Chapter Seven: Sunni reports about additions 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.”

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.”

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


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 by Suyuti, rendered into Urdu by Maulana Muhammad Haleem Ansari, vol. 1 page 173 (Idara Islamiat, Lahore)


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.


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.


Shia Pen Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter to receive regular updates on our new publications.
Shia Pen uses the "Google Groups" system for its newsletters. Subcribe Now →