظ ومضبوط كما إنزل ، لم يتبدل ولم يتغير ، حفظه الحكيم الخبير ، قال الله تعالى : إنا نحن نزلنا الذكر وإنا له لحافظون.
29. Al-Sheikh jawad Al-balghi (الشيخ جواد البلاغي), in Al’i Al-rahman In Tafseer Al-Quran ( آلاء الرحمن في تفسير القرآن), volume 1, page 26: Mentions Shiekh Ali bin Abd Al-A’ali Al-karki (شيخ علي بن عبد العالي الكركي) D. 938. H
– صنف في نفي النقيصة رسالة مستقلة جاء فيها إن ما دل على الروايات من النقيصة لابد من تأويلها أو طرحها فأن الحدث إذا جاء على خلاف الدليل من الكتاب والسنة المتواترة والإجماع ولم يمكن تأويله ولا حمله على بعض الوجوه وجب طرحه.
Concerning the Book mentioned to Al-Majlisi (العلامة محمّد باقر المجلسي رحمه الله), in Al-Ans’ar, Al-Muli,was not the first to record it falsely, but also in the book of Al’U’el’ua ( اللؤلؤة), in , Fa’aith Al-qada’si (الفيض القدسي), page 53. There was mix (of Mistake) in the recording between the name of Al-Majlisi, and the Author of the book. But in checking the first pages of the book, the Author is a “Sufi”, and there is no connection, even at the simplest level between the Author and Al-majlsisi (Take for example: look at the first few pages, narrations About Ka’ab-Al-Ahbar, and a story on Muw’aiyah bin Abi Sufyain, and it is from the isra’aliyat (Israel)). Also if you check the collection of Bih’ar Al-Anwar that Al-Majlisi made on All the “Akhba’ar” and in All his volumes that he made in collecting all his narrations concerning the Qura’an, neither will you find it in the footnotes under such narrations, And In the Index of his books that have been recorded you will fined no name of such book (Look in: Rayhabat Al-Ad’aab (ريحانة الأدب), V.5,P195, And Rawtha’at Al-jannah (روضات الجنات), V.1, page 118-114, and Al-Al’aam By Al-Zarkali (الاعلام للزركلي) V.3, P.868, and A’iyan Al-Shia ( أعيان الشيعة), V.9,P.182-184, Al-Thari’a ( الذريعة), V.23, P.319, And Riyath Al-Ulama ( رياض العلماء), V.5,P.39, and in Al-Faith Al-Qudsi (الفيض القدسي), in his Tarjama of Al-Alama Al-majlisi). And its clear when revising the Indexes, the books does not exist in the works of Alama Al-majlisi, as in also those who wrote on his life such as Al-sayed Mas’lah Al-deen Al-mahdi (مصلح الدين المهدي), in “Haya’at Al-Alama Al-majlisi (“حياة العلامة المجلسي)”, which he did not mention this book, and with that Sheikh Aghar Birzky Al-Tahrani (الشيخ آغا بزرگ الطهراني) concerning the book “Tathkirat Al-A’ima”:
“Tathkirat Al-Aima (تذكرة الأئمة) in the history of the Imam’s (a.s) from their births and deaths, and revealing their status in general, and what is concerned with such. by “Al-Mawla Muhammad Baqir bin Muhammad Taqi Al-Lahe’eji, Farisi ( للمولى محمّد باقر بن محمّد تقي اللاهيجي، فارسي), after his workings (books) in 1085, told us Al-Faith Al-Qudsi ( الفيض القدسي), that the Author was present at the same time as Al-Alama Al-majslisi, close together in names, and name of fathers, and was leaning towards Al-Tasweef (meaning Sufism), and with that he was the student of Al-Alama Almajlisi, and therefore the connecting between the Majlisi and the book is but non-sense in the names..” You can read more in: “Al-Tharia I’la Tasaneef Al-Shia (الذريعة إلى تصانيف الشيعة), volume 4, page 26. If such a book was by Al-Alama Al-Majlisi, then “Muhadith Al-Nouri (المحدّث النوري)” in Fa’sil Al-Khitab (فصل الخطاب) on the verse that was pointed: “I have found no clue of it, in the books of Al-Shia” Check page 180 of the book. Also Muhammad hussain Al-kha’toon Aba’adi (محمد حسين الخاتون آبادي), the grandson of Al-majlisi in his works that he formed to show the number of works of his grandfather, he did not mention this book in in the chain of his works (Al-Majlisi), and Al-muhadith Al-nouri, also made a book called: “Al-Faith-Alqudsi fe Ahwal Al-Alama Almajlisi (الفيض القدسي في أحوال العلاّمة المجلسي), and said after showing all his works of Al-Alama Almajlisi:
“إنّ أمتن الوجوه بل الشاهد على كذب النسبة قطعاً أنّ تلميذه الفاضل الميرزا عبد الله الاصفهاني قال في الرياض في الفصل الخامس المعدّ لذكر الكتب المجهولة وقد كتب هذا الموضع منه في حياة استاذه كما يظهر من مطاوي الفصل ما لفظه: كتاب تذكرة الأئمة من تأليفات بعض أهل عصرنا ممن كان له ميل إلى التصوف.وكيف يخفى عليه مؤلَّف شيخه وهو جذيلها المحكك وعذيقها المرّجب
Read: Fai’ath Al-Qudsi (الفيض القدسي), that is printed in Bihar Al-Anwar, volume 105, page 53-53.
Majlisi does believe in some form of Tahreef, namely distorted meaning.
Muwaththaq, and in some versions ‘from Hisham b. Salim’ is replaced with ‘(from) Harun b. Muslim’. For the narration is authentic (sahih), and there is no doubt that this narration and many from the authentic narrations (about tahrif) are clear regarding the reduction of the Qur’an and its change. And according to me the narration on this topic are mutawaatir in meaning, and to discard all of it is to require removing the belief of the main of the narrations, rather I think that the narrations about this subject (of tahrif) are no less than the narration regarding al-Imaamah, so how can it be established by the narration (regarding al-Imaamah but deny the narrations on Tahrif)
And if it is said: “If it is required to remove the belief of the Qur’an, because if its tahrif is established, then in that may be in every verse, and their permission of recitation of this Qur’an and acting by it are known mutawaatir. And If it is not reported from one of the companions that one from our A’immah has given to us our Qur’an or its knowledge of recitation, and this is apparent for whoever follows the narrations. And for my life, how dare they charge the weak (interpretation) in these narration like what it is said about this narration that the increase in the verses are equivalent to the al-Qudsi narrations* or separate from many of the verses. And it is known well that the names were not written on the margins for the tafsir, and Allah, the Most High, knows. And al-Sayyid Haydar al-Amuli said in his tafsir that many of the reciters believed that the Surahs of the Qur’an were 114 surahs and that its verses were 6,666 verse**, and that its words were 77,437 words, and its letters were 322,670 letters, and (the number of) Fatha are 93,243 fathas, and (the number of) Dammahs are 40,804 dammahs, and (the number of) kasra are 39,586 kasras, and (the number of) tashdids are 19,253 tashdids, and (the number of) Madds are 1,771 Madds, and that the number of hamzah are 3,273 hamzahs, and that the number of Alifs are 48,872 alifs”
* This is in reply to al-Saduq’s belief that the 17,000 verses were in regards to al-Hadith al-Qudsiyyah (See: al-Saduq’s al-`Itiqaadaat)
** It is well known that the number of verses of the Qur’an is not 6,666, rather it is 6,236. However there is a difference due to the counting of Bismillah as a verse etc
There is a lengthy discussion from al-Majlisi in his Bihar where he categorically rejects tahrīf and says those Hadith about tahrīf are Akhbār Ahād (one off, strange narrations), a stark contrast to what he has said in his Mir’āt al-`Uqūl.
Al-Majlisī did not complete the entire Bihār al-Anwār himself, and that his students (I.e. `Abd Allāh Al-Efendi, etc.) took the initiative after his death. Kamāl al-Haydarī has discussed this as well:
“The teacher of all the Muhaditheen and one of the most known traditionists, Sheikh al-Sadooq ® states in his book, al-Ei’teqadat: “We believe that the holy Quran that Allah revealed to the Prophet (s) is the same that lies with us between the two covers and nothing more than this, and whosoever accuses us of believing in a Quran lengthier than this, he is a blatant liar. He has taken those narrations which have come about the reduction of the verses of Quran in a different meaning.”
In the last part of Fasl-ul-Khitaab a statement of Sheikh al-Mufid [r] has been recorded from his book al-Maqalaat, wherein he says that most of the followers of the Imamia sect believe that no subtraction has been done to the Holy Quran, not even that of a single sentence, single verse or a single word. No doubt, the explanations, the meanings and the details of revelations of the holy Quran compiled by Hadhrat Ali had been reduced.
Syed Murtadha ilm-ul-Huda [r] likewise affirmed the same belief, he states that nothing has been reduced from the Holy Quran, only a few from the Imamia sect and Hashwia opposed this view and they do not deserve any attention. The statements against this view they are from some people from the Akhbariyyah who have taken some daeef narrations as Sahih and have adopted this view.
In the beginning of Sheikh al-Tusi’s book al-Tibyaan it is stated that raising questions about the Tahrif of the Quran is inappropriate, because as far as the question of anything being added to the Quran is concerned, there is a complete consensus that no such thing has happened, and about anything being subtracted from it, apparently the belief of all the Muslims is that this has likewise not occurred, and the same is the “Sahih” statement especially in our religion, and it has been backed by Allamah Syed Murtadha [r] and same is proven from the Ahadith. No doubt in both Shias and Sunnis some single chain narrations have certainly come which can neither suffice for knowledge, nor can they be acted upon, therefore it is better to discard them.
Exactly the same belief is described in Tafseer al-Majma’ al-Bayaan.
It is stated in Kashf-ul-Ghita Kitab al-Quran that the eighth discussion concerns mistakes in the Quran. Certainly the Holy Quran is protected from the mistakes and errors with the protection of Allah which is explicitly declared by the verse of the Holy Quran itself, and the Ulema of all the eras have had the same belief, except for the very few people who have gone against this and deserve no attention, and the narrations that point to errors in the Quran cannot be acted upon and neither should they be explained for this matter.
Sheikh Bahai says that there is a difference of opinion about Tahrif in the Quran, but the correct view is that it is protected from all sorts of subtractions or additions, and Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì says that He Himself is the Protector of the Quran, and the proof for it is that it is said that the term “Ameer ul-Mo’mineen” had been subtracted from numerous places, like: “Ya Aiyohal lazeena balagh ma unzila Ilaik fi Ali” etc which is completely unauthentic.
Syed Mohsin Baghdadi in Shrah Wafia says that the accepted belief amongst our Ulema is that we have an Ijma’ that no subtraction has occurred with the Holy Quran.
Allamah Ali Bin Abdul `Aali Kirki has authored a complete book about the perfection of the Holy Quran, wherein he has quoted the statement of Sheikh al-Sadooq [rah] and then whilst discussing the narrations which point to Tahrif of the Quran, he has said that when any hadith is against the Quran or the Mutawatir ahadith, and any other possible explanation cannot be done, then that narration should be discarded.
Going against all these Ulema, a scholar of the present era Allamah Noori in Fasl-ul-Khitaab has sought to collect all those narrations that can be used in the matter of Tahrif of the Quran, and then has tried to give arguments from them. He has increased the number of narrations. If any person has a rational outlook and research oriented attitude and looks into the matter, he would understand that these narrations that are recorded in Tafseer al-‘ayaashi, firaat, ibn-e-Ibrahim etc are all adapted from a very few narrations, and then the narrations which are quoted in this case cannot be correct in any case, and some of them contradict each other so much that they all become very doubtful and objectionable.
Most of the mentioned primary source narrations (from which the others are adapted) also go back to a few people who are themselves unreliable when scrutinized through Rijaal. One of them has been termed as la-Madhab (Without any religion) whose narrations are weak and discarded, whilst one of the other narrators is known for narrating from weak narrators and having doubtful narrations. The Ulema of Rijaal call the third a liar and unreliable, and have not taken any narration from his Tafseer, or the person had an excessive hatred for Imam Ali ul-Redha AS, was a Ghaali and a Liar, and not even worth considering. Now if narrations from such narrators are taken then even the abundance of such narrations cannot justify a belief and neither can they prove the point of a person, because when the narrators are termed as liars, unreliable, la-Madhab and abandoned then their narrations cannot be used as authority. Even if the narrations are accepted for one reason or another, one should interpret the narrations as pointing towards the explanations, or interpretations [that the narrations deem as subtracted] and not the verses, or that the details about the person or the occasion on which the verse was revealed has been reduced, and Tahrif in the sense of meaning, not in the sense of words has occurred.
Like those narrations which are said to be revealed and have been brought by Jibrael AS, their accumulation indeed proves their meaningfulness. And by distortion it is meant the “Distortion of meaning” which is verified by the note written to Saa’d by Imam Mohammad Baqir AS and which has been mentioned in Rawdha tul-Kafi that ‘those people had disregarded the Book of Allah by bringing alterations in its restricted limitations though their literal words were retained.’
Likewise the traditions which state that in Mushaf-e-Imam Ali and Mushaf-e-Ibn Mas’ud, it has been narrated correspondingly, it in fact denotes the explanation and interpretation. To confirm its validity there is a narration of Hadhrat Ali to a Zindeeq (non-muslim) that states that he had provided them with the complete book which included both the revelation and elucidation (Imam Ali’s compiled Quran). The traditions that we pointed out earlier are the four traditions narrated by Allamah Noori which say that the phrase “Bil-Wilayatal Ali” was mentioned in Mushaf-e-Fatima [sa], and some of them state that it is mentioned in Mushaf-e-Fatima [sa] just like that. It should be kept in mind that Mushaf-e-Fatima [sa] was not the Qur’an but it was a book that contained literary understanding. Just as it is proven from several traditions of Usul-al-Kafi that are mentioned in the chapters of Sahifa, Mushaf and Jamia, they include a quotation from Imam Jaffer Sadiq that: “it does not contain anything from your Quran” and at some places it is said that: “I do not say that it contains the Quran” as it has come in Sahih and Hasan traditions.
Other than that, in the same chapter of Al-Kafi it is stated that the Ma’sumeen are ‘the witnesses over the people’. In a Sahih tradition of Burayd it has been reported from Imam Mohammad Baqir and in another tradition, which has been narrated from Imam Sadiq that both of the Imams have said about “ja’alna kum ummata wasta”, that they (Aima) are the Ummat-e-Wast.
Amir-ul-Momineen has clarified it under its tafseer that: “We are the ones about whom Allah said: ‘We declared you as the Ummat-e-Wast.’”
Now in Tafseer-e-Nu’mani and Tafseer Saa’d, it has been mentioned that the verse contains “Aima Wast”.
It should be understood as Tafseer only and it was that the meaning of ‘Ummat e Wast’ was “Aima wast’ which was altered by the people. Moreover, in the chapter of al-Kafi whee Ma’sumeen have been declared as the guides and leaders there are traditions from Fazal that he had asked the meaning of this verse from Imam Jafer Sadiq i.e “Lakum Qoum Haad” (to each nation there is a guide), Imam said: “Each Imam is a guide to the nation and time in which he belongs.” In the tafseer of the same verse, Imam Baqir said: the Holy Prophet is a warner and in every period there is a guide from us who guides towards the teachings of the Holy Prophet and the guide after the Holy Prophet is Ali— and after him there are his successors that are like them” .
Abu Baseer reports from Imam Al-Sadiq and Abd al Rahim Qaseer reports from Imam Mohammad Baqir, all of the narrations state the same that Hazrat Mohammad is a Warner, Ali bin Abi Talib is the guide. Such narrations are also found in the text of Ahl-al-Sunnah. Such narrations have come from Abu Hurairah, Abu Barzah, Ibne-Abbas and also had Hadhrat Ali, Hakim has termed these narrations Sahih in his Mustadrak.
Even after reading all these narrations can anybody give importance to the efforts in Fasl-ul-Khitaab that have been made after taking some narrations from some tafseer of Mataikhreen and Hashiya-e-Qibsaat of Meer Baqir Daamaad, and then it has been stated that there are numerous Shia and Sunni narrations that say that the verse in its correct form was: “Innama anta Manzara ne’ibad Ali likule Qaumun Haad” (You are just a warner and Ali is a guide for every nation)?
This is just a couplet of poetry that was recited by some poets, now a mere couplet of poetry cannot be taken as authority and then one cannot say that Shia and Sunni narrations both testify to the above mentioned statement, because the Shia and Sunni narrations are the ones that we have already cited above, and state what the Prophet (s) said was actually the words of Quran. Muhadith Noori has gone against this.
The narration in al-Kafi says that Imam Muhammad Baqir said to Abu Hamza that the pagans used to say: “Rabbana Makkunna Mushrikeen” and this refers to the denial of the Wilayat of Ali AS. These words clearly shows that these words were a part of the tafseer and not a part of the verse. This also justifies the two weak narrations of Abu Baseer which say that the term “Bewilayate Ali” was included in the Quran was subsequently struck out.
“Umar bin Hinzala narrates that about this verse of Surah al-Baqarah “Mata’ ilal howil ghayr akhiraj” Imam Jafar al-Sadiq AS said “Mukhrajaat”. By looking at the word MUKHRAJAAT one cannot even doubt that this has been used as nothing but a tafseer (explanation). This means that neither the word “Ikhraaj” nor meaning MUKHRAJAAT nor that this word was present and then it was removed. But in Fasl-ul-Khitaab, it has been recorded as an error and (concluded via) deduction.
In these narrations the narration of Mohammad bin Muslim from Imam Jafar al-Sadiq with a Sahih Chain is present in the beginning of al-Kafi’s chapter “Mana’ al-Zakaat”; it states that Hazrat Imam Jafar al-Sadiq said that these people will be chained and that the things regarding which they were avaricious was from Zakat. It clearly shows that the word ‘Mina al Zakat’ is used as an explanation, not that it is the part of Quran. The same will be used as the commentary of the Mursal tradition of Ibn Abi Umair wherein he reported from Imam Jafar al-Sadiq that Allah said: “Sayootufuna ma Bukhalu Bihi Mina al Zakat Yum al Qyamah”
This tradition will also mean the same that “Ma Bukhalu” means “Mina’ al-Zakaatwas not a part of the Qur’an which was subsequent expunged. Hence a Sahih narration from Abu Baseer that has been narrated from Imam Jafar al-Sadiq AS as recorded in al-Kafi chapter “Nas al-Aima AS” which says that Abu Baseer asked that people ask why the names of Ali and his descendants are not in the Holy Qur’an, to which the Imam AS replied: “Tell those people that in the Holy Quran it was revealed on the Prophet (s) that prayers (salat) are obligatory, but Allah has not said that there are three rakahs for Maghrib and four rakahs for ‘Isha, unless the Prophet (s) told the people about it, likewise the Quran provides an introduction about Zakat and Hajj, and the Prophet (s) provided details about them.” This narration proves that the Imam AS deemed the view of those people as correct and that the name of Ameer ul-Mo’mineen AS was not present in the Quran
The proof of this narration also comes a bit later in Saheeha-e-Fuzla in al-Kafi, in Abu-Lajarud’s narration from Imam Muhammad Baqir AS and Abul Delem’s narration from Imam Jafar-e-Sadiq AS wherein both of the Imams without any reason for Taqqiyah recited the verse: ’ Messenger! proclaim the (message) which hath been sent to thee from thy Lord.’ They didn’t add the words “Fi-Ali” to it, that proves that some narrations which have the additional words of “Fi-Ali” are a commentary, whilst they were brought by Jibrael as revelation they were not a part of the Holy Quran. This form of revelation used existed in the form of the words of Holy Prophet (s) because it is mentioned in the Quran that “Nor does he (Muhammad) speak out of his desire. Whatever he says is nothing but a revelation that is revealed” – which is always the revelation brought from Allah.
From amongst those narrations, is the narration by Fazeel from Imam Ali ul-Rida in al-Kafi, Chapter 1 “Maini tanzeel filWilayah” in which the narrator recited the verse: “HAZAL LAZI KUNTUM BEH TAKZIBOON”, The Imam said: “It means Ameer ul-Mo’mineen”, then the narrator asked: “Is it Tanzeel”, the Imam AS replied in the affirmative. In this tradition the Imam used the word “Ameer al Momineen” along with the word “means” which clearly shows that this was not a part of the Quran. Now the narrators inquiry that if it was Tanzeel, and Imam confirmation that it was doesn’t mean that it was a part of the Quran, because Tanzeel doesn’t always mean a part of the Quran, in fact it is also used by them to provide an explanation or explain the purpose of a verse. All these types of narrations make the arguments used to populate the pages of Fasl-ul-Khitaab makes null and void.
“That which is between the two covers is the word of Allah WITHOUT any addition and elimination.”Bihaar al-Anwar, vol 92, page 75, by Allamah al-Majlisi (r.a.)Also, Allamah (r.a.) says in Bihar al-Anwar in Volume 89 about the Ahadith about the manipulation in the Qur’an:”These ahadith are ahad in narration and not sahih.”