Objections and our Replies regarding Permissibility of Mutah- Part 2

There are some more laws, which change according to circumstances. It does not mean that a woman is not the wife if any of these conditions are not fulfilled.

For instance,

    If a person (Sunni) performs permanent marriage with a Jew or Christian woman, then also, the wife cannot inherit her Muslim husband. Similarly, if a wife kills her husband, she cannot inherit him. Nevertheless, not becoming an inheritor does not end her wifehood, while fulfillment of other obligatory conditions like Iddah are obligatory and she would be considered wife in all conditions.

Similarly, if according to some Shia scholars, if the woman taken in Mutah marriage cannot inherit her husband, how can it be proved that ‘since she cannot inherit, how can she be a wife’?

I have purposely used the phrase ‘some Shia scholars’ because a group of Shia scholars are of the opinion that a wife inherits the husband in Mutah also. Alamul Huda Syed Murtada (a.r.) writes in Kitabul Intesar:[1]

“Not receiving inheritance is not a proof that a woman is not a wife of a man because ‘dhimmiyyah wife’[2], ‘slave wife’ and husband’s murderer-wife are neither his inheritors nor is the husband their inheritor. However, they are wives without any doubt. Apart from this, according to our religion, inheritance is given in Mutah also provided that there is no condition of non-inheritance among the special conditions decided at the time of marriage.” 

[1] Pg. 63, 64; Iran
[2] Jew or Christians living in Muslim territories

If a wife is disobedient to her husband, her maintenance is not obligatory on the husband even though she may be a permanent wife. This is a uniform verdict among all the Muslims. However, non-obligation of maintenance does not affect her wifehood because inheritance and maintenance, both are not the essential elements of marriage. Similarly, if the maintenance of wife in Mutah is not necessary on the husband what effect does it have on her wifehood?
    There is no divorce in ‘limited marriage’ i.e. Mutah. The reason for this is already discussed above. As this marriage is dissolved automatically after a stipulated period, there is no need to quote some formula again to end it. While permanent marriage is for the whole life. Hence it is necessary to quote the formula of divorce in order to end it (if it needs be ended before death).

Except divorce, all issues applicable for the permanent wife like ‘Zihar’[1], ‘Liaan’[2] Eelaa[3] etc. are also applicable to the Mutah wife. There is no difference between them.

[1] Pre-Islamic form of divorce, consisting in the words of repudiation: You are to me like my mother’s back. (anti a’layyah ka-zahri ummi).
[2] Sworn allegation of adultery committed by either husband or wife
[3] Willful oath that one would not to go to ones wife

If the readers permit I would quote some paragraphs of our scholars, which would shed light on the terms and conditions described by me and those who are really involved in a misunderstanding about Mutah would be reassured. As for people like the Rizwan editor who purposely remain ignorant, their solution was not with even the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.).

    The Mutah of woman is that a woman marries one provided that there is no prohibited act in marriage according to the religion of Islam. That is, she must not be among the prohibited degree of relational prohibition as well as causal. She must not be in prohibited degree due to breast-feeding. She must not be already having a husband and not be in the Iddah of previous one and other religious prohibitions should not be present. For instance, she must not be the ex-wife of ones father or sister of a present wife etc. She must marry one in such a state for a fixed dower and period through recitation of marriage formula, which is based on Islamic law. After mutual agreement she must recite the formula of Mutah like in Nikah. Then mention the fixed dower and time (e.g. a day, a month, a year or some years etc.). One should immediately reply: ‘Qabiltu’ (I accept). It is permissible to have a representative (to pronounce the formula of Mutah) like it is done in other marriages. After this, the woman is one’s wife and he her husband till the stipulated period of time comes to an end.[1]

 A woman with whom Mutah is performed is also a lawful wife and a legal marriage is performed with her. As for sustenance, inheritance and distribution of nights, in which she does not have a share, all these are based on particular factors due to which a wife in Mutah is exempted from these general rules.[2]

    [1] Fusulul Muhimma, Pg. 54, 1347 A.H. Edition
    [2] Kitab-e-Madhkur, Pg. 60

 All the signs of wifehood are applied to a woman with whom Mutah is performed. All the rules are valid on her except some of those orders, which with definite evidences do not include a Mutah wife.[1]
    When the mutually fixed time ends, it is permissible for the husband to immediately tie a knot with her once again, and not wait for completion of Iddah (as it is permitted in permanent marriage to return during the Iddah of revocable divorce). However, no other man except her husband can marry her till the period of Iddah ends.[2]
    If conjugal relations were established, the woman would have to observe Iddah for two menstrual cycles after the Mutah ends. According to a narration, it could be observed for only one menstrual cycle, but it is not a reliable report. If a woman does not have menses and she has not reached menopause she must observe Iddah for 45 days. If the husband dies during the period of Mutah she would have to observe Iddah of death for four months and ten days even if conjugal relations were not established and she is not pregnant. If she is pregnant she has to observe Iddah till the childbirth or four months and ten days, whichever is longer.
    It is narrated from Ibne Bazigh that a person asked Imam Reza (s),“If a person performs Mutah with a woman and puts forth a condition that if a boy is born it would not be his. What if a male child is born to her after this?” Imam (s) strictly opposed this denial and considered the rejection of the father a great sin, he said, “What? Would he reject that boy?”[3]

[1] Aslush Shia wa Usulaha, Pg. 94
[2] Sarair, Ibne Idris

[3] Furu al-Kafi, Vol. 2, Pg. 196, Tahzib, Man Laa Yahzaruhul Faqih

 Zihar is valid occurs with Mutah wife also (due to more correct saying) because the verse of Zihar is general and the Mutah wife is also a wife and there is no restriction of a permanent wife in the verse.[1]
    Shaykh al-Mufeed and Syed Murtada (a.r.) have said that ‘Liaan’ is applicable with the Mutah wife because she is a wife and hence, she is also included in the generality of the verse.[2]
    Scholars have a difference of opinion about the right to inheritance in Mutah. There are a number of opinions in this. The first is that both husband and wife become mutual inheritors of each other through this marriage as in the case of permanent marriage. This is a saying of Ibne Barraj and he gives the evidence that the verse of inheritance in marriage is general. The Mutah wife is also a wife and she also inherits like other wives.

The second opinion is exactly opposed to the first. None of the spouses inherit each other. Its proof is that inheritance is a religious command and its right is based on some religious proofs. And merely being a wife is not a proof enough of being rightful to inheritance because there are many wives who inherit and many who cannot. Thus, how can inheritance be given on the basis of just wifehood, without any other legal commandment?[3]

[2] Sharh Lumah, Vol. 2
[3] Masalikul Afham, Vol. 1
[4] Hadaifun Nadhrah, Vol. 7, Pg. 165

This is Mutah, whose dreadful picture is drawn by the Rizwan editor. You have seen that there is no difference between Mutah and Nikah except that there is no period fixed in permanent marriage while a period is fixed in Mutah.

All the supposed evils of Mutah can also be found in permanent marriage after which, divorce may be given. Rather the evils become ten-fold due to divorce after permanent marriage. An example of this is, suppose you want to travel somewhere and you hire a vehicle for this purpose and start your journey. On the way, you reach a deserted area where there is no place to stay at night or hire some other vehicle and the vehicle owner leaves stranded there and returns. What hell would befall you? Just imagine!

On the contrary, if the vehicle owner tells you beforehand that he would drop you at so and so place and not go ahead, you would have the option to travel with him and plan your future course of action or find some other way if you do not like his terms and conditions.

Which is the better option between the two? Indeed, every sensible person would denounce the vehicle owner in the first case. However, no accusation can be laid on him in the second case because he had already stated the terms beforehand.

The same corollary is found in ‘divorce after Nikah’ and ‘Mutah’. A man performing Mutah tells the woman beforehand that he would keep her as a wife, say for five years. After that, she is free, after completing the Iddah period. If a woman considers this condition acceptable, she can perform Mutah or the discussion would end; but in any case there would no deceit.

On the contrary, if the man does not reveal any of his such plans and a permanent marriage is performed, then if he divorces the wife after two, four or ten days, you can imagine the condition of the poor woman due to the shipwreck of her life, in the middle of the high seas.

It is clear from this example that those hypothetical defects (none of which has happened till date) described about Mutah are ten-fold in divorce after Nikah. Keeping in mind this example, is the Rizwan editor still prepared to ridicule divorce and permanent marriage also?

In any case, it has become as clear as daylight from the above discourse that there is no difference between the importance and conditions of the elements, conditions and nature of Mutah and permanent marriage from the point of view of reason and jurisprudence. Now a possible question is whether Mutah is permissible and in accordance with the command of God or not? Hence I consider it important to describe the history of Mutah and some related issues so that its historical background is revealed.

For more Details , Read Part 3

Objections and our Replies regarding Permissibility of Mutah- Part 1

 (Published in ‘Al-Jawwad’, March 1957 A.D., April 1957 A.D., February 1958 A.D.)
 

Written by Allamah Sayyed Saeed Akhtar Rizvi ( Shia Scholar)
 .....

Regarding Mutah, the editor of Rizwan writes:

According to the Shias it is a very good deed to use women after giving them some pennies, without performing Nikah with them. It is even that, God forbid, it is permissible even with Sayyid women after giving them some money. This is so because they believe that performing Mutah gives them the rank of Husain, Ali and even the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.). It is mentioned on page 50 of Burhanul Mutah: “One who performs Mutah once gets the rank of Hasan. One who performs twice gets the rank of Husain. One who performs thrice gets the rank of Ali and one who performs Mutah four times gets the rank of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.).”

I have estimated from a later writing that either the Rizwan editor is unaware of the meaning of Mutah or he intentionally wants to deceive the common people. Since he has tried to answer the questions of ‘Razakar’ regarding Mutah in December 1954 A.D. issue and has used about three pages for it. 

I present his( Rizwan editor)  statements that tell us about his knowledge regarding Mutah.

1)  “The method of performing Mutah is to catch a woman and say, “I want you for one night or a definite period for five rupees.” If the woman agrees, everything is permissible. If Mutah is correct, what is the difference between this and going to a brothel?”[1]

2)  “However, they should know that there is a vast difference between Mutah and Nikah. This is the reason why we find two different chapters in the books as Kitabul Mutah and Kitab Al-Nikah. In brief, Mutah is a temporary contract, which is a way of passing ones time just like a temporary contract with a prostitute. And just a little amount is fixed for it, it is done similarly in Mutah.”[2]

3)  “As an amount is fixed with a prostitute and a deal is made for one or two nights, similarly it is done in Mutah. As if the wine is same and the label has changed.”[3]

[1] Rizwan, Pg. 14
[2] Rizwan, Pg. 15
[3] Rizwan, Pg. 15

In such a condition, first I would like to describe the rules and regulations and the actual nature of Mutah so that there would not be any possibility of misunderstanding.

It appears from the writings of the Rizwan editor that maybe Mutah is another name for adultery and there is no difference between the two. 

Hence, first of all, I would like to ask what is the difference between a permanent Nikah and adultery?

The natural urges are fulfilled in Nikah as well as adultery. Hence if an atheist says, “The method of Nikah is to catch a woman and say that one wants her in exchange of a definite amount. If the woman agrees, everything is permissible. Nikah is correct. Then what is the difference between this and going to a brothel?”  

What reply would the Rizwan editor give?

Perhaps, he would say that there is a ‘proposal’ and ‘consent’ therein, but this purpose is present in adultery also.

Probably, he would suggest ‘dower’, but then people going to brothels also fix an amount and pay it.

May be he would mention the open declaration of Nikah but then many a times lustful rich people keep prostitutes after open declaration of ‘proposal and consents’ (in their own words) and giving them money.

Possibly he would present the issue that after Nikah a woman is confined to a single man only. However, there are many such prostitutes who are confined to a rich man after signing a contract with him.
Maybe he would say that both spouses inherit each other in Nikah. Nevertheless, this rule is not general and absolute because if the wife kills her husband she does not inherit. Similarly, if she is from among the People of the Book[1] she cannot inherit. Thus, if all these wives cannot inherit, what is the problem in keeping a prostitute who would not inherit? What is the difference?

Actually, the difference between Nikah and adultery is that Nikah is under the command of God while adultery is against it. No other strong reason of excellence can be presented. As it would be discussed later, both permanent and temporary marriages performed on the command of God are equal. Thus, although many acts are similar to fornication, yet they are appreciable in permanent marriage because they are carried out according to Divine commands. Similarly, Mutah is also appreciable because it is in accordance to Divine commands.

Let us now make a comparison between permanent and temporary marriage.

We should first know that Islamic jurisprudence and Quran have fixed two types of Nikahs. First, the permanent Nikah, in which no time limit is fixed, while proposal and consent are required. Naturally, this contract lasts for an unlimited period of time. Once a person is bound by this contract he would have to take a particular step in order to terminate it, which is called ‘divorce’. If divorce were not given this contract would last life long.

The second type is called ‘limited Nikah’ (also called as Mutah) whose matrimonial proposal and consent also has a time limit. Naturally, such a contract automatically ends after the stipulated period of time.

Now let us compare the rules and regulations of the two.

(1)   It is an important condition in both types of Nikah that the wife should not be from the prohibited degree (Mahrams). That is, she must not be among the women whom the Holy Quran has prohibited to marry. She must not be already married to someone or in the waiting period (Iddah) of some other man. In brief, temporary marriage is prohibited with those women who are prohibited for permanent marriage also because both are kinds of Nikah only. And as it is permissible but detestable to marry a prostitute in every Islamic sect, it is also detestable to do Mutah with her.

(2) Dower (Mehr), matrimonial proposal and consent are obligatory in permanent marriage; they are obligatory in Mutah also. As the amount of Dower is fixed through mutual agreement between man and woman in the first kind, it is done in the second kind also.

(3)   As it is necessary for a woman to observe Iddah[Waiting Period] after divorce is given to her i.e. she could not marry for a fixed period of time, similarly it is obligatory on a woman to observe Iddah for a fixed period of time after the period of Mutah is over i.e. she cannot marry another man for a fixed period.

(4)   Similarly, a woman has to observe ‘Iddah of death’ for a fixed period of time after the death of her husband in both the cases. It may be permanent or temporary marriage (Mutah).

(5)   As the man and woman become husband and wife of each other after permanent marriage and the woman cannot even think of anyone else, they become husband and wife of each other after temporary marriage also and the woman cannot even think of anyone else.

(6)   As the permanent marriage is not an evil deed due to it being in accordance with divine command, Mutah is also not an evil deed due to its performance in accordance with divine command.

(7)   As the offspring of a permanent wife is a lawful inheritor of its father, it is a lawful inheritor in Mutah also and there is no difference between them.
These were laws, which are obligatory and marriage cannot even be imagined without them. And you might have seen that Nikah and Mutah are almost same in these obligatory conditions and specialties.
 

Once again I emphasize that obligatory conditions and specialties of Nikah are only those, which are discussed above. They are same for permanent marriage and Mutah (temporary marriage).

.......For more Details , Read Part 2

Do Shias believe that the present Quran is Incomplete and fabricated one?

Note : This article is written by eminent Shia Scholar Allamah Sayyed Saeed Akhtar Rizvi in reply to RIZWAN Editor.

Tabari and Abd bin Hamid have narrated through a correct chain of narrators (each of whose narrator was a narrator of Bukhari) that Ibne Abbas used to read the verse:

“Have not yet those who believe known (Afalam yayasa) that if Allah please He would certainly guide all the people?”[1]

[1] Surah Ra’ad 13:31

as ‘Afalam yattabin’. He used to say that the scribe made a mistake since he was feeling very sleepy.

This narration is also mentioned by Allamah Suyuti in Durre Manthur, Ibne Jurair Tabari and Ibne Anbari.

It is regretful that space does not permit me to dwell further on this topic and I have to restrain my pen, otherwise, there are hundreds of narrations that could be presented on this subject.

After this long preamble, I would only like to say that even if the people having same opinion as that of the Rizwan editor express aloofness from the belief of distortion of Quran out of the fear of Shias, they will in any case have to agree that their religious leaders were of the opinion that there are additions, omissions, changes, and mistakes due to the drowsiness of calligraphists in Quran. The commentators and narrators of Ahle Sunnat have quoted so many narrations on this topic (in which the most authentic book after the book of God, Sahih Bukhari is also included) that these people cannot succeed in calling them wrong, rare, weak or incorrect. Also there is no possibility to interpret them differently because their position and identification is mentioned clearly that all these verses are of Quran and nothing else.

Now read this sentence of the Rizwan editor once again: “Muslims all over the world believe that the Quran in our hands is the one revealed by Allah. It is exactly as it was revealed upon the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.).”

Consider this sentence of a famous Ahle Sunnat scholar, Qazi Ayaz, which he has mentioned in Shifa:

Know that one who dishonors the Quran or any of its parts, or talks ill about Quran or its part or rejects the Quran or falsifies a command of Quran or makes something permissible that Quran has prohibited or make a permissible thing prohibited or doubts the Quran or its laws or its contents, then according to the scholars, he is a disbeliever (Kafir). Allah says,

“Falsehood shall not come to it from before it nor from behind it; a revelation from the Wise, the Praised One.”[1]

[1] Surah Ha Mim 41:42

Now if the Rizwan editor has any Islamic modesty remaining he should boldly declare:

“Since it is the faith of the world Muslims that the Quran in our hands is the one revealed by Allah, and it is exactly as it was revealed upon the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.); and according to the clarification of Qazi Ayaz one who doubts a verse or even a single alphabet of Quran or one who falsifies or disgraces it, is a disbeliever, hence all the above leaders of Islam and all those who have a similar opinion are excluded from the limits of Islam and are disbelievers according to the unanimity of the scholars.”

Now read these sentences of the Rizwan editor:

“However the Shia belief is exactly opposite; that the existing Quran is a fabricated one. It has been distorted while the real Quran is with the Hidden Imam who is hiding in a cave. He will come with the real Quran sometime before the Day of Judgment.

All right sir! So this is a forged Quran. But how sensible is this Hidden Imam that he has hidden the real Quran and does not guide the creatures of God?
 

It is narrated on page 271 of Usul al-Kafi that Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq (s) said, “The Quran that Jibraeel (s) brought to the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.) had seventeen thousand verses in it.”

On the same page of this book another tradition is narrated that Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq (s) brought out the Quran inscribed by Imam Ali (s) and said, “By Allah, after this day you will never see the Quran.”

In the above statements of Rizwan, some point are worthy of discussion:

Firstly, the existence of Imam Mahdi (a.t.f.s.) is mentioned in a taunting manner. I would have proved the belief in existence of my Master (s) in the words of the Rizwan editor’s ancestors at this place itself but since some objections were made under the topic of ‘Shia and Imam Mahdi (a.t.f.s.)’, therefore I reserve my explanation for that section.

Secondly, Shias are blamed of such a belief, which they can never accept. The editor of Rizwan should, at first, learn to speak. Come, let me explain to him some manners of writing. Just now, I have quoted hundreds of narrations about the distortion of Quran through different sources from the books of Ahle Sunnat. If I were a sensible man like you, I would have immediately written: ‘Hence it is proved that all Ahle Sunnat are believers of distortion (of Quran).’

Ayesha believed that there is a mistake in the existing Quran.

Mother of faithful, Ayesha also believed that there is a mistake in the existing Quran. 

Read the following explanation: 

Allamah Baghavi writes in Tafsir Malimut Tanzeel regarding the verse:

“But the firm in knowledge among them and the believers believe in what has been revealed to you and what was revealed before you, and those who keep up prayers (Muqimeenas Salaat) and those who give the poor-rate and the believers in Allah and the last day, these it is whom We will give a mighty reward.”[1]

He says: ‘There is a difference of opinion in its being ‘Muqimeenas Salaat’. It is narrated from Ayesha and Aban bin Uthman that this is a mistake of the calligraphist which should be corrected and, ‘wal muqimoonas Salaat’ be written in its place. Similarly, she says that there is a mistake in the words of God:

“Surely those who believe and those who are Jews and the Sabians (saabi-oon) and the Christians, whoever believes in Allah and the last day and does good- they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve.”[2]

And:

“These are most surely two magicians (in haadhaani…”[3]

According to her these mistakes occurred due to the calligraphists and should be changed from ‘saabi-oon’ to ‘sabi-een’ and ‘in haadhaani’ to ‘in haadhaini’, respectively.
This shows that Ayesha and Aban bin Uthman, the third caliph’s son, considered these verses incorrect. They felt that they should be corrected.

Abu Ubaid has quoted this narration in Fazailul Quran: A narrator asked Ayesha about these mistakes in Quran and she replied, “O nephew! These are the errors of the calligraphists when they inscribed the Quran.” The chain of narrators of this report is correct according to the standards of Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim. (On the authority of Itqan by Allamah Suyuti).

[1] Surah Nisa 4:162
[2] Surah Maidah 5:69
[3] Surah Taha 20:63

In addition to this, the following scholars have also mentioned the belief of Ayesha regarding mistakes in the above three verses:

1)  Saeed bin Mansur

2)  Ibne Abi Shayba

3)  Ibne Abi Dawood

4)  Ibne Jurair

5)  Ibne Mundhir

6)  Allamah Suyuti

7)  Raghib Isfahani

8)  Abu Amr Dani

Since the discussion is becoming prolonged I refrain from writing about other verses that Ayesha considered incorrect.

Uthman believed that there was a mistake in the existing Quran

Consider the following narration on this topic:

Uthman said that there is a mistake in the statement of God:

“These are most surely two magicians…”[1]

Someone asked him to correct this mistake. Uthman replied, “Let it be as it is, because no unlawful deed becomes lawful or vice versa due to it.”

In order to avoid making the discussion lengthy, I leave the original wordings and just give the sources. The following scholars and narrators of Ahle Sunnat have stated this saying of Uthman:

1)  Ibne Abi Dawood

2)  Akramah

3)  Qatadah

4)  Yahya bin Yamar

5)  Faqih Abul Laith Samarqandi (In Tafsir)

6)  Allamah Jalaluddin Suyuti (In Itqan and Durre Manthur)

[1] Surah Taha 20:63

Ahle Sunnat leaders who believe that words of Quran are changed

Umar

Here also the first name is that of Umar. The caliph used to read ‘famzu iladh dhikrillaah’ (then walk towards to the remembrance of Allah) instead of ‘fas-oo iladh dhikrillaah’ (then hasten to the remembrance of Allah)[1]. It means that ‘fas-oo’ (hasten) was wrong according to him.

Imam Malik asked Ibne Shahab about the verse:[2] “O you who believe! When the call is made for prayer on Friday, then hasten to the remembrance of Allah and leave off trading.” Ibne Shahab replied, “Umar bin Khattab used to recite this as: “O you who believe! When the call is made for prayer on Friday, then walk towards the remembrance of Allah and leave off trading.”[3]

Narrations regarding this matter are present in Tafsir Durre Manthur on the authority of the following scholars:

1)  Abu Ubaid (Kitab al-Fazail)

2)  Saeed bin Mansur

3)  Ibne Abi Shayba

4)  Ibne Mundhir

5)  Ibne Anbari

6)  Abd bin Hamid

7) Imam Shafei

Out of them many have quoted the testimony of Abdullah bin Umar that the caliph used to say, ‘famzu’ till the time of his death.

[1] Surah Jumah 62:9
[2] Surah Jumah 62:9
[3] Muwatta, Imam Malik

Abdullah bin Umar

Ahle Sunnat scholars who believe that compilers of Quran made additions to it!

Abdullah bin Masud

The first name among them is of Abdullah bin Masud. We have already discussed his merits and virtues earlier. He did not consider Surah Falaq and Surah Naas as part of Quran. Allamah Suyuti writes in Itqan:

“There were only a hundred and twelve chapters in the Copy (Mus’haf) of Ibne Masud (there are 114 in the existing Quran). He had not included Surah Falaq and Surah Naas while inscribing the Quran.”[1]

In other words he used to omit these chapters from the Quran.

A narration on this topic has been quoted by Abu Ubaidah from Ibne Sireen.
 

Abu Darda

The second name is that of Abu Darda, a famous companion. It is narrated as follows in Sahih Muslim:

Alqama says, “We went to Syria where Abu Darda came to us and asked, ‘Does anyone of you recite Quran according to the recitation of Abdullah bin Masud?’ I replied that I do. Abu Darda asked, ‘How does Abdullah recite the verse: “I swear by the night when it draws a veil.” I said that I heard him reciting in the following way: “I swear by the night when it draws a veil and the male and the female.” Abu Darda said, “By Allah! I heard the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.) reciting in the same way but these people want me to recite as: And the creating of the male and the female. But I am not going to listen to them.”

[1] Itqan, Allamah Jalaluddin Suyuti, Vol. 1 Pg. 81

Another narration on this topic is present in Sahih Muslim. Apart from this, there are three narrations on this topic in Sahih Bukhari. After the narration on this subject, it is mentioned in Sahih Tirmidhi that: This tradition is correct and the recitation of Abdullah bin Masud is like this only: “I swear by the night when it draws a veil. And the day when it shines in brightness. And the male and the female.”

These narrations show that Abu Darda and Abdullah bin Masud believe that the words “And the creating of” (Maa khalaqa), in the third verse of Surah Lail,[1] were added later by the compilers of Quran.

Thus not only the Ahle Sunnat believe that the Quran is incomplete but they also think that some additions have been made into it by the people. But they are not even content with this much. They go further to claim that many words of the Quran have been changed.

[1] Holy Quran, Surah 92

Who is the culprit of the belief in tampering of Quran?

(Published in ‘Al-Jawwad’, March 1955 A.D.)

Rizwan says: “Again this year, read about some interesting beliefs and laws of Shia faith and gain lesson from them. Muslims all over the world believe that the Quran in our hands is the one revealed by Allah and that it is exactly as it was revealed upon the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.). However the Shia belief is exactly opposite; that the existing Quran is a fabricated one.”

The knowledge of Rizwan editor is apparent from the topic of this objection itself. Someone should ask him if the millions of copies of Quran seen worldwide were directly written and sent by Allah and delivered by Jibraeel, the trustworthy, to the houses of all Muslims? Or Muslims have themselves copied them from somewhere? If it is not so, and they have been copied from somewhere, why do you object to their being called ‘copied’? At the most you will claim that these copies are exactly as the real one; but your caliphs and scholars will oppose you so strongly that you would be shocked!

When the poor editor of Rizwan himself is unaware of his religion and has not read his own books of exegesis and traditions, there was no need for him to object to Shias. And since even Ahle Sunnat caliphs have emphatically declared that the existing Quran is a collection of changes, additions and deletions. Leave deletions. Leave alone Rizwan, all the people of their religion together cannot prove this till the Day of Judgment. Below we present the names of well-known Ahle Sunnat personalities who believe in distortions in the Holy Quran:
 

Prominent Ahle Sunnat personalities who consider the existing Quran defective and incomplete
 

Umar

He was the first among Ahle Sunnat leaders, who considered this Quran defective. It is narrated in the old editions of Sahih Bukhari that Umar said, “Allah sent Muhammad (s.a.w.s.) with truth and revealed the Book on him. The verse of ‘Rajm’ (stoning to death) was among the verses revealed by Allah. Thus, we read it, understood and remembered it. The Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.) also did ‘Rajm’ and we also did ‘Rajm’ after him. I fear that after sometime people will say that they do not find the verse of ‘Rajm’ in the book of God. So they will leave a religious obligation and become deviated. Thus the verse of ‘Rajm’ is the Quranic punishment for adultery.”[1]

Note: Editing and revision of source books started in Egypt, at the end of the nineteenth century. As a result this prime narration was omitted till “we also did ‘Rajm’ after him.” from Sahih Bukhari 1311 A.H. edition, Published by Maktabul Jamhooriyyatul Arabiyyah, Cairo, Egypt. Refer Part VIII, page 208 of the above-mentioned edition.

[1] Sahih Bukhari 

 

Some Misconceptions about Shia Muslims

In Islam there are five recognized schools of Divine Law:
1) Hanafi;
2) Shafi;
3) Maliki;
4) Hanbali and
5) Jafari.( Shias)

The first four are called Sunni, and the fifth one, who in addition to following sayings and actions of Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.), also follows those of Ali and consider him as the rightful successor of the Prophet, are called Shia .
The first four have many major theological differences among themselves and according to a Christian friend of mine, "The only time Sunnis are united is when they are fighting Shias." Shi'ism started as a political movement (Shia means follower or partisan) to help Ali become successor of Muhammad (S.A.W.).

  
Some Misconceptions about Shia Muslims

Misconception #1:
Shias have a different Quran. They add another 10 chapters to the original Quran.
Response: Not true. I have checked many times Quran kept in Shia homes and mosques. I still find it the same as the original Quran. It is a sin to even say that the Quran can be changed or added to by Shia when it is protected by God.

Misconception #2:
Some Shia consider Ali as God.
Response: Not true. It is disbelief to even think of such a thing. During the time of Ali, some pagan groups called Gholat did consider Ali as Lord. When he found out, they were burned to death. Alawis of Syria may have a similar belief, but they are non-Muslims, neither Shia nor Sunni.

Misconception #3:
Shias have different declarations of faith and they add to the call to prescribed prayer.
Response: The declaration to become a Muslim, as administered to non-Muslims, is the same. Some Shia add to themselves, "Ali is a friend of God (S.A.W.) or Ali is a spiritual leader of God," after the call to prescribed prayer, but not as part of the call to prescribed prayer.

Imamate In Islam

Hazrat Ayesha's conduct in battle of Jamal was unlawful !

The barking of Hawab's dogs at Ayesha proves that her conduct was unlawful

Imam Ahmed records:

Qays said: 'When Ayesha reached Bani Amer's well at night, some dogs barked at her. She asked: 'What is the name of this well?' They replied: 'This is Hawab's well'. She replied: 'I have to return'. Some of those who were with her said: 'Nay you shall go forward so that the Muslims shall see you and Allah makes peace'. She replied: 'Allah's messenger (pbuh) once said: 'Then what would you (the wives of the prophet) do when you hear the barking of Al-Hawab dogs?'

Musnad Ahmed bin Hanbal, Volume 6 page 52 Tradition 24299

'The chain is Sahih and the narrators are reliable (Thuqat), the narrators of the two Sheikhs'

History of Tabari Volume 16 page 43:

"They went down -- Talha and Zubayr to Mecca four months after the killing of Uthman. Ibn Amir, a very rich man was there, and Yala b. Umayyah had arrived with him with a large sum of money and more than 400 camels. They gathered together in Aishah's house and exchanged opinions. "Let's go to Ali and fight him," they said. "We don't have the strength to fight the people of Medina," one of them replied. "Let us rather enter al-Basrah and al-Kufah. Talhah has a following and popularity and support in al-Basrah". So they agreed to go to al-Basrah and al-Kufah, and Abdullah b. Amir gave them much money and camels. Seven hundred men from Medina and Mecca set off, and other joined until their number reached 3000".

In Tareekh Kamil Volume 3 page 100 Ibn Atheer records that:

"Ubayd bin Abi Salma who was a maternal relative of Aisha met her as she was making her way to Madina. Ubayd said "Uthman has been killed and the people were without an Imam for eight days" to which Aisha asked "What did they do next?". Ubayd said "The people approached ''Ali and gave him bayya". Aisha then said 'Take me back! Take me back to Makka". She then turned her face towards Makka and said, 'Verily Uthman was murdered innocently, and By Allah, I shall avenge his blood'. Ubayd then said 'You are now calling Uthman innocent, even though it was you who said 'Kill Nathal, this Jew".


Talha's role in Usman's murder

"When Uthman was killed, and Talha, Zubair and A'isha went to Basra in order to avenge the blood of 'Uthman, at that time Marwan also accompanied them. When all the people were running away in battlefield (after Aisha's forces were defeated), Marwan saw Talha and said: 'By Allah, he is responsible for killing of Uthman, and indeed he treated Uthman badly. And I need no other testimony after watching all this from my own eyes'. He took an arrow and fired it at Talha, that killed him."
Tabaqat Ibn Sa'ad, Volume 5 page 38, Biography of Marwan bin al-Hakam

شیعوں کا عقیدہٴ عدل الٰھی

1- شیعہ عقیدہ رکھتے ھیں کہ خدا عادل اور حکیم ھے ، اور اس نے عدل و حکمت سے خلق کیا، چاھے وہ انسان ھو یا حیوان، جمادات ھوں یا نباتات، زمین ھو یا آسمان، اس نے کوئی شے عبث خلق نھیں کی ھے، کیونکہ عبث (فضول یا بیکار ھونا) نہ صرف اس کے عدل و حکمت کے مخالف ھے بلکہ اس کی اس الوھیت کے بھی مخالف ھے جس کا لازمہ یہ ھے کہ خداوند متعال کے لئے تمام کمالات کا اثبات کیا جائے، اور اس سے ھر قسم کے نقص کی نفی کی جائے ۔ شیعوں کاعقیدہٴ نبوت
2۔ شیعہ یہ عقیدہ رکھتے ھیں کہ خدا وند متعال نے عدل و حکمت کے ساتھ ابتدائے خلقت سے ھی اس کی طرف انبیاء و مرسلین کو معصوم بنا کر بھیجا، اور پھر انھیں وسیع علم سے آراستہ کیا جو وحی کے ذریعہ الله کی جانب سے انھیں عطا کیا گیا ، اور یہ سب کچھ نوع بشر کی ھدایت اور اسے اس کے گمشدہ کمال تک پہنچانے کیلئے تھا تاکہ اس کے ذریعہ اسے ایسی اطاعت کی طرف بھی راہنمائی ھوجائے جو اسے جنتی بنانے کے ساتھ ساتھ پروردگار کی خوشنودی اور اس کی رحمت کا مستحق قرار دے، اور ان انبیاء و مرسلین کے درمیان آدم، نوح، ابراھیم، عیسی، موسی اور حضرت محمد مصطفی سب سے مشھور ھیں، جن کا ذکر قرآن کریم میں آیا ھے، یا جن کے اسماء گرامی اور دیگر حالات احادیث میں بیان ھوئے ھیں۔شیعوں کاعقیدہٴ اطاعت الٰھی اور نتائج
3- شیعوں کا عقیدہ ھے کہ جو شخص الله کی اطاعت کرے، اس کے احکام کو نافذ کرے، اور زندگی کے ھر شعبہ میں اس کے قوانین پر عمل کرے وہ نجات یافتہ اور کامیاب ھے، اور وھی مستحق مدح و ثواب ھے، اور جس نے خدا کی نافرمانی کی، وہ مستحق مذمت اور ھلاک ھونے اور گھاٹا اٹھانے والوں میں سے ھے ۔شیعہ عقیدہ رکھتے ھیں کہ ثواب و عقاب ملنے کی جگہ روز قیامت ھے جس دن حساب و کتاب، میزان اور جنت و دوزخ سب کے سامنے ھوں گی،اور یہ مرحلہ برزخ اور عالم قبر کے بعد ھو گا ۔
شیعوں کاعقیدہٴ خاتمیت اور امتیازات
4- شیعہ عقیدہ رکھتے ھیں کہ انبیاء و مرسلین کی آخری فرد اور ان سب سے افضل نبی حضرت محمد (ص) بن عبد الله بن عبد المطلب ھیں [1] جنھیں خداوند متعال نے ھر خطا اور لغزش سے محفوظ رکھا اور ھر گناہ صغیرہ و کبیرہ سے معصوم قرار دیا چاھے وہ قبل بعثت ھو یا بعد بعثت ، چاھے تبلیغ کا مرحلہ ھو یا تبلیغ کے علاوہ کوئی اور کام ھو ، اور ان پر قرآن کریم نازل کیا، تاکہ وہ حیات بشری کیلئے ایک دائمی دستور العمل قرار پائے، پس رسول اسلام (ص) نے رسالت کی تبلیغ کی اور صداقت و اخلاص کے ساتھ لوگوں تک امانت کو پہنچا دیا ۔شیعوں کے عقیدہٴ امامت کی بنیاد

5- شیعہ عقیدہ رکھتے ھیں کہ جب حضرت محمد مصطفی (ص) کی وفات کا وقت قریب ھوا تو آ پ نے حضرت علی(ع) کو تمام مسلمانوں کی رہبری کیلئے اپنا خلیفہ اور لوگوں کے لئے امام منصوب کیا، تاکہ علی (ع) ان کی سیاسی قیادت اور فکری راہنمائی اور ان کی مشکلوں کو حل کریں، نیز ان کے نفوس کا تزکیہ اور ان کی تربیت کریں، اور یہ سب خدا کے حکم سے مقام غدیر خم میں رسول (ص) کی حیات کے آخری حج کے بعد، ان مسلمان حاجیوں کے جم غفیر کے درمیان انجام پایا جو آپ کے ساتھ حج کرکے واپس آ رھے تھے، جن کی تعداد بعض روایات ایک لاکھ بتاتی ھيں، اور اس مناسبت سے متعدد آیتیں نازل ھوئیں ۔اس کے بعد آنخضرت (ص) نے علی (ع) کے ھاتھوں پر لوگوں سے بیعت طلب کی، چنانچہ تمام لوگوں نے علی (ع) کی بیعت کی اور ان بیعت کرنے والوں میں سب سے آگے مھاجرین و انصار کے بزرگ اور مشھور صحابہ تھے، مزید تفصیل کے لئے دیکھیے: کتاب” الغدیر“ جس میں علامہ امینی نے مسلمانوں کے تفسیری اور تاریخی منابع و مآخذ سے اس واقعہ کو نقل کیا ھے

To Know the Shi'a

The word Shi'a, to quote Ibn Manzur(1), means "those people who love what the Prophet's Progeny loves, and they are loyal to such Progeny". Hameedullah Khan(2) states "Shiat Ali means specifically that party which, after the death of the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) attached itself to Hazrat Ali...considering him the successor of the Prophet (PBUH) both in temporal and religious matters".
1. Lisan al-'Arab, by Ibn Manzur, vol. 8, p189
2. Schools of Islamic Jurisprudence, by Hameedullah Khan p121

The term Shi'a in fact derives its actual origin from the Qur'an, in which Allah (swt) calls Prophet Ibrahim (as) a Shi'a of Prophet Nuh(as) (1). In another verse Allah (swt) informs us of a fight between two men, one was a Shi'a of Prophet Musa (as) and the other was an enemy of Musa(as) (2).
1. The Holy Qur'an 37:83
2. The Holy Qur'an 28:15

It is in praise of the Shi'a of Ali that Allah (swt) sent down the following revelation: "Those who believe and do righteous deeds are the best of the creatures. Their reward from their Lord shall be everlasting gardens, below which flow rivers, they will abide there forever. Well pleased is God with them and they are well pleased with Him.

Who are the Shiites ?

Are Shias Kafir???

Written by one of our Sunni Brother......

The mullahs and their henchmen, who have NOTHING BETTER TO DO IN LIFE, have now found a new playing game - that of calling our Shia brothers as "Kaafirs." Allah (SWT) tells us in the Qur'an that we must NOT call any Muslim a "Kaafir" (Qur'an, 4: 94); our Beloved Rasoolullah (S) has expressly forbidden us from calling fellow-Muslims as "Kaafirs." But these petty, puny priests, these intellectual pygmies of the Muslim world, have taken upon themselves the HUGE burden of deciding WHO is a Muslim and who is not - thus relieving the Almighty of His responsibility, and at the same time overriding and over-ruling our Nabi's express injunction!

On Fridays and other occasions, these priests distribute their regular pamphlets attaching the Shias as Kaafirs. Their newspapers (Ar-Rasheed, Majlis, Sautul Islam, etc.) are invariably full of hate - articles denouncing the Shias.

Imam Khomeini was a so-called "Shia." Did any of our "Sunni" mullahs achieve for Islam what Khomeini achieved? Our puny, pettifogging priests are excellent at shooting their mouths, but they can do NOTHING PRACTICAL for our Deen. The youth of today, and all those who are Qur'an - and Prophet - lovers, who are lovers of LOGIC and SOUND REASON, are simply FED-UP with these priests!

Some 500 years after the demise of the Prophet (S), the ulama/fuqaha of that time decided to end their Takfeer preoccupation - (Takfeer = calling Muslims as Kaafirs) - and declared finally that "LAA NAKFUR AHADAN MIN AHLIL QIBLAH" ("We cannot brand anyone as a "Kaafir" who is Ahle-Qiblah." That is, whoever faces the Qiblah to perform his/her Salaat, CANNOT be called a "Kaafir."

May we ask these bearded "men of God" the following question: "Do the Shias face the WHITE HOUSE in Washington, DC or the BLACK HOUSE in Makkah as their Qiblah when performing their Salaat?"

The Prophet (saw) Gets Affected By The Devil!?-Astaghfirullah

Dealing with forgetfulness and memory loss can be frustrating for everyone. We all suffer from forgetfulness at one time or another. However what is the source of the problem? Muslims in general when forgetting a certain matter would often recite the words 'I seek refuge in Allah (swt) from Shatain'. In this short post like we shall evaluate forgetfu

lness in light of the Holy Qu'raan and Hadeeth. It is important to mention the followers of the 'Ahlulbayt (a.s) do not consider all their narrations to be authentic unlike our opponents. If there is a narration (or even the opinion of some scholars) which might imply to the Imams (a.s) and the Prophet (saw) forgot it would most certainly be rejected as it contradicts the very foundations of the Holy Qur'aan. But the followers of the Ahlulbayt (a.s) do believe previous Prophets can perform 'Tarke-Awlah' with the acception of the Ahlulbayt (a.s) who have reached the highest level of perfection.

Quraan On The Topic Of Forgetfulness

Verse 1

وَإِذَا رَأَيْتَ الَّذِينَ يَخُوضُونَ فِى ءَايَـتِنَا فَأَعْرِضْ عَنْهُمْ حَتَّى يَخُوضُواْ فِى حَدِيثٍ غَيْرِهِ وَإِمَّا يُنسِيَنَّكَ الشَّيْطَـنُ فَلاَ تَقْعُدْ بَعْدَ الذِّكْرَى مَعَ الْقَوْمِ الظَّـلِمِينَ

[6.68] And when you see those who enter into false discourses about Our communications, withdraw from them until they enter into some other discourse, and if the Shaitan causes you to forget, then do not sit after recollection with the unjust people.

Verse 2

﴿وَقَالَ لِلَّذِى ظَنَّ أَنَّهُ نَاجٍ مِّنْهُمَا اذْكُرْنِى عِندَ رَبِّكَ فَأَنْسَاهُ الشَّيْطَـنُ ذِكْرَ رَبِّهِ فَلَبِثَ فِى السِّجْنِ بِضْعَ سِنِينَ ﴾

And he said to the one whom he knew to be saved: "Mention me to your king.'' But Shaytan made him forget to mention it to his master. So ﴿Yusuf﴾ stayed in prison a few (more) years. (12.42)

Verse 3

فَلَمَّا جَاوَزَا قَالَ لِفَتَـهُ ءَاتِنَا غَدَآءَنَا لَقَدْ لَقِينَا مِن سَفَرِنَا هَـذَا نَصَباً - قَالَ أَرَأَيْتَ إِذْ أَوَيْنَآ إِلَى الصَّخْرَةِ فَإِنِّى نَسِيتُ الْحُوتَ وَمَآ أَنْسَانِيهُ إِلاَّ الشَّيْطَـنُ أَنْ أَذْكُرَهُ وَاتَّخَذَ سَبِيلَهُ فِى الْبَحْرِ عَجَبًا

[18.63] He said: Did you see when we took refuge on the rock then I (servant of Musa) forgot the fish, and nothing made me forget to speak of it but the Shaitan, and it took its way into the river; what a wonder!

Is it permissible to say "ya Muhammad" in his absence?

It is permissible to say "ya Muhammad" in his absence or after his death [narrated by al-Bukhari]In his book 'al-Adab al-Mufrad' (page 207 of this edition), Imam al-Bukhari states:

"The chapter of what we should say when our leg becomes (/is) paralysed:"

Abu Nu'aym has narrated, from Sufyan, from Abu Ishaq, from Abd al-Rahman ibn Sa'd, that he said: "The leg of ibn Umar became paralysed. So, a man said to him: "evoke the person that you love the most." It was then that he said : "ya Muhammad".

Useful information :

- The Imam, the shaykh of the muhaddith, Abu Abdillah Muhammad ibn Isma'il al-Bukhari, the author of the famous "Sahih" recognised as the most authentic book after the Qur'an, was born in 194 and died in 256 of the hijra (rahimullah) (that is to say) more that than 1175 years ago. He is a reference that can not be ignored in the science of hadith.
- The companion Abdullah ibn Umar died in 73 of the hijra (radhi Allahu anhu) (that is to say) about 1360 years ago. The Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa salam) had said that he was a virtuous man (salih). He is the son of the second khalif of Islam : Umar ibn al-Khattab.
- This citation is a rebuttal to the deviants who claim that all those who say : "ya Muhammad" after the death of the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa salam) or in his absence, are unbelieving polytheists. Through their unfounded speech, these people have declared disbelief to a great companion and a great number of muslims.
- This saying "ya Muhammad" is confirmed in the manuscript of the book 'al-Adab al-Mufrad' by Imam al-Bukhari, and it's chain of narration is authentic.
- This saying is narrated by numerous scholars, which will be the theme of (other) articles insha Allah

Shia evidences against the possibility of distortion in Quran

In the previous chapter we presented the views of some of the prominent ulema of Shia Athna Ashari Ulema who submitted various arguments and evidences to refute the notion of that the Quran has been distorted. When we have the testimonies of these grand Ulema then any traditions that infer distortion lose their value, irrespective of their number and authenticity. The evidences presented by the Shia Ulema debunk any statement about distortion in the Quran thus making it false. We shall seek to summarize all those arguments and evidences in this chapter.

Evidence one: Verses of the Holy Quran reject any possibility of distortion in it

As a Muslim we all believe that every vital thing is present in the Holy Quran. Since it talks about everything then it also talks about itself as well. There exist many verses in the Holy Quran which clearly reject any possibility of distortion in the Quran and and refute any suggestion of external interference in it. These verses prove that nothing until the day of judgment shall alter its authority or honor and become the reason of failure in its reverence. Those verses are as follows:

. . . And if it had been from any other than Allah, they would surely have found in it much discrepancy. (Quran, 4 :82)
Surely We have revealed the Reminder and We will most surely be its guardian. (Quran, 15:9)

According to Sahih reports the “Reminder” in the cited verse means the Quran which Allah (swt) revealed to his beloved Apostle and took the responsibility of its protection from its first revelation until Qiyamah.

Do not move your tongue with it to make haste with it, Surely on Us (devolves) the collecting of it and the reciting of it. Therefore when We have recited it, follow its recitation. Again on Us (devolves) the explaining of it. [Shakir 75: 16-19]

According to Ibn Abbas (ra):

“Surely on Us (devolves) the collecting of it” means: “its collection is incumbent on us while reading it is incumbent on you so that it should remain protected so that its recitation becomes possible. Thus do not be doubtful in it and do not think that any of its words have been dead or lost”
Majma al Bayan, Volume 5 page 297 by Tabarsi

Evidence two: Hadiths from the Holy Prophet (s) and Imams (as)

After the Quran, the Sunnah is the second source of guidance for Muslims that form the basis for our beliefs and instructions that have reached us from different Sahih sources. It is therefore incumbent on Muslims to find those things in the Sunnah that cannot be found clearly in the Quran and should get the tafseer of all those verses from Sunnah that may seem to be difficult to understand with doubts over their actual meanings. We should accordingly adhere to the path of the Sunnah, whilst the Quran also instructs us to do likewise. We read in the Glorious Quran:

Answering some of Nasibi objections

In this chapter we shall refute Nasibi objections wherein they have tirelessly sought to prove that the Shia believe that the Quran has been a victim of tahreef. Just in case Nawasib (as is their habit copy and past what we say in this chjapter to prove that AA believe in tahreef) we wish to make it clear that the italix paragraph under each objection are the common objections raised by our opponents, and we have paraphrased what they typically accuse us of.

Objection one: The Quran of Imam Ali (as) differed from the present version

Some hadiths demonstrate that Maula Ali [k] had a Quran tthat differed from the present day manuscript and whilst he tried to get his manuscript endorsed, the public rejected it. The different Quran means that the present Quran is corrupted, hence tahreef has occurred

Reply

Whilst such hadiths do exist, they are not in the exclusive domain of the Shia. Similar traditions can also be located in authentic Sunni sources that inform us that following the demise of the Prophet (s) Ali bin Abi Talib (as) separated himself from others and started compiling the Holy Quran.

According to some hadiths like the one mentioned in Tafseer Ayashi, it seems that Imam Ali bin Abi Talib (as) was acting on the instructions of the Holy Prophet (s) and other than participation on prayer gathering, he would remain aloof from the people until this task was completed.

Such traditions do not demonstrate that there has been Tahreef in the Quran. The Shia Ulema have commented on such hadiths making it clear that when Ali (as) compiled the Quran the only difference between the version of Imam Ali (as) and the present version, was that his version was compiled in accordance with the sequence of revelation with the abrogated verses were written first followed by the abrogating verses with some of the verses their tafseer that included details of the relevant people such as the bad deeds of the Muhajir and Ansar. Although those tafseer, meanings, abrogation were penned by Ali bin Abi Talib (as) they were according to the instructions of the Holy Prophet (s). It is clear that this difference in compilation a change in the original words or parts of the Quran.

The only difference between the Quran complied by Ali bin Abi Talib (as) and the present version was that there were some matters written in the version of Ali (as) under their tafseer that are not present in the present version and the additional texts in tafseer were not additions to the original Quran rather they were Hadith e Qudsi and it is a fact that Hadith e Qudsi is not a Quran as has been elaborated by Sheikh Saduq (rh) in his esteemed work “Al-I'tiqad ul-Imamiyyah page 93”. Also
Sheikh Mufid (rh) whilst elaborating on this stated that:

Analyzing some of the Shia reports about Tahreef

In this chapter we shall examine those Shia traditions that infer tahreef. After citing such hadiths we will present the views of Shia scholars about them and shall evidence that they are insufficient to prove distortion of Quran. Having cited the interpretations, reasonings and rejections presented by Shia Ulema about some of the hadiths on the topic it will be very easy for a person to decide about other such traditions. There are different groups of hadiths which suggest a distortion in the Quran.

First Group of hadith about Tahreef

The first group of hadiths are those that contain the word “Tahreef” in them.
Here we see first one from Al Kafi:

“It has been narrated from Ali Ibn Suweed that Imam Musa Kazim (as) was in prison when I wrote a letter to him. The Imam (as) replied to it and amidst his reply he wrote this sentence: “They were declared Ameen over the book of Allah but they have committed Tahreef and made changes to it”

We see another hadith of this group which has been recorded by Ibn Shehr Ashob in 'Manaqib'. The sermon of Imam Hussain (as) that he delivered on the day of Ashura has been recorded in the following manner.

“No doubt you are counted amongst those people from the ummah of my grandfather who are disobedient and rebellious, who have left the bounds determined by Allah, who have thrown away the Book of Allah, and talk with the satanic intuition. Verily you are amongst the same people whose faces are black on account of your sins and have committed the dangerous crime of making Tahreef with the Book of Allah”.

Reply

The word 'Tahreef' used in these traditions does not mean that a certain part of Quran has been lessened rather the meaning of word 'Tahreef' used in these traditions refers to:

• the practice of changing and twisting the meaning of verses so that they differ from their original meanings
• willfully abandoning the actual meanings of the verses
• ignoring the circumstances that caused the verse to descend
• concocting absurd reasonings without any evidence to corroborate their stance.

Our position can be evidenced from the letter of Imam Baqir (as) to Sa'ad wherein he wrote:

“Those people about whom my ancestor Imam Hussain (as) said had committed Tahreef to the Quran meant that whilst these people had kept the words of the Quran they present absurd interpretations and reasoning’s in them”.
Al Kafi, Volume 8 page 53

Regarding the first tradition, Al-Khoie stated in his book Al-Bayan, page 229:

المراد بالتحريف حمل الآيات على غير معانيها

"By Tahreef, it meant to interpret the verse against its actual meanings".

Nevertheless Shaykh Bahboodi in his book Sahih al-Kafi has declared the first tradition as weak. While the second tradition has been recorded without any chain of narration. Thus, its useless. Yet we present this tradition back to our opponents since it can also be found in famed Sunni work Tarikh Dimashq by Hafiz Ibn Asakir, Volume 14 page 21.

Second Group of hadith about Tahreef

Shia aur Tehreef e Quran

. ﻤﺴﻠﻤﺎﻨﻮﮟﻜﻭﻤﺤﺒﺖﺮﺴﻭﻞﻮﺁﻞﺮﺴﻭﻞﺺﺴﮯﺩﻮﺮﮐﺮﻨﺍ ( ﻤﺤﺒﺖﺮﺴﻭﻞﻮﺁﻞﺮﺴﻭﻞﺺﮐﻰﻮﺠﻪﺴﮯﺴﻨﻴﻭﮟﭙﺭﺷﻴﻌﻪﻫﻭﻨﮯﮐﺎ ﺍﻠﺰﺍﻢﺍﻭﺭﺷﻴﻌﻭﮟﭘﺭﺭﺍﻔﻀﻰﺍﻭﺭﻏﺎﻠﻰﻫﻮﻨﮯﻜﺎﺍﻠﺰﺍﻢﻠﮔ ﺎﺗﮯﻫﻴﮟ﴾ 2. ﺨﺍﺭﺠﻰ(ﺩﺷﻤﻦﺭﺴﻮﻞﻭﺁﻞﺭﺴﻮﻞ) ﺸﯿﻌﻪ ﺴﻨﻰ ﻤﺴﻠﻤﺍﻨﻭﮟ ﻜﮯ ﺍﺻﻝ ﺩﺸﻦ ﻫﻴﮟ ﺠﻭ ﺍﻦ ﻤﻴﮟ ﺍ ﺨﺘﻼ ﻔﺎﺕ ﻜﻭ ﺒﻧﻴﺍﺪ ﺒﻨﺍ ﻛﺮ ﺍﻥ ﻜﻭ ﻠﮍﺍﻨﺍ ﮀﻠ ﮬﺗﮯ ﮬﯿﮟ 

Masala e khilafat (Haqq e Ali as) and Wirasat (Fidak - Haqq e Bibi Zahera sa) are the basic differences between shia muslims and sunni muslims. Who believe Nabuwat & khilaft is appointed by Allah and Ali (as) is appointed Khalifa by Prophet Muhamad (SA) at Ghadeer e Khum are called Shias and who believe Hazrat Abu Bakar is the right Khalifa e Rasool even though he was appointed by Ummah (Not by Allah and Rasool sa) in Saqeefa (Place near madina) are called Sunni Muslims. Must visit: http://www.answering-ansar.org/ http://www.rizvia.com/findbook.asp?Es

Sunni reports about Tehreef in Quran

We shall now cite authentic Sunni sources that suggest that additions have been made to the current Quran. We, the Shia of Ahlulbait (as) just like the true Ahle Sunnah do not believe that the Quran has been distorted. Our intention behind presenting this chapter was to make the Nawasib realize that they have a wealth of traditions about tahreef in their books.

ONE: Ibn Abbas (ra) testified to fifty verses being added to the Quran of Uthman

Allamah Jalaluddin Suyuti has recorded a tradition from Ibn Abbas (ra) wherein he says:

“The number of verses in the Quran are 6616”
Al Itqan fi Uloom al Quran, Volume 1 page 84

Just see how the Nawasib toy with Quran. They are uncertain about the number of verses in the Quran as can be evidenced by the testimony of Ibn Abbas. This was followed by the contribution of Nasibi Ibn Kathir. The Quran Muslims have in their hands contains 6666 verses that means the above cited Sunni tradition makes Ibn Abbas the refuter of 50 Quranic verses.

TWO: Disagreement amongst Sunni scholars over the number of Quranic verses

Allamah Jalaluddin Suyuti whilst citing Sunni scholarly opinion from Sunni scholar Uthman bin Saeed bin Uthman Abu Amro al-Daani (d. 444 H) wrote:

Al-Daani said: ‘They agreed that the number of verses of Quran are six thousand but they disagreed in what has been added further (to the Quran), some of them didn't add more whilst others said it was two hundred and four. Some said two hundred and fourteen, others said two hundred and nineteen. Some said two hundred and twenty five, others said two hundred and thirty six.’
Al Itqan fi Uloom al Quran, Volume 1 page 84

THREE: According to Imam of Nawasib Ibn Kathir 6000 verses are authentic the remainder are doubtful

To evidence this we have relied on the following esteemed books of Ahle Sunnah.

1. Tafseer Ibn Kathir, Volume 1 page 7, number of verses
2. Tafseer Qurtubi, Volume 1 page 65, number of verses

We read in Tafseer Ibn Kathir:

“The total number of verses Quranic verses are 6000. Disagreement remains about the remainder verses. There are various views and statements about them. One statement is that there are 6204 verses”

Those that deem it their religious duty to abuse Shias need to explain the texts of their own books first. We see some sources saying that “Mauzatain” and “Bismillah” are not a part of the Quran that means those Sunni Muslims who have these two verses in their Quran today have additions to the Holy Book. Some assert that an entire Surah equal in length to Surah Barqah has been lost. Some attest that 6000 verses are authentic, whilst others are doubtful. If having traditions about distortion in the Quran makes one Kaafir then what about these Sunni ulema and Caliphs who openly testified to distortions in the Quran?

If all the Sahaba are just and truthful then were their beliefs about additions to the Quran not also truthful? And what of the Ulema that followed their footsteps?

Did the Nawasib receive divine instruction that these so-called respected personalities are Aadil (just) like their Sahaba? Or did they commit an error in ijtihad for which they will get one reward, and their mistaken view of tahreef be forgiven?

FOUR: The Hanafi and Maliki belief that “Bismillah al-Rehman al-Rahim” is not a part of the Quran

Before we proceed any further, let us first cite an unequivocal edict of Holy Prophet (s) regarding “Bismillah al-Rehman al-Rahim” being one of the verses of Holy Quran:

Abu Huraira narrated that the prophet said: 'If anyone recited (Surah) al-Hamd, he shall recite 'Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim' because it is the head of Quran, the head of the book and the Sab'e al-Mathani (seven verses) and 'Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim' is part of its verses'
 Kanz al-Ummal, Volume 7 page 437 Tradition 19665
Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani declared it 'Sahih' in Talkhis al-Habir, Volume 1 page 233

Let us also see the testimony of Ameer al-Momineen Ali bin Abi Talib (as) as recorded by Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti in Al-Itqan, Volume 1 page 136:

Someone asked Ali: 'What is Sab'e al-Mathani (Seven Verses)?' He replied: 'It is Sura Al-Hamd'. The man said: 'Sura Al-Hamd consists of six verses'. He replied: ''Bismillah Al-Rehman -Al-Rahim' is also one verse'.

About the famed Hanafi and Maliki belief regarding 'Bismillah' we have relied on the following valued books of Ahle Sunnah.

1. Tafseer Mazhari, Volume 1 page 3 by Qazi Sanaullah Paani Patti
2. Tafseer Qurtubi, Volume 1 page 92, Muqqadmah Tafseer
3. Tafseer Fatah al Qadeer, Volume 1 page 7 by Qazi Shokani
4. Tafseer Khazin, Volume 1 page 12, Muqqadmah
5. Tafseer Ibn Kathir, Volume 1 page 20, Farid Book Depot, Dehli
6. Tafseer Ahkaam al Quran al Jasaas
7. Noor al Anwar , page 9
8. Tafseer Kabeer, Volume 1 page 151
9. Tafseer Madarik , Volume 1 page 13
10. Tafseer Kashaf, Volume 1 page 1 by Allamah Zamakhshari
11. Umdatul Qari Shrah Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1 page 12

We read in Tafseer Ibn Kathir:

“On the other hand, Malik, Abu Hanifah and their followers said that Bismillah is not an Ayah in Al-Fatihah or any other Surah.”
  http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=1&tid=208

We read in Tafseer Khazin:

“Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Malik and Imam Auzai attested that neither is “Bismillah” a part of surah Fatihah, nor of any other surah of the Quran”

If according to Imam Abu Hanifa “Bismillah al-Rehman al-Rahim” (In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful) is not a part of any Quranic Surah then the Sunni ulema have committed an addition to the Quran when writing “Bismillah” at 114 places. If making an addition or deletion from the Quran is kufr then either Abu Hanifa is kafir or the present day Sunnis are kafir. The Nawasib of Sipah e Sahaba need to declare Abu Hanifa and abandon his taqleed forthwith.

We read in Tafseer Kabeer:

وأما أبو حنيفة رحمه الله تعالى فإنه قال : بسم الله ليس بآية منها

While Abu Hanifa may Allah's mercy be upon him said: 'Bismillah is not a verse of it'

According to Imam Shaffiyee “Bismillah Al Rehman Al-Rahim” is a part and a verse of Holy Quran and since whoever rejects even a single letter of the Quran is Kaafir then doesn’t this mean that Imam Abu Hanifa was Kaafir according to Shafiyee teachings? Does it not mean that all Hanafis are infidels in the eyes of Shafiyees?

We read in Noor al Anwar:

“One who rejects that “Bismillah” is a part of the Quran should not be deemed a Kaafir when that rejection is on account of doubt. There is disagreement on this issue in the view of Imam Malik as he didn’t deem it to be a part of the Quran”

Other that the month of Ramadhan, “Bismillah” shouldn’t be recited in any prayer neither on ones heart nor loudly

Imam Fakhruddin Razi writes in Tafseer Kabeer, Volume 1 page 151:

وقال مالك والأوزاعي رضي الله تعالى عنهما : إنه ليس من القرآن إلا في سورة النمل ، ولا يقرأ لا سراً ، ولا جهراً إلا في قيام شهر رمضان

“Imam Malik and Auzai may Allah be pleased with both of them said: 'It (Bismillah) isn’t a part of the Quran except Surah Naml and that other than in Ramadhan, it should not be recited, neither in ones heart nor aloud”

Whoever rejects a single letter or verse of the Quran is Kaafir. “Bismillah” being a part of the Quran and of every surah has been proven by Imam Shafiyee. In consequence Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Malik have rejected 114 Quranic verses and are Kaafir under Shafiyee jurisprudence.

The Ulema of Ahle Sunnah believed that the sole reason that “Bismillah” was written in the Quran was to make a distance between the texts and to earn a blessing

We read in Tafseer Kashaf:

“The jurists and the Qura of Madina, Basrah and Sham believed that "Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Raheem " was not a part of Surah al-Fatiha nor from the Quran . It was written in the Quran so as to keep a distance between the suras (chapters) and to earn blessings by commencing with it, as is the case when one commences any action. [The stance] deeming it not to be a part of Quran was the madhab of Imam Abu Hanifa and his followers and for that it is not recited loudly by them during prayers.”
 Tafseer Kashaf, Volume 1 page 1

Our readers should again remind themselves that according to another Sunni Imam Shafi “Bismillah” is a part of Quran that in consequence makes Imam Abu Hanifa a kaafir.

We also read in Tafseer Kashaf:

“And the Quran readers of Makka and Kufa believed that it [bismillah] is a verse from [Surah] Fatihah and every Surat and this was maintained by Imam Shafiyee and his followers and due to that, they read it loudly.”
 Tafseer Kashaf

Imam Abu Hanifa and his adherents reject “Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Raheem" as being a part of the Quran, whilst it is a part of Quran according to Imam Shafiyee that demonstrates that Imam Shafiyee believed that 114 verses had been added to the Quran whilst Abu Hanifa had deleted 114 verses from his copy of Quran. Now will the dumbstruck Nawasib clarify that who was right and who was wrong, since only shall remain a Muslim?

Those who add or delete something from Quran are Kaafir

We are quoting from authentic book of Ahle Sunnah Jami Al-Sagheer, Volume 2 page 32 by Suyuti.

“According to the Holy Prophet (s) there are six types of men who are cursed by him (s), other Prophets and Allah (swt).
1. One who adds something to the Quran
2. One who rejects taqdeer until the end

Dear readers! There is disagreement between two Imams of Sipah e Sahaba over whether “Bismillah Ar Rehman ar Rahim” is a part of the Quran and one of them must be an accursed Kaafir. It is either:

Imam Shafiyee who become an accused Kaafir and by adding 114 verses to the Quran

Or:

Imams Abu Hanifa and Malik that became accused kaafirs for rejecting 114 Quranic verses.

Note: 114 because ‘Bimillah' is at two places in Surah Naml therefore Bismillah is commonly counted as 114 times in Quran.

Uthman’s own confession about his ignorance on the issue of Bismillah being a part of Surah Bara’t

We are quoting from the following Sunni books.

1. Tafseer Gharaib al Quran, Volume 2 page 57
2. Tafseer Kabeer, Volume 4 page 294
3. Tafseer Ibn Kathir, Volume 3 page 331
4. Tafseer Mazhari, Volume 4 page 32
5. Tafseer Mualam al Tanzeel, Volume 3 page 410
6. Tafseer Khazin, Volume 3 page 46
7. Tafseer Ruh al Mani, Volume 9 page 41
8. Sahih Tirmidhi, Volume 2 page 368

We read in Tirmidhi:

فقبض رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏ولم يبين لنا أنها منها

“The Holy Prophet (s) died without informing us whether this (Surah Bar’at) was a part of that (Surah Anfaal) or not”

Imam of Ahle Sunnah Imam Malik said that “Bismillah” is not written at the beginning of Surah Bara’t because when the first part of Surah Bar'at was lost the “Bismillah” was also lost along with it whilst Uthman stated that the Prophet (s) didn’t tell them whether or not Sura Bar'at was a part of Surah Anfaal. Uthman has indirectly admitted that he adopted Qiyas when he was unsure. Here we see a major contradiction between two great figures of Ahle Sunnah.

FIVE: According to the Sahabi Abdullah Ibn Masud Surah Fatiha is not a part of Quran

Dear readers, Surah Fatiha or Surah Al-Hamd is the first Surah we read in the Quran. Whilst every Muslim from childhood recognizes its importance in Islam yet we see that one of the beloved companions of our opponents staunchly rejected that Surah Fatiha is a part of the Quran. We have relied on the following esteemed work of Ahle Sunnah to evidence this:

1. Tafseer Qurtubi, Volume 1 page 15 & Volume 19 page 151
2. Tafseer Dur al Manthur, Volume 1 page 2
3. Tafseer Kabeer page 176
4. Al Itqan, Volume 1 page 80
5. Tafseer Fatah al-Qadeer, Volume 1 page 15

We read in Tafseer Fatah al-Qadeer:

كان عبد الله بن مسعود لا يكتب فاتحة الكتاب في المصحف ، وقال لو كتبتها لكتبت في اول كل شئ

Abdullah bin Masud would not write Fateha as part of the Quran, he said: ‘If I wrote it then I would have to write it at the beginning of every thing.’

Imam Ibn Hajr Asqalani writes in Fatah al Bari, Volume 8 page 571:

أجمع المسلمون على أن المعوذتين والفاتحة من القرآن وأن من جحد منهما شيئا كفر

“There is an ijma amongst Muslims over Fatihah and Mauzatain being a part of the Quran and whoever rejects them is a Kaafir”

Further evidence of Ibn Masud rejecting Surah Fatihah as being a part of the Quran

We are quoting from the following Sunni books.

1. Al Itqan fi Uloom al Quran, Volume 1 page 99
2. Tafseer Ibn Kathir, Volume 1 page 9
3. Tafseer Fatah al Qadeer, Volume 1 page 6 by Allamah Shokani
4. Tafseer al-Kabeer, Volume 1 page 218

We read in Tafseer al-Kabeer:

نقل في الكتب القديمة أن ابن مسعود كان ينكر كون سورة الفاتحة من القرآن وكان ينكر كون المعوذتين من القرآن

“In some of the previous books it is written that Ibn Masud would reject Surah Fatihah and Mu'awwidh-at [Mauzatain] as being a part of the Quran”

We appeal to justice amongst our readers, after reading the above cited references that clearly state that the Sunni Imams like Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Malik and the Sahabi Ibn Masud clearly opposed Surah Fatihah and Mauzatain being a part of the Holy Quran. The Nawasib should therefore openly issue takfeer against these individuals against these individuals as these Imams and Sahaba didn’t deem Surah Fatihah and Mauzatain to be a part of the Holy Quran. It is tragic that those who doubted the beginning and end of the Quran have become the leading lights of Islam.

This is precisely why our Prophet (s) ordered the Muslims to be with the Quran and Ahle Bayt, and not to leave them, since doing so would lead to misguidance. Nawasib having left the path of Allah, and clung to the errors of the three stooges and Sufyani ideology have got themselves derailed, and are heading towards eternal doom.

SIX: Ibn Masud rejected Surah Naas & Surah Falaq being part of the Quran

Before you go on the next fact, we would like to ask this question from our readers particularly to non-Shias:

'What opnion would you hold about a person who claims that two prominent chapters of Holy Quran namely Surah Naas & Surah Falaq are not part of Holy Quran and hence should never been recorded therein?

Before you decide the fate of such a person, let us advance the 'belief' of one of the notable Sahaba namely Abdullah Ibn Masud according to whom, the said two chapters [Surah Naas & Surah Falaq combined are called Mu'awwidh-at or Mauzatain] are not part of Holy Quran. We are quoting from the following esteemed work of Ahle Sunnah:

1. Sahih Bukhari Volume 6 Hadith 501
2. Fatah al Bari, Volume 8 page 742, kitab al tafseer
3. Tafseer Dur al Manthur, Volume 6 page 416
4. Tafseer Ibn Kathir, Volume 4 page 571
5. Tafseer Qurtubi, Volume 2 page 251
6. Tafseer Ruh al Mani, Volume 1 page 279
7. Sharah Mawafiq, page 679

Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani records in Fatah al Bari:

وقد أخرجه عبد الله بن أحمد في زيادات المسند والطبراني وإبن مردويه من طريق الأعمش ، عن أبي إسحاق ، عن عبد الرحمن بن يزيد النخعي قال : كان عبد الله بن مسعود يحك المعوذتين من مصاحفه ويقول : أنهما ليستا من كتاب الله.

Al-Masnad, Al-Tabarani and Ibn Mardaweyh from the way of Al-A'mash from Abi Ishaq from Abd al Rahman bin Yazid Al-Nakhe’i, who said: "Abdullah Ibn Masud used to erase Ma'uzatain from his Musahif (copies of Quran) and say that they (Ma'uzatain) aren't from the book of Allah.”
 Fatah al Bari, Volume 8 page 742 Kitab Tafseer al Quran

Please note that “Bismillah” and Fatihah are the at beginning of Quran whilst Mu'awwidh-at appear at the end of Quran. We can see from this episode that according to Nasibi literature, both the beginning as well as the end of Holy Quran is doubtful!

Let us now put our opponents in further difficulties by presenting the following Sunni edict. We read in Tafseer Qurtubi, Volume 1 page 53 that:

قال يزيد بن هارونه المعوذتان بمنزلة البقرة وآل عمران ، من زعم انهما ليستا من القرآن فهو كافر

“The status of Mauzatain is the same as the status of Baqra and Aal-Imran, whoever claims that it is not part of Quran is a kafir”

Ibn Masud did not record Surah Fatihah (Al-Hamd) and Mu'awwidh-at in his Mushaf

Allamah Jalauddin Suyuti whilst citing Ibn Ashtah records in his esteemed book Al Itqan:

“The sequence of Suras in Ibn Masud’s mushaf was in this manner:
Al Itwaal, Al Baqrah, Al Nisa, Aal e Imran...Al Kauthar, Qul Ya Ahu hal Kafirun, Tubat, Qul ho Allah ho Ahad and Alig wow Ra, Alif Laam Meem Nashrah and Al-Hamd and Mazuatain were not there in it”
 Al Itqan (Urdu), Volume 1 page 173

Nasibi defences presented to protect Ibn Masud from their own takfeer stance

Excuse One:

Dear readers, the outright rejection by Abdullah Ibn Masud of Mu'awwidh is a throne that shall harm our opponents until Qayamah. Some Sunni ulema often seek to explain it away by offering some form of pathetic excuse, but this throne has imbedded itself so deep into their throats, the further they push the more deep it pierces into the body. One of such excue is a simple denial of the authenticity of such reports while the fact is that the rejected of aforementinoed chapters of Holy Quran by Abdullah Ibn Masud is proven by Sahih Sunni text.

Reply: The rejection of Mu'awwidh-at by Ibn Masud is proven from Sahih reports

We rely upon:

1. Sahih Bukhari Volume 6 Hadith 501
2. Sahih Ibn Habban, Volume 10 page 274 Hadith 4429
3. Fatah al Bari, Volume 8 page 74
4. Al Itqan (Urdu), Volume 1 page 212
5. Al Bidayah wal Nihayah , Volume 8 page 357
6.  Majma al-Zawaid, Volume 7 page 311 Tradition 11562

The book deemed by our opponents as the most authentic after Holy Quran is suffice to water down any such attemp. We read in Sahih Bukhari:

Narrated Zirr bin Hubaish:
I asked Ubai bin Ka'b, "O Abu AlMundhir! Your brother, Ibn Mas'ud said so-and-so (i.e., the two Mu'awwidh-at do not belong to the Quran)." Ubai said, "I asked Allah's Apostle about them, and he said, 'They have been revealed to me, and I have recited them (as a part of the Quran)," So Ubai added, "So we say as Allah's Apostle has said."
 Sahih Bukhari Volume 6 Hadith 501

We shall now cite the view of Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti from Al Itqan (published by Idaara Islamiyah, Lahore):

“Abdullah bin Ahmed in a book ‘Ziaraat al Musnad’ and Tabarani and Ibn Marjah following A’mash through Abi Ishaq, Abdul Rehman Bin Yazid Nukh’ei narrated: “Abdullah Ibn Masud used to erase Mauzatain from his mushaf and would attest that both of these verses are not a part of the Quran”. And Bazar and Tabarani at another place have narrated from the same narrator that: “Abdullah Ibn Masud would write and erase Mauztain from his copies of the Quran and would state that the Holy Prophet (s) had only instructed him to use these Surahs as Taweez and Abdullah Ibn Masud did not recite these Surahs”. All the chains of this narration are Sahih”.

Similarly al-Haythami records in Majma al-Zawaid:

Abdulrahman bin Yazid al-Nakhaei said: Abdullah (Ibn Masud) used to erase Muwaztain from his copies of Quran and say: ‘It is not a part of the book of Allah’.

On the authenticity, al-Haythami stated:

رواه عبد الله بن أحمد والطبراني ورجال عبد الله رجال الصحيح ورجال الطبراني ثقات‏

"It is narrated by Abdullah bin Ahmad and Tabarani, the narrators of Abdullah are the narrators of the Sahih and Tabarani's narrators are authentic (Thuqat)”

Imam Ibn Habban also recorded this in his 'Sahih'. We read:

أخبرنا : محمد بن الحسن بن مكرم بالبصرة قال : ، حدثنا : داود بن رشيد قال : ، حدثنا : أبو حفص الأبار ، عن منصور ، عن عاصم بن أبي النجود ، عن زر بن حبيش قال : لقيت أبي بن كعب فقلت له : إن بن مسعود كان يحك المعوذتين من المصاحف ويقول : أنهما ليستا من القرآن فلا تجعلوا فيه ما ليس منه

Narrated Zirr ibn Hubaysh: 'I met Ubai ibn Ka’b and said to him: 'Ibn Masud used to remove Mu'awwidh-at from the Qur’anic codices, saying: 'BOTH OF THEM ARE NOT PART OF THE QURAN AND DO NOT INCLUDE IN IT (THE QURAN) WHAT IS NOT PART OF IT.'''

And last but not the least, Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani has himself refuted the notion that such reports could be weak or Ibn Masud was not actually trying to say that both of these chapters were not from Quran. Ibn Hajar states:

Qadhi Abubakr al-Baqillani has interpreted in his al-Intisar, and Iyadh and others have followed him, about what is narrated from Ibn Mas’ud. He (al-Baqillani) said: 'Ibn Mas’ud did not deny that both Surahs are from the Qur’an rather he denied their inclusion in the Quranic copies. This is because it is narrated that he used not to include anything in his Qur’anic copies except after the Prophet, peace be upon him, had given permission to him to do so. It seems that the permission did not reach him (in the case of the two Surahs). Therefore, his statement is only his tawil (interpretation), and it was not rejection of their being part of the Quran'.
(Ibn Hajar Asqalani says) This is a good interpretation except that there are explicit Sahih reports which refutes the above on account of this phrase in them: “He (Ibn Mas’ud) was saying: ‘Both Surahs are NOT from the book of Allah’”.

So according to the belief of a Sahabi Ibn Masud about whom we are instructed to learn the Quran from (according to Sahih Bukhari), the Quran complied by Uthman & Co. contained three additional Surahs that form no part of the Quran that descended on the Prophet (s). Now either Uthman & Co. are Kafirs, or Ibn Masud is out of the fold of Islam. Who will the Nawasib choose?

Excuse Two

In order to protect Ibn Masud from the fatwas of Kufr that they have utilized against the Shias, some Nawasib submit the excuse that the Quran was Mutawatir and the statement of Ibn Masud has been falsely attributed to him.

Our Reply

We read in Al Itqan, Volume 1 page 73:

“Ibn Ashtah has narrated in his book “al Musahif” from Lais and Sa’ad that Abu Bakar was the first who collected the Quran. The people would bring the Quran to Zaid bin Thabit and Zaid didn’t write any verse unless there were two witnesses for it and the last part of Surah Bara`t was only possessed by Khazimah bin Thabit,. Abu Bakar asked him to write it down because the Prophet (s) had deemed his testimony to be on par with the testimony of two people, it was therefore included in the Quran. Umar brought the verses of stoning [Rajam] but Ziad bin Thabit didn’t include it as Umar was the only witness to it”

We also read in Al-Musahif page 14 by Abu Bakar Sajastani:

“Umar bin Khattab decided to collect the Quran and didn’t accept any Quranic verses unless there were two witnesses testified to them. When Umar was assassinated and Uthman attained power he declared that whoever has any Quranic verse should bring it to them, he likewise didn’t accept any verse without [the presence of] two witnesses”

Dear readers, from the above two references it is quite clear that Abu Bakar, Umar and Uthman were not Hafiz of theQuran i.e. they didn’t know entire Quran by heart and the Quran was not Mutawatir during that time. Had the Shaikhain been Hafiz of the Quran and had it been Mutawatir at that time, the Shaikhain would have not asked for witnesses to confirm verses formed part of the glorious revelation. From our analysis of Sunni books we can conclude that had the Quran been Mutawatir at that time:

• the last part of Khazimah Ansari would not have been the sole person to have possession of Surah Bar’at, rather other scribes would have also had it.
• Uthman would not have placed Surah Bar’at after Surah Infaal by exercising Qiyas.
• Ibn Masud would have recorded Surah Fatihah and Mu'awwidh-at rather then rejecting them
• There would have been no disagreement over verses amongst the Sahaba.

SEVEN: The companions believed that words have been added in Surah Lail and its endorsement by Imam Bukhari

We read in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 468 [English]

Narrated Ibrahim:
The companions of 'Abdullah (bin Mas'ud) came to Abu Darda', (and before they arrived at his home), he looked for them and found them. Then he asked them: 'Who among you can recite (Qur'an) as 'Abdullah recites it?" They replied, "All of us." He asked, "Who among you knows it by heart?" They pointed at 'Alqama. Then he asked Alqama. "How did you hear 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud reciting Surat Al-Lail (The Night)?" Alqama recited:
'By the male and the female.' Abu Ad-Darda said, "I testify that I heard the Prophet reciting it likewise, but these people want me to recite it:--
'And by Him Who created male and female.' but by Allah, I will not follow them."

Unlike the followers of Abdullah Ibn Masud, Alqama and Abu Ad-Darda all Muslims today read in Surat Al-Lail (The Night) verse No. 3:

وَمَا خَلَقَ الذَّكَرَ وَالْأُنثَى

[Pickthal 92:3] And Him Who hath created male and female.

Compare this recital to that offered by Ibn Masud’s followers, Alqama and the testimony of Abu Ad-Darda whose recital included these words 'By the male and the female’ (والذكر والأنثى).

The tradition recorded by Imam Bukhari in his ‘Sahih’ indirectly persuades his adherents to erase the extra words 'Him Who created' from this verse since the companions heard the Holy Prophet (s) recite it with the words ‘By the male and the female’ . This tradition clearly highlights Nawasib belief in the distortion of the Quran.

Nawasib issue kufr edicts against Shias because their books have traditions suggesting that some texts are additions to the original Quran whilst we assert that the authentic books of Ahle Sunnah like Sahih Bukhari prove that Ahle Sunnah likewise uphold the same belief that likewise places them within the very same Fatwa issued by Sipaa-e-Sahaba.

EIGHT: The Mushaf of Sahabi Ubai bin Ka'b did not have a word that the present Quran contains

We read in Surah Nisa verse 101:

[Shakir 4:101] And when you journey in the earth, there is no blame on you if you shorten the prayer, if you fear that those who disbelieve will cause you distress, surely the unbelievers are your open enemy.

101. WA-ITHA DARABTUM FEE AL-ARDI FALAYSA AAALAYKUM JUNAHUN AN TAQSUROO MINA ALSSALATI IN KHIFTUM AN YAFTINAKUMU ALLATHEENA KAFAROO INNA ALKAFIREENA KANOO LAKUM AAADUWWAN MUBEENAN
 http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/transliteration/004.html

We read in Tafseer Dur al Manthur, Volume 2 page 210:

وأخرج ابن جرير وابن المنذر عن أبي بن كعب أنه كان يقرأ فاقصروا من الصلاة إن خفتم أن يفتنكم الذين كفروا ولا يقرأ إن خفتم وهي في مصحف عثمان إن خفتم أن يفتنكم الذين كفروا

Ibn Jarir and ibn al-Munder recorded that Ubai used to recite the verse '{if you shorten the prayer, if you fear that those who disbelieve will cause you distress} without reciting '{if you fear}' while in Uthman's Mushaf its '{if you fear that those who disbelieve will cause you distress}'
 Tafseer Dur al Manthur, vol 2 page 656 Surah Nisa, Verse 101

This Sunni tradition clearly demonstrates that additions have been made to the Quran by Uthman while accordong to the belief of Sahabi Ubai bin Kaab the words 'if you fear' (IN KHIFTUM) are not the part of this verse. How can Nawasib attack Shia for having traditions in their books implying distortion when their own texts are replete with such material? Nawasib need to look their own house first before attacking others. Before pointing their filthy fingers at our Madhab they need to issue their takfeer fatwas against the Sahaba, Taba'een, Fuqaha and scholars who narrated or recorded such tahreef narrations in their books.

Alhamdulilah, Shias and Ahle Sunnah believe in same Quran and its just the Yazidi cult who raise up the topic of Tahreef in the Quran to divide the Muslims.