Chapter Eight: Sunni reports about deletions from the Quran

 

The abrogation excuse offered by Nawasib will not work in this topic for the following reasons

As we know, the Nawasib often try to hide behind the curtain of ‘abrogation’ when it comes to authentic Sunni traditions proving Tahreef in Quran. This chapter is especially for them and you will recognize that such excuses are unacceptable because:

One: Imam Shafiyee and Imam Ahmed did not believe that abrogation has taken place in the Quran

Let us have a glimpse on a rule formulated by two of the four prominent Imams of Ahle Sunnah namely Imam Shafiyee and Imam Ahmad regarding those traditions demonstrating abrogation to Quranic verses. We present the following references recorded by Saif al-Deen al-Amedi in his authority work ‘Al- Ahkam fi Usool al-Ahkam’ as for a food four thought:

قطع الشافعي وأكثر أصحابه وأكثر أهل الظاهر بامتناع نسخ الكتاب بالسنة المتواترة وإليه ذهب أحمد بن حنبل في إحدى الروايتين عنه

“Al-Shaf’ee and most of his companions and most of ahl al-Dhaher attested that the book (Quranic text) cannot be abrogated by Mutwatir Sunnah (hadith), that is what Ahmad ibn Hanbal affirmed according to one of the two narrations from him”
http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open.php?cat=36&book=1636

Imam Fakhruddin al-Razi in his book Al-Mahsool, Volume 3 page 348 also confirms that Imam Shafiyee did not believe in the abrogation of verses:

نسخ الكتاب بالسنة المتواترة جائز وواقع ، وقال الشافعي رضي الله عنه لم يقع

“Abrogating the Quran by Mutwatir is possible and has already taken place whilst Shafiyee may Allah be pleased with him said that it never took place”

In light of these opinions, from this point forward every verse we cite that our opponents explain away as abrogation, should be considered against the opinion of their esteemed Imams that rejected the notion of abrogation.

Two: Abrogation can only be evidenced through the Mutawatir testimonies of the Sahaba

Let us now present the conditions laid down in the Sunni school in order to declare any verse to have been abrogated so that whenever our opponents submit the abrogation excuse, they shall need to adhere to the following rule of their sect as endorsed by Imam Jalaluddin Suyti:

Ibn al-Hasaar says: “For abrogation it is important to refer to such an explicit narration that is proven to be from the Prophet (s) or from some companion that such and such verse abrogated such and such verse, and when there is a contradiction between two traditions we can use it to know which is produced first and which is produced last, but about abrogation, the statements of common commentators and even of the Mujtahideen shall not suffice unless the abrogation is proven from some Sahih narration with no disputing argument against it, because abrogation either nullifies an order or strengthens it, and that was enforced during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (s) and in this matter, narrations and history are to be relied upon, not views or Ijtehad.

And the people are divided into two groups that are on contradiction, the first doesn’t accept the sole authentic narration about abrogation while the other is very tolerant as the statements of commentators or scholars are suffice to them, while the truth is other way around”
Al Itqan fi Uloom al Quran (Urdu), Volume 2 Nau: 47 page 63

Let us shed further light on the actual concept of abrogation from a Sunni perspective by relying on the great Salafi/Wahabi scholar Allamah Sidiq Hassan Khan Bhopali who explained certain conditions, without fulfillment of these, one cannot claim that such and such verse has been abrogated:

The first condition for abrogation is that the abrogation decree should be doctrinal (share’i) not logical (aqli), that the abrogating verse shall be separate from the abrogated verse and should have been revealed later, because when a verse applies with condition and exception, it cannot be called abrogation, but it is called discrimination (takhsees). Thus abrogation shall be accompanied by explanation. An order doesn’t dissolve with death, but it is called the end of agony. The abrogation of a verse isn’t related to time, therefore the passage of a certain time doesn’t abrogate a verse. Abrogating verse should be on par with the abrogated verse in strength, in fact the abrogating verse should be stronger, because the weak can never nullify the strong. This is the edict of reasoning and consensus (ijma) also supports it because the Sahaba never abrogated the Quranic verses relying on Khabar-e-Wahid. Sixth is that the purpose of abrogating should be different to the purpose of abrogated otherwise the issue of Bada’ will be involved and this is a condition that word to word the abrogating should apply on what abrogated applied. Abrogation is not possible in Tauhid. Allah (swt) is present with his names and attributes from ever and shall be forever. Similarly, issues whose existence forever, or for a fixed time period are proven from ‘Nass’ cannot be abrogated. From this we know that all the verses that have been revealed as ‘akhbaar’ cannot be abrogated and any such abrogation without the knowledge of the truthful messenger [Holy Prophet [saww]] is unimaginable.
Ifadatul Shayookh, page 5, line 9, published in Lahore

Similarly we read in Qwate al-Aela fi al-Uool by Sam’ani Volume 1 page 471:

ولا يجوز نسخ المتواتر بالآحاد لضعف الناسخ وقوة المنسوخ

“It is not permissible to abrogate the Mutwatir by Ahaad due to the weakness of the abrogating and the strength of the abrogated”

We read in Al-Mustasfa by Ghazali, page 98:

لا يجوز نسخ المتواتر بخبر الواحد

“It is not permissible to abrogate the Mutwatir by Ahaad”

The Shia view on the abrogation of verses

Sunni scholars (not Sahaba) have evolved various kinds of abrogation and the kind used by them the most is a type where the recitation of a verse is abrogated yet its ruling remains intact, thus we deem it appropriate to present the Shia stance about such kinds of abrogation. Most of the Shia scholars reject such types of abrogation as we read in Uloom al-Quran by Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim, page 204:

أن لا يكاد يعترينا الشك ببطلانه وعدم ثبوته في القرآن الكريم

“There is no doubt about its falsehood and it has not been proved in the Quran”

We read in Usool al-Fiqh by Sheikh Muzafar, Volume 3 page 56:

لعدم ثبوت نسخ التلاوة بالدليل القطعي

“The recitation’s abrogation is not proven by absolute evidence”

We read in Al-Sahih Min Sirat al-Nabi by Jaffar Murtada, Volume 7 page 295:

إن نسخ التلاوة المدعى مرفوض

“The claims of recitation’s abrogation are rejected”

We read in Mafahim al-Quran by Jaffar al-Subhani, Volume 10 page 364:

بيين الفساد

“It is absolutely false”

We read in Min Wahi al-Quran by Fadlullah, Volume 2 page 156:

ونحن لا نوافق على نسخ التلاوة

“We disagree with recitation’s abrogation”

We should also point out that in order to prove that Shaykh Tusi believed in abrogation, some Nawasib use the following words recorded by Shaykh Tusi in his book Tubiyan fi Tafseer al-Quran:

Nawasib quote:

The abrogation in Quran is of three kinds, the first is about abrogating about the law without the recitation, such as the verse of Iddah for who her husband died…..The second, abrogating the recitation without the law such as the verse of Rajam, surly the punishment of stoning ,there is no doubt about it, the verse which contained (rajm) is abrogated without any doubt which is His statement { the old man and woman if they performed adultery stone them because they had fulfilled lust and it is their punishment from Allah and Allah is’}The third abrogation is the recitation and law, such as what the opponents narrated from Ayesha i.e. ‘There was among what Allah revealed, ten suckling forbidding (marriage) then it was abrogated with fifteen, hence the recitation and the law were abrogated.

Tragically what our deviant opponents failed to disclose to their flock was that here Shaykh Tusi was recording the general view that prevailed about the abrogation. The words written immediately follow the above paragraph explains Tusi’s own views:

“About the conditions of abrogation and what is true and what is false and what can abrogate the verses of Quran and what cannot, we have mentioned it in the book Al-‘Idaa.”

Now what Shaykh Tusi has written in Al-‘Idda is no different to the Sunni view on abrogation i.e.:

النسخ بخبر الواحد وهذا لا يقول به أحد

“No one believes in abrogation by an Ahaad tradition”
Al-‘Idaa, Volume 2 page 137

Shaykh Tusi in this book mentioned the examples of recitation abrogation including the verse of Rajam (stoning) etc but explicitly stated later on:

وانما ذكرنا هذه المواضع على جهة المثال ولو لم يقع شئ منها

“We mentioned these verses as examples though nothing from these happened.”
Al-‘Idaa, Volume 2 page 514

Similarly we read in Maarij al-Wusool by Najmuddin al-Heli, page 159:

من شرط الناسخ أن يكون في قوة المنسوخ ، فلا ينسخ المتواتر بالآحاد

“It is the condition for abrogation that the abrogating is as strong as the abrogated, the Mutwatir cannot be abrogated by Ahad.”

ONE: Introducing the Sunni Quran with 40 Juz/Parts

We have relied on the following authentic books of Ahle Sunnah

  1. Fatah al Bari, Volume 9 page 95 by Ibn Hajar Asqalani
  2. Umdatul Qari, Volume 9 page 345 by Badruddin Aini
  3. Irshad al Saari, Volume 7 page 482 by Shahabuddin Qastalani

We read in Fatah al Bari that:

قال أقل ما يجزئ من القراءة في كل يوم وليلة جزء من أربعين جزءا من القرآن

“The least that is enough of reading Quran is to read every day and night one Juz amongst the 40 Juza of Quran”
Fatah al Bari, Kitab Fadail al Quran, vol 9 page 95

We know that the Quran is divided into 30 parts (Juz) but here we come to know that the Sunni Quran is incomplete as ten parts are missing from it. In order to hide such beliefs, Nasibi ulema have busied themselves issuing propaganda fuelled fatwas against Shias by suggesting they believe in the alteration of the Quran. We wish to make it clear that this belief is wrongly attributed to us. We seek justice from our Sunni brothers who are proud of the above cited Sunni books and their authors that refer to the Quran containing 40 parts whilst the Quran that we muslims have in our hands consists of 30 parts, that proves that the belief in tahreef is present in Deobandi and Salafi books.

Are the above cited ulema Kaafir in the eyes of Deobandi ulema? If not, then why this double standard? Isn’t it blatant injustice and biasness to attribute a false belief of distortion of the Quran to and an entire Sect to justify deeming them Kaafirs, but the same Fatwa is not issued against their Ulema that attested to 10 addition partsof the Quran?

TWO: Sunni belief that Quran had ninety Juz; 700369 letters are missing

We will quote from the following valued books of Ahle Sunnah.

  1. Kanz al Umaal, Volume 1 page 135 Hadith 2308
  2. Al Itqan, fi Uloom al Quran Volume 1 page 88 by Jalaluddin Suyuti
  3. Jama’ al-Sagheer, Volume 2 page 88, Chapter: alif laam

We read in Al Itqan fi Uloom al Quran:

Umar narrated that the Prophet (s) said: “The Qur’an has 1,027,000 letters and whoever reads them with the intention of earning reward [Thawab] shall attain a female Hoor from paradise against each letter. All the narrators of this tradition are Thiqah”.

According to Ibn Abbas, the present Quran contains 326631 letters, that means according to the tradition narrated by Umar, 700369 letters are missing from the present Quran which ultimately means that the number of letters in the present Quran have to be thrice its present total in order to comply with the statement that Umar attributed to Prophet (s), but in that case the number of Juz/Parahs would jet up to ninety.

If Nawasib advance the same notion about abrogation in Quran in this case, then we would like to say that there would no merits in reciting abrogated verses. If somebody argues that in this tradition Umar was including both abrogated and remaining verses when referring to 1,027,000 letters then such a hypothesis likewise fails to hold any water because Umar mentioned the merits of reciting these letters, it is illogical to believe that one could attain blessings and merits by reciting abrogated verses.

We should also point out that the narrators of Tabrani are reliable according to Ahle Sunnah. Dahabi in his Mizan without advancing any proof and logic has maligned Tabrani’s teacher Muhammad bin Ubaid for citing such narrations that evidences blatant unprofessional conduct on his part.

THREE: Sunni scholars believed that letters have been lost from actual Quran

Let us commence by citing the proud statement that Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti recorded in the preface of his esteemed book Dur al Manthur:

“Praise be to Allah…. who has given me the ability to conduct a commentary of his Great Book based on what I have received of the transmitted reports with high valued chains”.

In the Muqaddamah of Surah Ahzab Allamah Jalaluddin Suyuti records the belief of Imam Sufiyan al-Thawri (d. 161 H) narrated from his student Imam Abd al Razzak al Sanani (d. 211 A. H.):

وأخرج عبد الرزاق عن الثوري قال : بلغنا ان ناسا من أصحاب النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم كانوا يقرأون القرآن أصيبوا يوم مسيلمة فذهبت حروف من القرآن

“Abd al Razaq narrated from Al-Thawri that he said: ‘I have come to know that people from the Sahaba of the Prophet (s) who used to recite the Quran were killed on the day of Musaylama and with their deaths letters from the Quran were lost (Zahab).’”
Tafsir Dur al Manthur, Muqaddamah Surah Ahzab, vol 6 page 558

The filthy children of Muawyia such as (most of the) narrow minded Salafi/Wahabis around the world and the debris of the Sipah-e-Sahaba cult who always issue kufr edicts against Shias for having traditions in their text that imply tahrif should take a good long look at this statement. If after this analysis they have an ounce of shame in them then they should throw issue Kufr edicts against all of their revered scholars that recorded or narrated tahreef statements in their prestigious texts. Should they choose not to apply such fatwas against their Ulema, they should stop spreading propaganda suggesting that the Shia belief the Quran is incomplete since this only benefits the enemies of Islam.

FOUR: The Nasibi belief that Umar decided to compile Quran when he found that a verse had been lost with the death of a person who knew it

We read in Kanz ul Ummal, Volume 2 page 574:

عن الحسن ان عمر بن الخطاب سأل عن آية من كتاب الله فقيل كانت مع فلان وقتل يوم اليمامة ، فقال إنا لله ، وأمر بالقرآن فجمع ، فكان أول من جمعه في المصحف

Umar bin al-Khatab asked about a verse of Allah’s book, they answered: ‘It was with a man who got killed on day of Yamama (battle)’. He (Umar) said: ‘We all shall return to Allah’. Then he ordered to collect the Quran, therefore he was the first one who collected it in one book.

The tradition is clear that the verse of Quran Umar was looking for was lost with the death of a person who knew it and in Sahih Bukhari we read that the very fear of loosing Quran due to the deaths of Qur’a made Umar to compile it in book form!

FIVE: The belief of Jhangvi & Wahabi cult derived from Ibn Umar: Most of the Quran has been lost

In order to quote the statement of Abdullah Ibn Umar we have sought reliance upon the following esteemed books of Ahle Sunnah:

  1. Tafseer Dur al Manthur Volume 1 page 106
  2. Al-Itqan by Suyuti, rendered into Urdu by Maulana Muhammad Haleem Ansari, vol. 2 page 64 (Idara Islamiat, Lahore)
  3. Tafseer Ruh al Mani, Volume 1 page 25
  4. Fadhael al-Quran by Qasim bin Salam, Volume 2 page 135

One of the early Sunni scholars Qasim bin Salam (d. 222 H) records:

حدثنا إسماعيل بن إبراهيم ، عن أيوب ، عن نافع ، عن ابن عمر ، قال : « لا يقولن أحدكم قد أخذت القرآن كله وما يدريه ما كله ؟ قد ذهب منه قرآن كثير ، ولكن ليقل : قد أخذت منه ما ظهر منه

Ismail bin Ibrahim narrated from Ayub from Naf’ee from Ibn Umar who said: ‘Verily among you people one would say that he has found the Quran whilst he is unaware of what the total quantity of the Quran was, because most of the Quran has been lost rather one should say that verily he has found the Quran that has appeared.’

Ismail bin Ibrahim: Dahabi said: ‘Hujja’ (Al-Kashif, v1 p242), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p90). Ayub al-Sekhtiani: Dahabi said: ‘The master of scholars’ (Siar alam alnubala, v6 p15), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah Thabt Hujja’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p116). Naf’ee: Dahabi said: ‘The Imam of Tabayeen’ (Al-Kashif, v2 p315), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah Thabt’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p239).

Abdullah Ibn Umar is declaring his aqeedah about the Quran i.e no one can proclaim that he has found the complete Quran whilst our Sunni brothers claim that they have the complete Quran with them. On the basis of this statement need to either declate Ibn Umar a liar or sever links with the Sunni ulema.

We would like Nawasib such as Sipah e Sahaba to provide explain the aqeedah of Umar and Abdullah Ibn Umar about distortions in the Quran. We would like to ask them whether books like Kanz al Ummal, Tafseer Dur Manthur, Al-Itqan and Jam’i Sagheer are Sunni books or not ? Aren’t these authors the prominent scholars of your sect? The ‘prizes and gifts’ that Sipah e Sahaba have bestowed on those ulema that mentioned traditions regarding tahreef in their works, should be given to their own authors and sahaba first who have proclaimed their aqeedah regarding distortion in the Quran. They should either leave their existing belief, or disassociate themselves from their scholars and abandon their books.

Some excuses submitted by Nawasib to defend their beloved ancestors

In order to offer some defence for their beloved ancestors, Nawasib have submitted defences for them as means of protecting them from the takfeer edicts they have issued against Shias.

First Excuse: The narration is unauthentic

The tradition in which Ibn Umar stated that most of the Quran has been lost is weak.

Reply

We have already provided the appraisal of all the narrators by two great Sunni scholars in order to refute such a defence. Moreover, Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti chose to record the narration in his books and we have already cited his statement:

“Praise be to Allah…. who has given me the ability to conduct a commentary of his Great Book based on what I have received of the transmitted reports with high valued chains”.

Second Excuse: The word ‘Zahab’ means abrogation

Ibn Umar used the word ‘Zahab’ for ‘lost’ but it doesn’t actually mean ‘lost’ rather it means ‘abrogation’ and his statement should be read in its entirety as follows:

“No one can claim that he has found the complete Quran as most of the Quran has been abrogated”

Reply One: Our challenge to Nawasib to bring a dictionary that defines “Zahab” as “abrogation”

For the sake of justice we would like to ask Sipah-e-Sahaba and other Nawasib to produce a dictionary that defines ‘Zahab’ as ‘abrogation’. The reality is there is no dictionary in the world defines ‘Zahab’ as ‘abrogation’ except the dictionary that Nawasib use that likewise define ‘Tabarra’ as ‘name calling’ and ‘Taqyyiah’ as ‘lies and hypocrisy’ and ‘Mutah’ as ‘adultery, prostitution’ and ‘Shia’ as ‘apostate’. The dictionary of the Debandies is indeed that of imbeciles of the highest order.

Reply Two: Umar bin Al-Khattab refuted those who define ‘Zahab’ as ‘abrogation’

We read in Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, Number 509 [English version]:

أرسل إلي أبو بكر مقتل أهل اليمامة وعنده عمر فقال أبو بكر إن عمر أتاني فقال إن القتل قد استحر يوم اليمامة بالناس وإني أخشى أن يستحر القتل بالقراء في المواطن فيذهب كثير من القرآن إلا أن تجمعوه وإني لأرى أن تجمع ۔۔۔

Narrated Zaid bin Thabit:
Abu Bakr As-Siddiq sent for me when the people! of Yamama had been killed (i.e., a number of the Prophet’s Companions who fought against Musailama). (I went to him) and found ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab sitting with him. Abu Bakr then said (to me), “Umar has come to me and said: “Casualties were heavy among the Qurra’ of the! Qur’an (i.e. those who knew the Quran by heart) on the day of the Battle of Yalmama, and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurra’ on other battlefields, whereby a large part of the Qur’an may be lost .Therefore I suggest, you…”

The Arabic word which Umar Ibn al Khatab has used above for ‘lost’ is ‘Zahab’!

Readers are required to ponder over the issue and if Nawasib are still using their own dictionary meaning of ‘Zahab’ then the above statement of Umar Khatab should be understand as follows: “I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurra’ on other battlefields, whereby a large part of the Qur’an may be abrogated. …” which is certainly incorrect as the war of Yamama was fought during the rule of Abu Bakr while the abrogation of Quranic verses could have only occurred during the time of Holy Prophet (s). Applying the Deobandi dictionary definition here therefore means that the Nawasib deem Abu Bakr as their next Prophet after Prophet Muhammad (s), who had the mandate to abrogate the Quran, that would either elevate his status to that of a God, or that of a Prophet, either stance places them in the category of apostates. In the first case they would deny the belief in the Unity of Allah, and in the second case they would deny the belief in the finality of the Prophethood of Muhammad (s).

SIX: The testimony of Imam Malik that most of Surah Bar’at has been lost along with ‘Bismillah’

We have relied on the following esteemed books of Ahle Sunnah to prove this:

  1. Tafseer Fath al Qadeer, Volume 2 page 317, Surah Bara`t
  2. Tafseer Qurtubi, Volume 8 page 62, Surah Bara`t
  3. Al-Itqan, Volume 1 page 81
  4. Tafseer Dur al Manthur, Volume 3 page 208, Surah Bara’t
  5. Al Muhazraat, Volume 2 page 434

We read in Fath al Qadeer:

“When the first part of Surah Bar’at was lost, Imam Malik said that ‘Bismillah’ was also lost along with it”

We read in Tafseer Qurtubi:

“Malik said among what had been narrated by Ibn Wahb and Ibn Al Qasim and Ibn Abdul Hakam is that when the first part of Surat Bara’at was lost, ‘Bismillah Al Rahman Al Raheem’ was also lost along with it. It has also been narrated from Ibn Ajlan that he heard that Surat Bara’at was equal to the length of Surat Al Baqarah or approximately equal to it, so the part was gone and because of that “Bismillah Al Rahman Al Raheem” wasn’t written between them (between the lost and the remaining part) .”

SEVEN:The testimony of Sahabi Hudaifah that only one fourth of Surah Bar’at remains

Allamah Jalaludin Suyuti whilst quoting scholars like Tabrani, Hakim and Ibn Shebah writes:

عن حذيفة رضي الله عنه قال : التي تسمون سورة التوبة هي سورة العذاب والله ما تركت أحدا إلا نالت منه ولا تقرأون منها مما كنا نقرأ إلا ربعها

“Huzaifah narrated that the Surah which you call Taubah is actually Surah ‘Azaab [wrath] and you just recite one fourth of what we used to recite.”
Tafseer Dur al Manthur, Volume 3 page 208

Allamah Jalaluddin Suyuti has very confidently recorded the traditions mentioning that Surah Bar`at was equal to Surah Baqarah in length. At present Surah Baqarah contains 286 verses whilst Surah Bar`at contains 129 verses. If Surah Bar`at was really equal to the length of Surah Barqah that would mean approximately 157 verses have been lost from Surah Ba’rat.
If believing in Quranic distortion is Kufr then many prominent scholars of Uthmani madhab are clear-cut infidels and Imam Malik and Allamah Suyuti would head that list. We Shias using Nawasib logic shall likewise demand that justice will only be enabled when Nawasib issue the same fatwas against their beloved prominent scholars that they have issued against Shias. It is tragic that we are demanding justice from those who don’t even believe in Justice of Allah (swt). It is indeed strange, whilst they don’t believe in Allah or his Prophet being Aadil, they deem all the Sahaba to be Aadil, as if this religion belongs to unknown fathers of Sipah-e-Sahaba, and not to Allah, Prophet (s) and his Holy Progeny.

Some excuses that Uthman’s defender offer

Advocates of Uthman try to provide some excuses to maintain and safeguard their fabricated aqeedah that stipulates all the Sahaba were just.

First Excuse

The 157 verses of Surah Bar’at were abrogated verses.

Reply One

In the statement of Imam Malik the word “saqat” has been used. We challenge Nawasib like Sipah e Sahaba to bring any Arabic dictionary that defines “saqat” as abrogation.

Reply Two

If the advocates of Muawiya and Yazeed have been suckled by decent mothers rather than weaned on dubious bottled milk, then we issue them with a challenge that is also a rule of their sect as cited by us in the beginning of this chapter, namely that they produce a mutawatir hadeeth of the Holy Prophet (s) wherein he(s) declared that 157 verses of Surah Bar`at have been abrogated.

Reply Three

The106th verse of Surah Baqarah tells us that whenever Allah(s) abrogates any verse He reveals a similar kind of or better verse than the abrogated verse. If 157 verses of Surah Bar`at were indeed abrogated then Nawasib should direct us to those verses that have replaced the preceding 157 verses. One verse for each of the abrogated verses should be brought.

Second Excuse

The word “saqat” in the statement of Imam Malik means “Nisyaan” i.e. to forget.

Our Reply

One of the mistakes of this second advocate is that he has refuted the former advocate himself but in our eyes both of them are liars.

If “saqat” really means to forget and if the statement of Imam Malik means that Allah (swt) made his worshippers forget 157 verses of Surah Bar`at then should remind them a verse from Surah Baqra wherein Allah(swt) says:

None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that God Hath power over all things? (Quran 2:106)

We challenge the defenders of Hadrat Uthman to cite all those verses that have substituted the 157 alleged abrogated or forgotten verses of Surah Bar`at.

If Allah (swt) didn’t make His worshippers forget these 157 verses himself then it means that the sahaba due to their irresponsible attitude forgot all 157 verses that makes them accountable to Allah (swt), his Prophet (s) after all it is due to their amnesia that all future generations of Muslims were deprived of 157 Holy verses.

EIGHT: The companions did not believe in the completeness of the Quran as they attested to numerous verses being lost from Surah Ahzab

We have relied on the following authentic Sunni books to prove this:

  1. Tafseer Ibn Kathir, Volume 4 page 465, Surah Ahzab
  2. Tafseer Dur al-Manthur, Volume 5 page 180 , Surah Ahzab
  3. Al-Itqan, Volume 2 page 30
  4. Tafseer Qurtubi, Volume 7 page 113, Surah Ahzab
  5. Tafseer Fath al Qadeer, Volume 4 page 251, Surah Ahzab
  6. Tafseer Mazhari, Volume 7 page 302, Surah Ahzab
  7. Tafseer Ruh al-Ma’ani, page 121 parah 21
  8. Tafseer Kashaf, Volume 2 page 204, Surah Ahzab
  9. Tafseer Gharaib al-Quran, Volume 7 page 75
  10. Tafseer Madarik al-Tanzeel, Volume 3 page 48, Surah Ahzab
  11. Al Muhazraat, Volume 4 page 434 by Raghib al-Isfahani

 

The testimony of the companion Ubai bin Ka’b

We read in Tafseer Dur al Manthur:

“Ubai bin Ka’ab inquired of someone: ‘How many verses were there in the chapter of al-Ahzab?’ He replied, ’72 or 73 verses.’ Ubai bin Ka’b then said: ‘I had seen this Surah more or equal to Surah Baqarah”‏
Tafseer Dur al Manthur, vol 6 page 558

The testimony of Umar

We also read in Tafseer Dur al Manthur:

“Ibn Mardawayh narrated from Huzaifah that Umar said that Surah Ahzab was equal to Surah Baqrah (in length)”

Ayesha clearly believed in the incompleteness of Quran

We read in Tafseer Ruh al Mani:

“Ayesha narrates: “During the life of the the Prophet (s), Surah Ahzab was read with 200 verses, when Uthman collected the verses, he could get along with more verses than this.”

We also read in Tafseer Qurtubi:

“Ayesha narrates: ‘Surah Ahzab contained 200 verses during the lifetime of Prophet (s) but when the Quran was collected we only found the amount that can be found in the present Quran”.

This tragedy happened due to Uthman but it seems that the author of this tafseer lacked sufficient courage to cite his name.

We also read in Dur al-Manthur:

“Ayesha narrated that during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (s) 200 verses were recited in Surah Ahzab but when Uthman collected the Mushaf, he only succeeded in locating the present number of verses”
Online Tafsir Dur al Manthoor, Surah Ahzab, vol 6 page 560

Ayesha’s explicit statement suggests that Uthman was unsuccessful in locating a large number of verses that were present during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (s). It isn’t a small statement. According to Ayesha, the Muslims of today have been deprived of a large number of verses that were in existence during the time of the Holy Prophet (s). Ayesha was fully aware of the seriousness of this statement, and in it we do not find any evidence that the ‘lost’ verses were abrogated, the Nawasib should therefore refrain from putting words into her mouth. She stated that these verses were in existence during the era of the Holy Prophet (s) and then went missing during the era of Uthman. If Nawasib seek to suggest that those verses were abrogated then would mean they deem Abu Bakr and Umar as their next Prophets for they had abrogated these verses after the death of the Prophet (s).

Comment

Dear readers, at present there are 73 verses in Surah Ahzab, where are the missing 127 verses? Who is responsible for omitting these verses? If Uthman’s lovers give him credit for collecting and compiling the Quran then they should likewise hold him responsible for the loss of 127 verses, and this is a clear distortion of the Quran that according to Nawasib is Kufr. Perhaps they are unable to accept that their beloved Caliph was guilty of doing what they declare as Kufr. At least this wasn’t “Fadak” or the “Bayt ul-Maal” that the drunkard heroes of Nawasib would freely distribute amongst their relatives, nor was it the pulpit of caliphate that they would play musical chairs with! We are talking about the Holy Quran, Allah (swt) says that He is the Protector of the Quran, so where was Allah (swt) and His authority when these people lost, forgot and distributed the Holy Quran with such generosity?

Nasibi excuses protecting their Khalifa from their own self made takfeer fatwas

Unsurprisingly Nawasib offer some attempts to protect their Khalifa.

Excuse

This is not Tahreef as Allah (swt) abrogated those 127 verses. By mixing the concept of abrogation with tahreef the Shias have disgraced themselves.

Reply One

Dear readers; the ‘abrogation excuse’ is a veil to hide their faces from Tahreef, but they have been exposed. Just like their artificial caliphate, the Nawasib have advanced a lame excuse about abrogation to defend Uthman & Co. who (according to authentic Sunni sources) either deliberately or inadvertently didn’t include these verses in the Quran when compiling it. If the Nawasib have some shame then they should produce a Mutawatir hadith in which the Holy Prophet (s) referred to the abrogation of 127 verses of Surah Ahzab.

Reply Two

If Nawasib are adamant that these 127 verses of Surah Ahzab were abrogated then we would like to ask them that where can we find the replacement of the 127 verses of Surah Ahzab, when the present Quran only contains 73 verses? When the Nawasib are aware of the abrogation of those verses, then they must be aware of the replacement verses as well, and we relish the opportunity to benefit from their knowledge of these replacement verses.

We have already cited verse 106 of Surah Baqarah in which Allah (swt) says that when He (swt) wants to abrogate any verse He substitutes something better or similar. If 127 verses of Surah Ahzab were really abrogated then can Nawasib cite a matawatur hadith wherein the Prophet (s) mentioned the 127 substituted verses that were better or similar to the 127 abrogated verses?

We can see that the Nawasib themselves believe in the loss of 127 verses, a belief that they deem to be Kufr.

NINE: Nasibi belief that a Surah equal to the length of Sura Bar’at has been lost as endorsed by Imam Muslim and Hakim

We have relied on the following esteemed books of Ahle Sunnah.

  1. Sahih Muslim [English] Book 005, Number 2286
  2. Jama’ al Usool, Volume 3 page 53, chapter 2 part 3 Hadith 972
  3. Mustadrak al Hakim, Volume 2 page 224, Kitab al Tafseer
  4. Al Muhazhirat, Volume 3 page 433
  5. Tafseer Ruh al Mani, Volume 2 page25
  6. Mu’jam al Zawaid, Volume 7 page 140
  7. Tafseer Dur al Manthur, Volume 1 page 105 , verse of abrogation

We read in Sahih Muslim [English] Book 005, Number 2286:

Abu Harb b. Abu al-Aswad reported on the authority of his father that Abu Musa al-Ash’ari sent for the reciters of Basra. They came to him and they were three hundred in number. They recited the Qur’an and he said: You are the best among the inhabitants of Basra, for you are the reciters among them. So continue to recite it. (But bear in mind) that your reciting for a long time may not harden your hearts as were hardened the hearts of those before you. We used to recite a surah which resembled in length and severity to (Surah) Bara’at . I have, however, forgotten it with the exception of this which I remember out of it: If there were two valleys full of riches, for the son of Adam, he would long for a third valley, and nothing would fill the stomach of the son of Adam but dust.”…

In Jamai al Usool we read the testimony of a companion Abi Ka`ab who was the first Imam of Taraweeh prayers appointed by Umar:

“Ubai bin Ka’b narrates: “The Prophet(s) said that he had been ordered to recite the Quran amongst us and the Quran which He(s) had recited also contained the following verse :
“Should a son of Adam own two valleys full of wealth, he should seek a third valley and nothing would fill Ibn Adam’s abdomen but the soil”.

We read in Al Muhazraat:

“Abdullah Ibn Masud had this in his mushaf:
“Should a son of Adam own two valleys full of wealth, he should seek a third valley and nothing would fill Ibn Adam’s abdomen but the soil” .

Similarly al-Hakim in his book Al-Mustadrak in the section of commentary on the Quran, part two, page 224, reported that Ubai Ibn Kaab said that the Messenger of God said to him:

“Certainly the Almighty commanded me to read the Quran before you, and he read “The unbelievers from the people of the Book and Should Ibn Adam ask for a valley full of wealth and I grant it to him, he would ask for another valley. And if I grant him that, he would ask for a third valley. Nothing would fill the abdomen of Ibn Adam except the soil. God accepts the repentance of anyone who repents. The religion in the eyes of God is the Hanafiyah (Islam) rather than Yahudiyya (Judaism) or Nasraniya (Christianity). Whoever does good, his goodness will not be denied.”
al-Mustadrak by al-Hakim, section of commentary on the Quran, Volume 2, page 224 Hadith 2889. Al-Hakim wrote: “This is an authentic Hadith.” al-Dhahabi also considered it authentic in his commentary on al-Mustadrak

When:

  • al-Hakim said this is authentic according to the standards of the two Sheikhs (Al-Bukhari and Muslim)
  • al-Dhahabi also considered it authentic in his Commentary of al-Mustadrak, vol 2, pages 225-226,
  • Muslim report similar to this from Abu Musa Ash’ari then what will be the conclusion?
  • Anas bin Malik also testified to the lost verse of Ibn Adam as recorded in Al-Musanaf, by Abdulrazaq, v10, p436

Thus, it is up to Nawasib to rule on the fate of the above Sahaba before attacking Shias. Those who claim that anyone who has recorded a tradition which implies the incompleteness of the Quran is a Kafir, should first issue this Fatwa against beloved Gurus Imam Bukhari, Imam Muslim, al-Hakim & Co since they testified to such absurd traditions being authentic and named their books as “Sahih”!

Note: Abrogation excuse will not be accepted here until they bring Mutawatir narrations from their Sahabah about the abrogation of the aforesaid verses.

TEN: Two Surahs namely Surah Hafd and Surah Khul’a are missing from current Quran which were written in the Quran of Ubai bin Ka’b

According to Sunni sources there were two Surahs which were part of that Quran according to the testimonies of the Sahaba and Tabayeen, one of which was Surah Khula:

اللهم إنا نستعينك ونستغفرك ونثني عليك ولا نكفرك، ونخلع ونترك من يفجرك

God, we ask help from You and we ask repentance from You.
And we praise You, and we will not be infidels, and we remove and we leave who are dissolute (Unrestrained by Your laws).

The other was Surah Hafd:

اللهم إياك نعبد ولك نصلي ونسجد وإليك نسعى ونحفد، نرجورحمتك ونخشى عذابك إن عذابك بالكفار

God its You Who we worship , and for You we pray and prostrate ,
and we curry favor with You and we rush for Your obedience , and we hope for Your mercy , and we are afraid from Your anger ,
Your suffer is purchasing the infidels .”

Both of these Surahs were part of a copy of the Quran possessed by the Sahabi Ubai bin Kaab, and were read in the following Sunni books:

  1. Tafseer Dur al Manthur, Volume 4 page 421
  2. al-Itqan (Urdu), Volume 1 page 172-173
  3. Tafseer Ruh al Ma’ani, Volume 1 page 25

We read in Al Itqan:

“The sequence of surahs in Ubai bin Ka’ab’s mushaf was in this manner:
[1]Al Hamd, [2]Al Baqrah, [3 ]Aal e Imran, [4]Al-An’am, [5]Al-Ar`af, [6]…[94] At-Takathur, [95]Al-Qadr, [96]Surat al Khul’a, [97] Surat al Haqd, [98]…”

Al-Itqan by Suyuti, rendered into Urdu by Maulana Muhammad Haleem Ansari, vol. 1 pages 172-173 (Idara Islamiat, Lahore)

Like their beloved companions, do Nawasib such as Sipah e Sahaba have these two surahs in their Quran? This tradition clearly demonstrates that Uthman deleted two surahs from the Quran. What is the Nasibi fatwa here? Or will they by adopting their usual double standard approach, closing their eyes from this serious tradition and focusing their attention on Shia scholars?

Surah Khul’a and Surah Hafd were a part of Ibn Masud’s Mushaf

We read in Tafseer Dur al Manthur, Volume 8 page 696:

وزعم عبيد أنه بلغه أنهما سورتان من القرآن في مصحف ابن مسعود

“Ubaid narrates that he came to know that these two are the surahs from the Quran and are written in the mushaf of Ibn Masud”
Tafseer Dur al Manthur, Volume 8 page 696

Umar used to recite Surah Khula and Surah Hafd in his prayers

We read in al-Itqan (Urdu), Volume 1 page 175:

Umar Ibn al Khattab did Qunut after Ruku [bowing] and recited:
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
God, we ask help from You and we ask repentance from You.
And we praise You, and we will not be infidels, and we remove and we leave who are dissolute (Unrestrained by Your laws).

In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
God its You Who we worship , and for You we pray and prostrate ,
and we curry favor with You and we rush for Your obedience , and we hope for Your mercy , and we are afraid from Your anger ,
Your suffer is purchasing the infidels .”
Itqan fi Uloom al-Quran, Volume 1 page 77

Ibn Abbas had written Surah Khul’a and Surah Haqd in his Quran

We are quoting from the following Sunni books.

  1. Tafseer Dur al Manthur, Volume 6 page 421
  2. Itqan fi Uloom al-Quran, Volume 1 page 77

We read in Al Itqan:

In the Mushaf (Quran) of Ibn Abbas the recital of Abi and Abi Musa was in this manner:

i.e “God, we ask help from you and we ask repentance from You.
We praise You, We will not be infidels, and we remove and we leave who are dissolute (Unrestrained by Your laws).

And this:

God its You Who we praise , and for You we pray and prostrate ,
and we curry favor with You and we rush for Your obedience ,
We are afraid from Your anger , and we hope for Your mercy
Your suffer is purchasing the infidels .”

Itqan fi Uloom al-Quran, Volume 1 page 77

Umaya bin Abdullah would recite both Surahs in his prayers

In Itqan, Volume 1 page 77 we read that a Tabayee namely Umaya bin Abdullah (d. 87 H) used to recite both of these Surahs in prayers:

Tabrani with Sahih chain has narrated from Ibn Ishaq that he said: “In Khurasan Umaya bin Abdullah bin Khalid bin Usaid did imamate for us in prayers and recited both of these Surahs: ‘INNA NASTA3INUKA WA NASTAGHFIRUKA’
Itqan fi Uloom al-Quran, Volume 1 page 77

Comment

These prominent figures amongst Sunnis including their second caliph are clearly announcing that these two Surahs were a part of the Quran. If these companions are indeed true then why did Uthman delete these two Surahs from the Quran? If our opponents offer some excuses, could they enlighten us with answere to the to the following questions:

  • Why did these three prominent companions had those two surahs written in their Mushafs if they were unimportant
  • Why did Uthman not include them in the mushaf when according to Sunni tradition the Prophet (s) issued the instructions that people were to attain knowledge of the Quran from Ibn Masud & Ubai ?
  • What is Nawasib stance on those Sahaba that believed that both Surahs were worthy enough to be written in their Quran (if according to Nawasib they aren’t the part of the Quran) and the scholars who recorded such traditions in their books? Are they ready to declare them infidels?

The abrogation excuse will not be accepted here until they bring Mutawatur Hadith from their Sahabah about the abrogation of the aforesaid verses. Moreover how can they even try to offer the abrogation defence when we learn that their Khalifa Umar and Umaya bin Abdullah would recite both verses in their prayers? Are Nawasib going to suggest that their Khalifa was so ignorant that he was reciting abrogated verses in his Salat? And was no Sahaba present to correct him and point out this major error?

ELEVEN: The Sahabi Ibn Masud’s testimony that Ali (as)’s name was mentioned in Surah Maidah

We read in Holy Quran:

[Shakir 5:67] O Messenger! Deliver what has been revealed to you from your Lord; and if you do it not, then you have not delivered His message, and Allah will protect you from the people; surely Allah will not guide the unbelieving people.

We have relied on the following esteemed Sunni Tafseers of the above mentioned verse.

  1. Tafseer Dur al Manthur, Volume 2 page 297, Surah Maidah verse 67
  2. Tafseer Ruh al Ma’ani, Volume 9 page 193
  3. Tafseer Fatah al Qadeer, Volume 2 page 57, Surah Maidah verse 67
  4.  Tafseer Mazhari, Volume 3 page 353 (published by Daar ul Ishat Karachi)

We read in Tafseer Ruh al Ma’ani:

“Hafiz Ahmed bin Musa bin Mardawayh has narrated with his isnad from Abdullah Ibn Masud that: “During the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (s) we used to recite this verse as:
“O Apostle! Deliver what has been sent down to you from your Lord; ‘that Ali is the Maula of the Momineen’, if you don’t….”

It is quite clear from this tradition that Sunnis believe that Ali(as)’s name was mentioned in the Quran but Uthman due to his resentment towards Maula Ali(as) didn’t include his name when compiling the Quran. If Nawasib without any strong evidence refuse this tradition then we would like to ask them that what compulsion were the Sunni scholars under when they record this tradition in their merits of Ali ibn Abi Talib (as)?

Some Nawasib malign the Shia ulema because they have recorded traditions that shows that Ali (as)’s name was mentioned Quran. We have now provided the opportunity for all Nawasib to ponder over this issue, since according to them anyone who records such traditions in his works becomes believer of distortion in the Quran and is therefore a Kaafir, that automatically engulfs those prestigious Sunni scholars who narrated the testimony of a Sahabi referring to tahreef in the Quran. Isn’t it sheer injustice on the part of the Nawasib that they quickly throw edict of Kufr when such traditions are mentioned by any Shia but when some Sunni scholar records what beloved sahabi narrates, they don’t find any problem with that? Why should they be treated differently to the Shia?

TWELVE: Ibn Masud’s testimony that Ali (as)’s name was mentioned in Surah Ahzab as well

[Shakir 33:25] And Allah turned back the unbelievers in their rage; they did not obtain any advantage, and Allah sufficed the believers in fighting; and Allah is Strong, Mighty.

We have relied on the following esteemed Sunni Tafseers of above mentioned verse:

  1. Tafseer Dur al Manthur, Volume 5 page 192, Surah Ahzab verse 25
  2. Tafseer Ruh al Ma’ani, page 157, chapter 21, verse 25
  3. Ma’arij al Nabuwat by Moin Kashifi, Volume 1 page 163

Allamah Alusi writes in Tafseer Ruh al Ma’ani:

Ibn Mardawayh narrated from Ibn Masud that: “We used to recite this verse as: “and enough was Allah for the believers in their fight ‘via Ali ibn Abi Talib’.”

Allamah Jalaluddin Suyuti writes in Dur al Manthur:

“Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn Mardawayh and Ibn Asakir have narrated from Abdullah Ibn Masud that: “We used to recite this verse in the following manner: “and enough was Allah for the believers in their fight ‘via Ali ibn Abi Talib.”

Dear readers, one of the reasons that the Nasibi ulema have issued takfeer against Shias is that some of the Shia ulema recorded traditions suggesting that Ali (as)’s name was mentioned in Surah Ahzab, from which they have deduced that the Shia ascribe to Tahreef and are therefore Kaafirs. We the Shia would like to return the same fatwa to the Nawasib by saying that the renowned Sunni ulema by recording similar kinds of traditions have also become Kaafirs. If Nawasib are going to refuse to apply takfeer against ibn Masud and the Ulema that narrated his views, then they have no right to issue such Fatwas against the Shias

THIRTEEN: Ibn Masud’s testimony that the term “Aal e Muhammad” was also present in the Quran after the term “Aal e Imran”

We read in Quran:

[Shakir 3:33] Surely Allah chose Adam and Nuh and the descendants of Ibrahim and the descendants of Imran above the nations.

INNA ALLAHA ISTAFA ADAMA WANOOHAN WAALA IBRAHEEMA WAALA AAIMRANA AAALA ALAAALAMEENA
 http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/transliteration/003.html

Important Note: In one of the esteemed Sunni books Tafsir Thalabi by Imam Abu Ishaq Thalabi, it was recorded Abdullah Ibn Masud used to read this verse in a different manner i.e. by adding the words ‘descendants of Muhamad’ but in order to save a great Sahabi from the edicts of Kufr for believing in Tahreef as well as to degrade the merits of Ahlulbayt (as), Nawasib have committed Tahreef in Tafsir Thalabi itself and now this tradition can no longer be found in the book. The tradition was:

Abu Muhammad Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Abdullah al-Kaeni from Abu al-Hassan bin Uthman bin al-Hassan al-Nusaibi from Abu Bakr Muhammad bin al-Hussain bin Saleh al-Subaei from Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Saeed from Ahmad bin Maytham bin Abi Naeem from Abu Janad al-Saloli from al-Amash from Abu Wael that he said: ‘I read in Abdullah ibn Masud’s Mushaf: { Surely Allah chose Adam and Nuh and the descendants of Ibrahim and the descendants of Imran and descendants of Muhammad above the nations.}’

For the najis Nawasib who may still deny that such reference ever existed in Tafsir Thalabi, let us slap their ugly faces with the help of the text recroded by the great Sunni Imam Bahaqi. Bahaqi in his book Lubab al-Ansab wa al-Alqab wa al-Aqab, Volume 1 page 10 quoted the very reference from Tafsir Thalabi:

وذكر الثعلبي في تفسيره عن الأعمش عن أبي وائل أنه قال: قرأت في مصحف عبد الله بن مسعود وآل إبراهيم وآل عمران وآل محمد على العالمين

Thalabi recorded in his Tafsir from al-Amash from Abi Wael that he said: ‘I read in Abullah ibn Masud’s book: ‘The family of Abraham, and the family of Imran and the family of Muhammad above all people’

Having proved the Tahreef committed by the noxious Nawasib in Tafsir Thalabi in order to hide the Tahreef belief of Abdullah Ibn Masud as well as to hide the merit of Ahlulbayt (as), let us now cite this reference from couple of other Sunni sources also. Hasakani al-Hanafi records in Shawahid al-Tanzil, Volume 1 page 152:

عن شقيق قال : قرأت في مصحف عبد الله وهو ابن مسعود { ان الله اصطفى آدم ونوحا وآل إبراهيم وآل عمران وآل محمد على العالمين}

Shaqiq said: ‘I read in Abdullah ibn Masud’s Mushaf ‘{Surely Allah chose Adam and Nuh and the descendants of Ibrahim and the descendants of Imran and descendants of Muhammad above the nations.}’

Imam Abu Hayan Andlasi also records in Tafsir Bahar al-Muheet, Volume 2 page 203:

وقرأ عبد الله : وآل محمد على العالمين

Abdullah used to recite: ‘The descendants of Muhammad above all people’

Dear readers, according to Sunni sources the Prophet (s) ordered the people to learn the Quran from four people that included Abdullah Ibn Masud [Sahih Bukhari Arabic - English Vol 6 hadith number 521] and in the Mushaf of Ibn Masud there was written such a word that enlightens the merits of Ahlulbait(as). Verily the representative of Banu Ummayyah Uthman had the fire of abhorrence burning in his heart (which has now been inherited by Nawasib) which didn’t allow the committee which was collecting the Quran to include the mushaf of Ibn Masud, in fact they burnt the copy of Ibn Masud as well, so that they could burn the merits of Ahlulbait (as).

FOURTEEN: Imam Bukhari’s & Imam Muslim’s enforcement of a tradition pointing to the incompleteness of the Quran

We have relied on the most reliable work of Ahle Sunnah.

  1. Sahih Bukhari, Book of Tafseer (Commentry on Quran)
  2. Fatah al Bari, Volume 8 page 506, Hadith 3771
  3. Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0406 [English]
  4. Sahih Ibn Haban, Volume 14 page 487
  5. Al-Sunnan al-Kubra, by Bayhaqi, Volume 9 page 7

We read in Sahih al Bukhari [Arabic], Book of Tafseer, Hadith 5023:

عن ابن عباس ـ رضى الله عنهما ـ قال لما نزلت ‏{‏وأنذر عشيرتك الأقربين‏}‏ ورهطك منهم المخلصين، خرج رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم حتى صعد الصفا فهتف ‏”‏ يا صباحاه ‏”‏‏.‏ فقالوا من هذا، فاجتمعوا إليه‏.‏ فقال ‏”‏ أرأيتم إن أخبرتكم أن خيلا تخرج من سفح هذا الجبل أكنتم مصدقي ‏”‏‏۔۔۔.

 Narrated Ibn Abbas:
When the Verse:–’And warn your tribe of near-kindred, and thy group of selected people among them’ was revealed Allah’s Apostle went out, and when he had ascended As-Safa mountain, he shouted, “O Sabahah!” The people said, “Who is that?” “Then they gathered around him, whereupon he said, “Do you see? If I inform you that cavalrymen are proceeding up the side of this mountain, will you believe me?” They said, “We have never heard you telling a lie.” Then he said, “I am a plain warner to you of a coming severe punishment.” Abu Lahab said, “May you perish! You gathered us only for this reason? ” Then Abu Lahab went away. So the “Surat:–ul–LAHAB” ‘Perish the hands of Abu Lahab!’ (111.1) was revealed.

Note: The cited version of Hadith can be read in Sahih Bukhari [English] Volume 6, Book 60, Number 495 but the English translator has failed to translate the portion i.e. ‘and thy group of selected people among them’.

Ibn Abbas has used the words “and thy group of selected people among them” along with the words ‏“And warn your tribe of near-kindred” which haven’t been mentioned in the English version of Sahih Bukhari. The translator has committed Tahreef in order to hide the belief in Tahreef of the Quran that would expose his Imam Bukhari or if we adopt the Nasibi definition of Taqqiyah we can safely say that the translator practiced Taqiyah in this case.

The words “‏And warn your tribe of near-kindred” can be read in Holy Quran [verse 26:214] but the former i.e “and thy group of selected people among them” which (according to Sunni sources) had been revealed along with “And warn your tribe of near-kindred” cannot be found in this verse nor any where else in the Quran. Hence the statement of Ibn Abbas proves that those words were also a part of this verse and same view has been endorsed by Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim who included these words from Ibn Abbas in their ‘Sahih’.

Our challenge to Sipah-e-Sahabah and their fellow Nasibi brethren to show us these words from the Quran

It is an open challenge to Nawasib like Sipah e Sahaba and other who have dedicated their cursed lives only for Shia-abhorrence to locate these words mentioned by Ibn Abbas in the present Quran and if they fail, which is certain, then they should issue an edict of Kufr as Imam Bukhari (as he is guilty of believing in Tahrif) in the same that they do against Shia scholars. The abrogation excuse shall not be accepted here until they bring a Sahih or Mutawatur Hadith from their Sahabah about the abrogation of the aforesaid verses. After all it is not only our challenge but the rule set by their school of thought as cited by us in the beginning of this chapter from Al Itqan.

If Nawasib are going to advance their usual abrogation excuse here they should know that there are also traditions in Bukhari wherein the companions after reporting verses clearly stated that they had been abrogated, why that was not the case here?

FIFTEEN: Nasibi belief endorsed by Bukhari & Muslim: Some words which were recited by the Prophet (s) and Sahaba have been deleted from Surah Kahf

Presently we have got the following words in the verses 79 and 80 of Surah Kahf:

[Shakir 18:79] As for the boat, it belonged to (some) poor men who worked on the river and I wished that I should damage it, and there was behind them a king who seized every boat by force.
[Shakir 18:80] And as for the boy, his parents were believers and we feared lest he should make disobedience and ingratitude to come upon them

We are quoting from the following prestigious books of Ahle Sunnah.

  1. Sahih Bukhari [Arabic], Book of Tafseer, Hadith Number 4772
  2. Sahih Muslim [English], Book 030, Number 5864
  3. Sunan Tirmidhi [Arabic], Volume 11 page 427 Hadith 3442
  4. Tafseer Dur al-Manthur, Volume 4 page 227, Surah Kehf verse 79
  5. Tafseer Tabari, Surah Kehf verse 79
  6. Mustadrak al Hakim, Volume 2 page 244 Hadith 2959
  7. Tafseer Fath al Qadeer, Volume 3 page 305
  8. Al-Tamhid by Ibn Abdulbar, Volume 4 page 278
  9. Tafseer al-Qurtubi, Volume 11 page 22

We read in Sahih Bukhari [Arabic], Book of Tafseer, Vol 4 page 1752 Hadith Number 4448:

قال سعيد بن جبير فكان ابن عباس يقرأ وكان أمامهم ملك يأخذ كل سفينة صالحة غصباوكان يقرأ وأما الغلام فكان كافرا وكان أبواه مؤمنين‏. قال سعيد بن جبير فكان ابن عباس يقرأ وكان أمامهم ملك يأخذ كل سفينة صالحة غصباوكان يقرأ وأما الغلام فكان كافرا و كان أبواه مؤمنين‏.‏‏‏‏

“….Saeed bin Jubayr narrated that Ibn Abbas used to recite:
‘And in front (ahead) of them there was a king who used to seize every serviceablev boat by force. [18.79] and used to recite: “and as for the boy he was a disbeliever and his parents were believers” [18.80]

Online Sahih Bukhari [Arabic], Book of Tafseer, Hadith Number 4448

Imam Tirmidhi recorded same thing and has declared the tradition to be ‘Hasan Sahih’:
Sunan Tirmidhi [Arabic], Volume 11 page 427 Hadith 3442

Note: The English translator of Sahih Bukhari in Volume 6, Book 60, Number 251, had no other option than to put the word ‘serviceable’ within brakets so that he the naïve readers may not see this tradition as the one showing the belief of Ibn Abbas in Tahreef of Quran.

Regarding the belief of the Sahabi Ubai bin Kaab about these two verses, we read in Tafseer Dur al Manthur:

“Ubai bin Ka’b used to recite the cited verse as follows:
‘for there was after them a certain king who seized on every serviceable boat by force’ [YA/KHUTHU KULLA SAFEENATIN SALEHAT GHASBAN].”

Tafseer Dur al Manthur, vol 5 page 415, Surah Kehf verse 79

We also read in Tafseer Tabari:

Al-Hasan bin Yahya said that Abdul Razzak told us that Muammar narrated from Qatadah that in Ibn Mas’ud’s writings the verse was in this manner: ‘for there was after them a certain king who seized on every serviceable boat by force’.
Online Tafseer Tabari, No. 17521

We read in Sahih Muslim:

Sa’id b. jubair used to recite (verses 79 and 80 of Sura Kahf) in this way: There was before them a king who used to seize every boat by force which was in order, the boy was an unbeliever.

Now the answer of the question as to why these esteem people used to recite these two verses in this manner is that the verses were revealed in the very manner from the Holy Prophet (s) as Imam Hakim records into the following tradition which has been declared ‘Sahih’ by him:

عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما ، « أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم كان يقرأ : » وكان أمامهم ملك ، يأخذ كل سفينة صالحة غصبا « هذا حديث صحيح الإسناد ، ولم يخرجاه

Ibn Abbas stated: The Holy Prophet used to recite: ‘for there was after them a certain king who seized on every serviceable boat by force’.
Mustadrak al Hakim, Volume 7 page 85 Hadith 2913

Note: The filthy Nawasib have deleted the word ‘SALEHAT’ from various online versions of Mustadrak al-Hakim.

Comment

It is quite clear from the traditions that the Sahaba used to believe that both verses of Surah Kahf had the words ‘serviceable’ [SALEHAT] and ‘he was a disbeliever and’ [FAKAN KAFIRA WA] which cannot be found in the present Quran. What is the Nasibi fatwa here against those scholars who have not only recorded such traditions in their texts but graded them as Sahih? Have the impurely born people of Sipah e Sahabah declared all those people the filthiest Kafirs on the planet? If not then why do they demand such things from Shias?

SISTEEN: The belief of Sipah-e-Sahaba and other Nawasib: An alteration has taken place in Surah Talaq

We read in Surah Talaq:

ا أيها النبي إذا طلقتم النساء فطلقوهن لعدتهن‏

[Yusufali 65:1] O Prophet! When ye do divorce women, divorce them at their prescribed periods,…

But when we read authentic text of Nawasib we come to know that people whom they regard highly used to recite this verse with words that cannot be found in the present Quran.

يا أيها النبي إذا طلقتم النساء فطلقوهن في قبل عدتهن‏‏

“O Prophet! When ye do divorce women, divorce them at the commencement of their prescribed periods”

Allamah Jalaluddin Suyuti records this fact from the most authentic sources of Ahle Sunnah in his Tafseer of the cited verse.

Malik and Shafiyee, Abdurazzaq in Al-Musnaf, Ahmad, Abd bin Hamid, Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, Al Tirmidi, Al Nisa’i, Ibn Majah , Ibn Jurir, Ibn al Munzer, Abu Ya’la Ibn Mardawah and Al Bayhaqi in his Sunan narrated from Ibn Omar that he divorced his wife while she was in her period and Rasulollah (s) was informed about this and He(s) got angry and said : “Let him go to her and hold her until she ends her period, then if he wished he can divorce her a pure divorce before he touches her because this is the “Iddat” that God ordered how the women will be divorced and then prophet (s) recited: “O Prophet! When ye do divorce women, divorce them at the commencement of their prescribed periods”

We also read:

“Ibn Mardawah narrated from Abi-l-Zubayr who from Ibn Umar that, during the time of the Prophet (s) he divorced his wife while she was in her period, so Omar went to the Prophet and mentioned the same to him (s) on which He (s) said: “Order him to go to her and hold her until she ends her period then he can divorce her if he wished” Thus Allah revealed “O Prophet! When ye do divorce women, divorce them at the commencement of their prescribed periods”
Abi-l-Zubayr said: I heard Ibn Umar reciting it like this.”

We further read:

Abdul Razzaq and Abd bin Hamid and Al Tabarani and Ibn Mardaweh narrated from Mujahid (ra) that he said: One day a man asked Ibn Abbas: O Aba Abbas! I divorced my wife 3 times” So Ibn Abbas said: “You didn’t obey your God and made your woman haram on you and you haven’t been pious so that God makes for you a vent, one of you will divorce . Then he said: “O Aba Abbas! God has said: “O Prophet! When ye do divorce women, divorce them in the beginning their prescribed periods” , And like this Ibn Abbas used to recite this verse . 

In order to gauge the primary Sunni sources that contain the above stance of Ibn Abbas, once can consult:

  1. al-Mujam al-Kabir, by Tabarani, Volume 11 page 73
  2. Sharh Ma’ani al-Athaar, by Ibn Salamah, Volume 3 page 58
  3. Al-Sunnan al-Kubra, by Nisai, Volume 6 page 493
  4. Sunnan al-Darqutni, Volume 4 page 11

We read in Sahih Muslim, Book 9, Number 3489:

“… Ibn ‘Umar (Allah be pleased with them) said that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) then recited this verse:” O Apostle, when you divorce women, divorce them at the commencement of their prescribed period” (Ixv 1).
Sahih Muslim [English], Book of Dirvorce Hadith Number 3489

We read in Sunan Abu Daud:

“…The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) recited the Qur’anic verse: O Prophet, when you divorce women, divorce them at the commencement of their waiting period.”
Sunan Abu Daud [English] Book of Divorce Hadith Number 2180

Comment

What about those words which used to be recited by the Holy Prophet (s) and Sahabah but are not written in the present Quran? We see that najis Nawasib such as Haq Nawaz Jhangvi & Azam Tariq dedicated their cursed lives to issuing takfeer against Shias for having traditions in their texts implying tahrif in their books, what prevented them from examining the contents of their own house? Were the young boys that sat in their laps, blocking their view of their hadith books and tafseers that were replete with traditions of tahreef?

SEVENTEEN: Further proof from Bukhari about Tahrif in the Quran

We read in Holy Quran:

[Shakir 2:198] There is no blame on you in seeking bounty from your Lord, so when you hasten on from “Arafat”,

We have relied on the following most prestigious work of Ahle Sunnah.

  1. Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 44 [English]
  2. Fatah al Bari, Volume 8 page186 Chapter 34 Hadith 4519
  3. Sunnan al-kubra, by Bayhaqi, Volume 4 page 333
  4. Al-Mujam al-kabir, by Tabarani, Volume 11 page 93
  5. Tafsir al-Tabari, Volume 2 page 389

We read in Sahih Bukhari:

Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas:
‘Ukaz, Mijanna and Dhul-Majaz were markets during the Pre-islamic Period. They (i.e. Muslims) considered it a sin to trade there during the Hajj time (i.e. season), so this Verse was revealed:– “There is no harm for you if you seek of the Bounty of your Lord during the Hajj season.” (2.198)

Comment

Dear readers as you can see the words “during the Hajj season” has been used in this hadith of Sahih Bukhari along with the words of verse 2:198 which we do not find the former in the present Quran. Imam Bukhari has recorded the testimony of Ibn Abbas (ra) that the cited verse was revealed in that precise manner.

Imam Bukhari has himself left such a weapon for Shias which they can use against Nawasib to show the actual face of the beliefs of their ancestors. As for the Jhangvi cult, if recording traditions about Tahreef is Kufr and it makes the whole sect Kaafirs then Nawasib should head that list, because such proofs can be found in the most authentic books of Sipah e Sahaba (Kr-hcy.com). If they are going to advance lame excuse namely these were not the words of traditions or words of verses rather these were “commentary footnotes” then they should also accept the same explanation advanced by us to explain Tahreef in traditions in our books.

EIGHTEEN: Alteration in the verse of Mut’ah

The Quran we have in our hands have the verse in the following manner:

[Shakir 4:24] … Then as to those whom you profit by, give them their dowries as appointed; and there is no blame on you about what you mutually agree after what is appointed; surely Allah is Knowing, Wise.

In order to prove that the Sahaba and Tabayeen believed in some words to be the a part of this verse, we have relied on the following valued books of Ahle Sunnah:

  1.  Tafseer Durre Manthur, Volume 2 pages 140-141
  2. Tafseer Tabari, Volume 5 pages 14-15
  3. Tafseer Kabeer, Volume 3 page 94
  4. Fatah al Qadeer, Volume 1 page 14
  5. Tafseer Ibn Katheer, Volume 1 page 84
  6. Tafseer Ruh al Maani, Volume 5 page 5
  7. Tafseer Kashaf, Volume 1 page 20
  8. Tafseer Mazhari, Volume 2 page 4
  9. Tafseer Ahkam al Quran al-Jassas, Volume 2 page 47
  10. Tafseer Mu’alim al Tanzeel, page 414
  11. Mustadrak Al Hakim, volume 2 page 47
  12. Al Musahif by Abi Bakr Sijistani, page 3
  13. Tafseer Mawahib al Rahman, page 4 part 5
  14. Tafseer Haqqani, Vol 2 page 3 (published in 1956, Deoband UP. India)
  15. Tafseer Jama Al Bayan, Volume 1 page 66
  16. Neel al Awtar, Volume 6 page 53 Chapter: The abrogation of Nikah al-Mutah
  17. Tafseer Qurtabi, Volume 5 page 30
  18. Sharh Muwatta by Zarqani, Volume 1 page 54
  19. Kitab al Musahaf, page 342
  20. Al Bahar al Maheet, Volume 3 page 218
  21. Maini al-Quran, Volume 2 page 61
  22. Tafseer Manar, Volume 5 page 5
  23. Sharh Sahih Muslim of al-Nawawi, Volume 9 page 179
  24. Umdat al-Qari Shrah Sahih Bukhari, Volume 18 page 208
  25. Tafsir Thalabi, Volume 3 page 286
  26. Tafsir Samarqandi v1 p320
  27. Al-Ujab fi bayan al-asbab by Ibn Hajar, Volume 2 page 858

We read in Mustadrak:

“Narrated from Ibn Abbas that he would read this verse with the words: “Then as to those whom you profit by for a prescribed period give them their dowries as appointed..”

Imam Hakim declared the tradition to be Sahih as per the grading conditions set by Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim whilst Imam Dhahabi in his margin of ‘Mustadrak’ deemed it Sahih on the conditions of Imam Muslim. Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti records:

Narrated Abed bin Hamid, ibn Jarir, al-Anbari in his book al-Musahif and al-Hakim and he declared the chain as Sahih from Abi Nadhra who said: ‘I recited before Ibn Abbas ‘ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers’. Ibn Abbas said: ‘ye derive benefit from them for a prescribed period. I said: ‘We don’t recite it like this’. Ibn Abbas said: ‘By Allah it was revealed like that.’

Beside Ibn Abbas, Ibn Masud, Ibn Jubayr and Ubai bin Ka’ab, many other prominent figures also recited the verse with the words ‘for a prescribed period’ and that includes Al-Sedi (Tafseer Tabari v5 p18, Tafseer Ibn Kathir v1 p486), Talha bin Musraf (Tafsir Thalabi v3 p286) and Muqatil (Tafsir Samarqandi v1 p320, Al-Ujab fi bayan al-asbab by Ibn Hajar v2 p858).

Comments

The testimony of the Sahaba proves that the words “for a prescribed period” were also there in Quran in the verse of Mutah and if that was indeed the case then it proves that Uthman committed blatant transgression by deleting these words from the Quran which could only be to:

  • suppress news of the open secret about the Caliph’s daughter Asma Bin Abu Bakr who practiced Mutah
  • veil Umar’s opposition to Allah’s words by prohibiting Mutah.

If Nawasib are going to play their usual ‘abrogation game’ then they need to prove the abrogation of the words “for a prescribed period” through Mutawatir narrations and also show us the abrogating verse.

NINETEEN: The mothers of the believers & other Sahaba did not believe in the present Quran and suggested that verse 2:238 had been tampered with

We read in the Quran:

[Shakir 2:238] Attend constantly to prayers and to the middle prayer and stand up truly obedient to Allah.

238. HAFITHOO AAALA ALSSALAWATI WAALSSALATI ALWUSTA WAQOOMOO LILLAHI QANITEENA
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/transliteration/002.html

Regarding the testimony of Ayesha about Tahreef having taken place in the verse under discussion, we are using following prestigious books of Ahle Sunnah as proof:

  1. Sahih Muslim Book 004, Number 1316 [English]
  2. Al Musahif by Abi Bakr Sijistani page 94
  3. Tafseer Dur al Manthur Volume 1, page 302, Surah Baqrah Verse 230
  4. Tafseer al-Tabari, Volume 3 page 348
  5. Fatah al Bari, Volume 8 page 197 Hadith 4522
  6. Musnad Ahmad, Volume 6 page 73
  7. Sunnan Abi Dawoud, Volume 1 page 102
  8. Sunnan Termidi, Volume 4 page 285
  9. Sunnan Nisai, Volume 1 page 236
  10. Sunnan al-Kubra, by Bayhaqi, Volume 1 page 462
  11. Sharh Ma’ani al-athaar, by ibn Salamah, Volume 1 page 172

Sahih Muslim:

Abu Yunus, the freed slave of ‘A’isha said: ‘A’isha ordered me to transcribe a copy of the Qur’an for her and said: When you reach this verse: “Guard the prayers and the middle prayer” (ii. 238), inform me; so when I reached it, I informed her and she gave me dictation (like this): Guard the prayers and the middle prayer and the afternoon prayer, and stand up truly obedient to Allah. ‘ A’isha said: This is what I have heard from the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him).

Note: The words “and the afternoon prayer” [WASALAT AL ASR] cannot be found in the verse 2:238 in the Quran compiled by Uthman.

The testimony of a lady from the ‘Sidiq’ family shall be enough for the Nawasib to deem Uthman guilty of deliberately altering the Quran by deleting the words “and the afternoon prayer” from it. The famous excuse by Nawasib about abrogation will certainly not work here, because abrogation could only have occurred during the life of the Holy Prophet (s), had this verse been abrogated during the life of the Prophet (s) why did Ayesha want it placed in the Quran? Our readers do not need reminding that making additions to the words of Allah (swt) is a grave sin.

If Nawasib are still not satisfied then allow us to advance the words of a star from the ‘Farooq’ family from the following esteemed Sunni books:

  1. Sahih Ibn Haban, Volume 14 page 228
  2. Sunnan al-Kubra, by Bayhaqi, Volume 1 page 462
  3. Sharh Ma’ani al-Athaar, by ibn Salamah, Volume 1 page 172
    vTafseer Tabari, Volume 2 page 764
  4. Tafseer Dur al Manthur Volume 1 page 302

Let us quote from Tafseer Dur al Manthur wherein Suyuti has recorded the narration from various high ranking primary sources:

Abu Rafee the slave of Hafsa said: ‘Hafsa ordered me to write a Mushaf for her and said: ‘Come to me when you come across this verse so that I dictate it to you in the manner that I learnt it. Then when I came across the verse ‘{Guard the prayers}’ she said: ‘Write ‘{Guard the prayers and the middle prayer and the afternoon prayer }’’
Tafseer Dur al Manthur Volume 1, page 721

We would also like to advance the words of Umme Salama (ra) recorded in “Al Musahif” authored by Sunni scholar Abi Bakr Sajistani the son of the author of Sunan Abu Daud:

“Umro Bin Rafa` narrates: “Umme Salama asked me to write a Mushaf for her and she asked me to inform her when I arrived at the verse “HAFITHOO AAALA ALSSALAWATI WAALSSALATI ALWUSTA”. Therefore when I reached this verse I informed her about it and she made me write this verse with the words “ASALAT AL ASR” after the words “WASALAT AL WAST”.

Similar things have also been recorded from Ibn Abbas (Sunan al-Kubra, by Bayhaqi, v1 p463 & Tafseer Tabari, v2 p764) and from the Sahabi al-Bara bin Azeb (al-Mustadrak, v2 p281).

Comment

We have come to know that according to the wives of the Prophet the verse is supposed to be:

Guard the prayers and the middle prayer and the afternoon prayer, and stand up truly obedient to Allah.

If Nawasib are going to bring their abrogation excuse here again to explain the words ‘and the afternoon prayer’ could they kindly tell us why the wives of the Holy Prophet (s) issued a special instruction to the writers to insert these ‘abrogated’ words in their respective Mushafs? We see that none of the said wives of the Holy Prophet (s) said anything to suggest that these additional words they used in this verse were abrogated, rather they all said: “This is what I have heard from the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him).”

By inserting these words into their respective Mushafs; Ayesha, Hafsah and Ume Salma (ra) proved that Uthman erred by not including these words when compiling the Quran, or these ladies believed that tahreef had been made to the Quran. Now who was mistaken here? Whoever was mistaken had committed a mistake of such severity that it placed their faith in danger.

TWENTY: Ayesha believed that the Quran compiled by Uthman was a victim of tahreef

We shall rely on the following esteemed books of Ahle Sunnah to prove this:

  1. Al-Itqan (Urdu), Volume 2 page 65
  2. Tafseer Dur al Manthur, Volume 5 page 220, verse of salutation
  3. Al Musahif, page 95, Zikr Mushaf e Ayesha

Allamah Jalaluddin Suyuti records in Al-Itqan:

“Hameedah Bint Yunus narrates: “My father [Abi] who was 80 years old recited for me the verse of salutation from the Mushaf of Ayesha with the following words:
i.e Allah and His angels send blessings on the Prophet: O ye that believe! Send ye blessings on him, and salute him with all respect. And on those who came to the first lines of prayers
This verse was in this very manner before Uthman had made changes to the Quran.”

The verse in the present Quran is as follows:

[Yusufali 33:56] Allah and His angels send blessings on the Prophet: O ye that believe! Send ye blessings on him, and salute him with all respect.

We can see that according to the Mushaf of Ayesha “And on those who came to the first lines of prayers” was the part of the verse [33:56] whilst Hameedah bin Yunus leveled a serious charge against Uthman by asserting ‘This verse was in this very manner before Uthman had made changes to the Quran’.

Dear readers, we now understand why the dirty Nawasib of Sipah-e-Sahaba (Kr-Hcy.com) are always found yapping about the topic of “Mushaf Fatima (as)” and making it an issue of tahreef. The reality is the Mushaf e Fatima had nothing to do with divine instructions for humans. The main tactic of Nawasib here is to divert the attention of their ignorant masses from the Mushaf-e-Ayesha and Co. that contained different versions of verses that cannot be located in the present Quran.

The words from the Mushaf of Ayesha are in front of you as is the act of Uthman who altered the words of the Quran (according to Sunni reports). Had somebody else made alterations to the Quran, he would have been declared the worst Kaafir by Nawasib but they suffer from blindness when they are confronted with ‘Sunni’ historical evidence documenting willful Uthman’s distortion of the Quran.

TWENTY ONE:Umar did not believe that the word ‘and’ was a part of Surah Taubah verse 100

We know that words like ‘and’ creates a huge difference in terms of meanings in general literature, the case is greater with the Holy Quran. Amazingly we read that that in verse 100 of Surah Taubah, Umar was believed that “WA” that means ‘and’ was not a part of this verse whilst it is in the present Quran. The verse in the present Quran is as follows:

100. WAALSSABIQOONA AL-AWWALOONA MINA ALMUHAJIREENA WAAL-ANSARI WAALLATHEENA ITTABAAAOOHUM BI-IHSANIN RADIYA ALLAHU AAANHUM WARADOO AAANHU WAAAAADDA LAHUM JANNATIN TAJREE TAHTAHA AL-ANHARU KHALIDEENA FEEHA ABADAN THALIKA ALFAWZU ALAAATHEEMU
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/transliteration/009.html

Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti records:

Umar recited the verse ‘WAALSSABIQOONA AL-AWWALOONA MINA ALMUHAJIREENA WAAL-ANSARI ALLATHEENA ATABAOUHEM BEAHSAN’ and did not insert ‘WA’[and] before ‘ALLATHEENA’. Zaid bin Thabit told him that it was ‘WAL WAALLATHEENA’ whilst Umar said it was ‘ALLATHEENA’. Zaid bin Thabit said: ‘Umar knows better’. Umar then summoned Ubai Bin Kaab, who said:’Yes, its WAALLATHEENA’. Then Umar said: ‘All right then recite it in this way.’

We also read that Umar was humiliated by another Sahabi Ubai when discussing the cited verse. Allamah Jalaluddin Suyuti records in Tafseer Dur al Manthur, Volume 3 page 269, Surah Taubah verse 100:

“Umar recited the verse “WAALSSABIQOONA AL-AWWALOONA MINA ALMUHAJIREENA WAAL-ANSARI WAALLATHEENA” and did not insert “WA” before “ALLATHEENA”. Zaid bin Thabit told him that it was “WAL WAALLATHEENA” whilst Umar said it was “ALLATHEENA”. Zaid bin Thabit said: “Umar knows better”. Umar summoned Ubai bin Ka`b.Ubai told Umar:“Yes! I have taken this word in exactly the same way from the tongue of the Holy Prophet (s)”. Umar asked: “Have you really taken this word exactly from the Prophet’s tongue?” Abi got furious and replied: “By Allah! He (swt) revealed the Quran on Gebrial and Gebrail revealed it on the Prophet’s heart and Allah (swt) hasn’t taken suggestions from Khatab or from his son when revealing the Quran.”
Tafseer Dur al Manthur, Surah Taubah verse 100

The above cited incident not only proves Umar’s ignorance on knowledge of Quran but it also proves that there was distortion in the Mushaf of Umar. He had for a long period continued reading and believing that this verse did not include the word ‘and’.

TWENTY TWO: Umar believed in a different version of Surah Fatihah

We have relied on the following esteemed works of Ahle Sunnah to prove this:

  1. Tafseer Dur al Manthur, Volume 1 page 15
  2. Al Musahif, page 60 by Abi Bakr Sajistani

In the present Quran, Muslims read Surah Fatihah with the following words, five times a day during prayers:

SIRATA ALLATHEENA ANAAAMTA AAALAYHIM GHAYRI ALMAGHDOOBI AAALAYHIM WALA ALDDALLEENA
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/transliteration/001.html

But Ibn Khatab had his own version of Surah Fatihah. We read in Tafseer Dur al Manthur:

Al-Musahif:

“Umar would recite this verse as: “SIRATA MIN ANAAAMTA AAALAYHIM GHAYRI ALMAGHDOOBI AAALAYHIM WA GHAYRI WALA ALDDALLEENA”
Al Musahif, page 60

We deem it a good apportunity to mention the author of Book ‘al Musahif’ Abdullah bin Sulaiman bin Al-Ashath bin Ishaq Al-Sejestani the son of Abu Dawood the author of Sunnan Abu Dawood. According to Darqatni he is Thiqa [Tadkerat Al-Hufaz v2 p771, Tarikh Baghdad v9 p468]. While Abu Hamed bin Asad Al-Maktib said: ‘I never saw some one in knowledge than Abdullah bin Al-Ashath’ [Tarikh Baghdad v9 p465]. Imam Dhahabi also declared him Thiqa [Al-Siar fi Al'am Al-Nubala, v14 p505].

Dear readers, the Tahreef issue that Sipah e Sahaba deem the prime reason for declaring others as Kaafir has trapped their Godfather in its machinery, since he was the grand champion in the field of Tahreef believeing that Surah Fateha contained the words ‘WA GHAYR’ that cannot be found in the present Quran and he did not recite the words ‘ALLATHEENA’ which we do have.

The cornerstone of faith lies in Surah Fateha. This verse in effect summaries the entire Deen. Its importance can be evidenced by the fact that every believer who prays five times a day makes this supplication at least 17 times. This is taught to Muslim children at a young age, since it is the first Surah that we teach our children, since it gets them ready to learn to pray. With this in mind how could Umar have been so ignorant? If he didn’t even know the correct recital of Surah Fateha what credence should be given to anything he says? It is a amazingly that the Ahle Sunnah have traditions wherein Rasulullah (s) interpreted dreams pointed to the superior knowledge of Umar – how can this be the case when he was not even able to provide the correct recitation of Surah Fateha. How long did Umar continue to read this incorrect recital? As Khaleefa did no Sahaba ever challenge his recital – or were they likewise ignorant of the correct recitation of this verse? What sort of Khaleefa is this, one that couldn’t even correctly recite Surah Fateha? This is like a Christian not knowing the correct recital of the Lords prayer. It beggars belief that despite this blatant ignorance, the Ahle Sunnah still assert that Umar was one of the shining lights of Islamic knowledge!

TWENTY THREE: Nasibi belief in Tahrif: The words “WAL MUHAJIROON FI SABIL ILLAH” have been deleted from two places in the Quran

We read in Tafseer Dur al Manthur, Volume 6 page 192, Surah Hashr:

“A’mash states that in respect of Halal and Haram, the difference between the copies [Mushaf] of Abdullah Ibn Masud and Zaid Bin Thabit is that in Surah Infaal words ‘And know that whatever thing you gain, a fifth of it is for Allah and for the Messenger and for the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer‘ [Surah Infaal, verse 41] and in Surah Hashr words ‘Whatever Allah has restored to His Messenger from the people of the towns, it is for Allah and for the Messenger, and for the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and those who have left their homes in Allah’s cause‘ [Surah Hashr, verse 7]

Nawasib like Sipah e Sahaba have created the ‘abrogation excuse’ but by doing so they have exposed their beloved sahaba as liars. Let us apply their defence to the facts:

  • Ayesha said that there were verses that were recited from the Quran that were subsequently eaten by a goat,
  • Umar stated that had it not been his fear of the people, he would have added the verse of stoning the Quran,
  • Amash stated the words ‘and those who have left their homes in Allah’s cause’[WAL MUHAJIROON FI SABIL ILLAH] have been deleted from two different places in the Quran

Despite these clear statement Nasibi Mullahs automatically suggest that the testimonies of all three individuals referred to aboragated verses! Can this really be gauged from these three opinions? No douby some of their Mullaf will immediately argue that these are weak or fabricated traditions, if this is indeed the case the they are exposing their eminent scholars as liars and fabricators. If we accept that the explanations offered by Nawasib are true why are they not prepared to accept our exolanations of such traditions in our texts? If these excuses are acceptable to defend your beliefs then the same should go for us. You cant have one rule for yourselves and another rule for your opponents, that is not justice.

TWENY FOUR: According to Sahabi Ubai, words ‘FIL WAADI’ are missing from the present Quran

We read in Surah Aal e Imran, verse 153:

“Behold! ye were climbing up the high ground”

153. ITH TUSAAIDOONA WALA TALWOONA AAALA AHADIN
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/transliteration/003.html

We read in Tafseer Dur al Manthur:

“Ibn Jarir said that Haroon stated that Abi Bin Kaab used to recite the cited verse as: “Behold! ye were climbing up the valley [ITH TUSAAIDOONA FIL WAADI]”.

We do not find the word “FIL WAADI” in the present Quran. What is the Nasibi fatwa here? The narrators are yours, the books are yours, the author is yours, the translator is yours, the publisher is yours, so why this mulish attitude?

TWENTY FIVE: An alphabtet has been added to the Mushaf of Uthman that was not in the Mushaf of Ibn Masud

We read in Surah Yusuf :

… وَفَوْقَ كُلِّ ذِي عِلْمٍ عَلِيمٌ

[Shakir 12:76] .. and above every one possessed of knowledge is the All-knowing one.

We read in Tafseer Ibn Kathir:

Abdullah bin Masud read the Ayah this way:
‘And above every scholar, is the All-Knower (Allah).’’

http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=12&tid=24999

Do we need to comment any further here?

TWENTY SIX: Nasibi proof about tahrif in the 6th verse of Surah Ahzab

We read in the Holy Quran:

[Yusufali 33:6] The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves, and his wives are their mothers.

Ibn Jarir Tabari records in his esteemed commentary of Quran:

“Bushr from Yazid from Sai’d from Qatadah that he said: Some used to recite: “The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves, and his wives are their mothers and he is their father.
Online Tafsir Tabari, Tradition 21597

Nawasib cannot advance their usual abrogation or difference of recitation kinds of excuse here due to the fact that their caliph Umar initially did not deem these extra words to be a part of Quran but following discussions with Ubay bin Ka’ab he suffered his customary humilation at his hands. We read in Tafsir Dur al Manthur:

“Abd ARazaq and Sa’eed Ibn Mansoor and Ishaq ibn Rahuwayh and Ibn Munzir and Al Bayhaqi have narrated from Bujalah that he said: Umar passed by a youth who was reading in a mushaf “The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves, and his wives are their mothers and he is their father , so he (Umar) said: “Young boy talk about it”. The youth then said: “This is the mushaf of Ubay (Ubay bin Ka’ab)”. So Umar went to Ubay and asked him about it (the addition) to which Ubay replied: “I used to be busy with the Quran whilst you were busy shopping in the markets. “
Tafsir Dur al Manthur, commentary of verse 6 Surah Ahzab

Accompanying Ahle Sunna’s first Imam of Taraweeh prayers Ubai bin Ka’b we have another prominent companion Ibn Abbas (ra) that likewise recited these words. Allamah Jalaluddin Suuti records:

“Al Firyabi ‏and Ibn Mardaweyh and al Hakim and al Bayhaqi in his Sunan narrated from Ibn Abbas (ra) that he used to read this verse: “The prophet has more authority over the believers than themselve s and he is their father and his wives are their mothers “

TWENTY SEVEN: A verse recited by Ubay bin Ka’b is not written in the present Quran; Tahrif in Surah Fatah

We read in the Holy Quran:

“When those who disbelieved harbored in their hearts (feelings of) disdain, the disdain of (the days of) ignorance, but Allah sent down His tranquillity on His Messenger and on the believers, and made them keep the word of guarding (against evil), and they were entitled to it and worthy of it; and Allah is Cognizant of all things.” 48:26

We read in the following authentic sources of Ahle Sunnah that companion of the Holy Prophet (s) Ubay bin K`ab would recite some additional words to this verse.

  1. Sunan Nisai Vol 6 page 463, No. 11505
  2. Al Mustadrak al Hakim, Vol 2 page 225
  3. Kanz ul Ummal Vol 2, No. 4815
  4. Tafsir Dur al Manthur Vol 7, tafsir for surah fath

Sunan Nisai:

أنا إبراهيم بن سعيد نا شبابة بن سوار عن أبي زبر عبد الله بن العلاء بن زبر عن بسر بن عبيد الله عن أبي إدريس عن أبي بن كعبأنه كان يقرأ إذ جعل الذين كفروا في قلوبهم الحمية حمية الجاهلية ولو حميتم كما حموا لفسد المسجد الحرام فبلغ ذلك عمر فأغلظ له قال إنك لتعلم أني كنت أدخل على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فيعلمني مما علمه الله فقال عمر بل أنت رجل عندك علم وقرآن فاقرأ وعلم مما علمك الله ورسوله قوله تعالى لقد رضي الله عن المؤمنين إذ يبايعونك تحت الشجرة

Ibrahim Ibn Sa’eed narrated from Shebabah Ibn Suwar from Abdallah ibn Al’ala’ from Basr ibn Abdallah from Abi Idrees from Ubay ibn Ka’ab, that he read:

‘(48:26) When those who disbelieved harbored in their hearts (feelings of) disdain, the disdain of (the days of) ignorance, and if you had felt disdain like they felt, the masjid e haram would have been corrupted

Haven’t the Fitnah mongers of Sipah-e-Sahaba and the Salafi/Wahabi movement witnessed such traditions in their authentic texts that demonstrate that an entire verse was not written into the the current Quran, even though it was recited by a prominent Sahabi? What is their edict against Ubai bin Ka’ab who believed that the aforesaid words were a part of the Quran whilst other Sahaba digressed with him?

Sunan al Nasai Kubra can be downloaded from the following Wahabi website
Sunan al Nasai Kubra (Vol 10. No. 11441)

TWENTY EIGHT: According to Ibn Masud, Ibn Abbas & Ubai bin Kaab, deletion of words has been committed in Surah Nisa verse 79

In order to prove that the Sahaba did not believe in the present form of this verse, we have relied on the following esteemed Sunni books:

  1. Tafsir al-Sam’ani, Volume 1 page 451
  2. Tafsir Qurtubi, Volume 5 page 286
  3. Fateh al-Qadir, Volume 1 page 490
  4. Ruh al-Ma’ani, Volume 5 page 90
  5. Tafseer Dur al Manthur, Volume 2 page 597

We read in Quran, 4:79:

Whatever benefit comes to you (O man!), it is from Allah, and whatever misfortune befalls you, it is from yourself .

But according to three great Sahaba namely Abdullah Ibn Masud, Ibn Abbas and Ubai bin Kaab the words ‘and I have recorded for you’ have been deleted from the verse. We read:

عن مجاهد قال : هي في قراءة أبي بن كعب وعبد الله بن مسعود ” ما أصابك من حسنة فمن الله وما أصابك من سيئة فمن نفسك وأنا كتبتها عليك “

Mujahid said: ‘According to Ubai bin Kaab and Ibn Masud’s recitation its: ‘Whatever benefit comes to you (O man!), it is from Allah, and whatever misfortune befalls you, it is from yoursel, and I have recorded that about you
Tafseer Dur al Manthur, Volume 2 page 597

Similarly we read:

من طريق مجاهد أن ابن عباس كان يقرأ ” وما أصابك من سيئة فمن نفسك وأنا كتبتها عليك “

Mujahid narrates that ibn Abbas used to recite: ‘Whatever benefit comes to you (O man!), it is from Allah, and whatever misfortune befalls you, it is from yourself, and I have recorded that about you
Tafseer Dur al Manthur, Volume 2 page 597

So according to these three esteemed Sahaba, the words ‘and I have recorded that about you’ have been deleted from the version of the Quran we today have in our hands and as usual, the present day Nawasib have to choose between these three esteemed Sahaba and Uthman & Co. in order to attribute responsibility of committing Tahreef in the Quran, it was either:

  • the above cited Sahaba who sinned by believing that the verse contaned additional words not present in the Quran, or:
  • it was Uthman & Co. who deleted these words and were hence guilty of commiting Tahreef to the Quran.

TWENTY NINE: The goat of Ayesha ate the verses of suckling from the Quran

In order to back up our point, we have relied on the following esteemed books of Ahle Sunnah:

  1. Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3421
  2. Sunan Ibn Majah, page 141, Book of suckling
  3. Sunan Darqutni, page 500, Book of suckling
  4. Hayat al Haiwan, Volume 4 page 463, Lughat Rawajan
  5. Al Muhazraat, Volume 4 page 433
  6. Tafseer Ruh al Mani, Volume 4 page 254

We read Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3421:

‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with, her) reported that it had been revealed in the Holy Qur’an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings and Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) died and it was before that time (found) in the Holy Qur’an (and recited by the Muslims).

Whilst there is not much difference between the original Arabic words of the tradition and the official English translation, yet we would like to mention a more accurate English translation of the tradition:

عن عائشة انها قالت كان فيما انزل من القرآن عشر رضعات معلومات يحرمن ثم نسخن بخمس معلومات فتوفي رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وهن فيما يقرأ من القرآن

“Ayesha said: It had been revealed in the Quran that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated by five clear suckling, then Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) died and the verse was recited as part of Quran”

We read the following words of Ayesha in Sunan Ibn Majah which has been declared ‘Hasan’ by Imam Nasiruddin Albaani:

“When the verse of stoning and verse of suckling descended, they were written on a piece of paper and kept under my pillow. Following the demise of Prophet Muhammad (S) a goat ate the piece of paper whilst we were mourning.” 
 Sunan Ibn Majah [Arabic], Book of Suckling, Hadith No. 2020

Dear readers, the blasphemy committed by Ayesha against the Quran namely her claim that the verses about stoning and suckling were eaten by a goat merits closer attention. Had this thing been said by someone else, the ‘kufr’ drum of Nasibi mullahs would have been continuously played, but since these words have been uttered from the tongue of one they venerate, their jaws have become locked. The words of Ayesha clearly shows that she didn’t have belief in the completeness of the present Quran. It is therefore upto the Nawasib to decide on which category they want to place Ayesha. The excuse offered by Ayesha has put Nawasib in a fix.

Replies to the Nasibi excuse that the verse of suckling was abrogated

One: Ayesha did not claim any such thing

Some Nawasib in order to defend Ayesha from their own fatwas suggest that the verse of five sucklings was abrogated. We should point out that Ayesha referred to the abrogation of ten sucklings but didn’t mention anything about the abrogation of five sucklings. How can Nawasib place words into Ayesha’s mouth by claiming that the verse about five sucklings was also abrogated? Let us not forget that they must comply to the law of providing Mutawatir traditions evidencing the abrogation of those particular words, personal views and the conjecture albeit those of exalted jurists are not applicable in such a case. Crucially, how can they avoid this sentence of Ayesha i.e “Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) died and it was before that time (found) in the Holy Qur’an (and recited by the Muslims).”

According Ayesha the verse was written in the Quran and was recited by Muslims before the Prophet’s death so how do these Nawasib want to suggest that the verse of five sucklings was abrogated following the death of the Prophet (s)? Do they regard Abu Bakr as a Prophet?

Two: Sunni jurists not believing in the prohibiation of marriage due to five sucklings proves that they don’t believe in its abrogation

According to Sunnies, initially it was ten sucklings that used to make the marriage prohibited but this rule was subsequently abrogated and was replaced with five sucklings but then again, this verse was abrogated in terms of recitation but this ruling remained intact in Sharia. Our reply is that Ayesha didn’t claim any such thing moreover the Sunni jurists not having a consensus on the prohibition of marriage due to ‘five’ sucklings proves that the abrogation excuse in the case of the verse of suckling carries no weight. We shall rely on the following valued Sunni Books to evidence this.

  1. Tubyeen al-Haqaiq Sharh Kanz al-Daqaiq, Volume 1 page 146
  2. Tafseer Dur al Manthur, Volume 2 page 135, Surah Nisa verse 28
  3. Al-Fiqh ala al-Madahib al-Arba, Volume 4 page 142
  4. Nail al-Awtar, Volume 7 page 70
  5. Zaad al-Maad, Volume 5 page 507

Shaykh Jazari records in his famed work Al-Fiqh ala al-Madahib al-Arba:

أن الشافعية والحنابلة يقولون إن الرضاع لا يحرم إلا إذا كان خمس مرات ، والمالكية والحنفية يقولون إن الرضاع يحرم مطلقاً قليلاً كان أو كثيراً ولو قطرة

“The Shafiyees and Hanbalis say that suckling does not prohibit (marriage) unless if it was five times, while Malikis and Hanafis say that suckling prohibits (marriage) no matter if it was less or more and even if it was single drop.”

Imam Shawkani records in Nail al-Awtar:

وذهب الجمهور إلى إن الرضاع الواصل إلى الجوف يقتضى التحريم وان قل

“The majority believe that suckling prohibits (marriage) even if it was less (than five).”

Imam of Salafies and Wahabies Ibn Qayim records in Zaad al-Maad:

وقالت طائفة أخرى : لا يثبت التحريم بأقل من ثلاث رضعات وهذا قول أبي ثور وأبي عبيد وابن المنذر وداود بن علي

Another group said that prohibition is established from three times and that is the opinion of Abi Thawr, Abi Ubaid, Ibn al-Munder and Dawoud bin Ali.

Hanafi Imam Fakhruddin Uthman bin Muhhajjin Albarti Azeli writes in Tubyeen al-Haqaiq:

“Imam Shafiyee states that a woman doesn’t get unlawful except when she suckles five times to completion, because Ayesha had said that the Holy Quran contained the order about suckling ten times, but then it was abrogated and changed to five. When the Prophet (s) passed away, this was still being recited in the Holy Quran. This has been narrated by Muslim.”

In reply he writes:

This statement doesn’t prove that five time sucklings would establish the unlawfulness because Ayesha has said that it is the verse of the Holy Quran. She has said that it was the verse of a Quran that was placed below my bed, but after the demise of the Prophet (s) whilst we were busy in his funeral rites, a few goats entered and ate that Quran.
Therefore it is proven that it was not a part of the Quran because it is not Mutwatir and it is not permissible to recite it nor to can it be added to the Quran and it is not permissible to comply with it

The first and last underlined sentences of Imam Fakhruddin unequically reject the rule of the prohibition of marriage due to five sucklings and leaves Ayesha prone to the edict of beliving in Tahreef of Quran since she believed the ruling to be a part of the Quran.

THIRTY: Ayesha and Umar believed in the lost verse of stoning and Umar’s Taqiyya prevented him from adding it into the Quran

In this particular case, we are not going to dispute the abrogation of the verse of Rajam rather our sole concern will revolve around specifically to Ayesha’s and Umar’s belief regarding the said verse, according to whom this verse was ‘lost’ after the death of Prophet (s) and not abrogated and therefore Umar intended to write this verse into Quran with his own hands.

  1. Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8 & Volume 9
  2. Sahih Muslim, Volume 2 page 42
  3. Sunan Ibn Majah, page 182, kitab al hudood
  4. Sunan Abu Daud, page 148, kitab al hudood
  5. Musnad Ahmed bin Hanbal, Volume 1 page 274, Hadeeth 273
  6. Tafseer Ibn Kathir, Volume 3 page 261, Surah Noor
  7. Tafseer Dur al Manthur, Volume 5 page 880
  8. Al Itqan fi Uloom al Quran, Volume 2 page 32
  9. Al Muhazraat, Volume 4 page 423
  10. Sunnan al-Kubra, by Bayhaqi, Volume 8 page 211
  11. Musnad al-Shafiyee, page 164
  12. Al-Musanaf, by Ibn Abi Shayba, Volume 6 page 553
  13. Sunnan al-Kubra, by Nisai, Volume 4 page 273
  14. Marifat al-Sunnan wa al-Athaar, by Bayhaqi, v6 p323
  15. Tarikh Baghdad, Volume 3 page 190

We read in Sahih al-Bukhari Volume 8 Hadith 817

“….’Umar sat on the pulpit and when the callmakers for the prayer had finished their call, ‘Umar stood up, and having glorified and praised Allah as He deserved, he said:….. Allah sent Muhammad with the Truth and revealed the Holy Book to him, and among what Allah revealed, was the Verse of the Rajam (the stoning of married person (male & female) who commits illegal sexual intercourse, and we did recite this Verse and understood and memorized it. Allah’s Apostle did carry out the punishment of stoning and so did we after him.
I am afraid that after a long time has passed, somebody will say, ‘By Allah, we do not find the Verse of the Rajam in Allah’s Book,’ and thus they will go astray by leaving an obligation which Allah has revealed …..”

In another Hadith which is narrated without any Hadith number in Bukhari, we read about the Taqiyyah practiced by Umar wherein he failed to add those verses in Quran due to his fear of the people. This tradition is in the title of one of the chapter of Bukhari. Fortunately, it was translated by the translator. Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic-English version, Vol 9, p212 between Traditions 281 and 282 of Volume 9:

(21) CHAPTER. If a judge has to witness in favor of a litigant when he is a judge or he had it before he became a judge (can he pass a judgment in his favor accordingly or should he refer the case to another judge before whom he would bear witness?). And the judge Shuraih said to a person who sought his witness, “Go to the ruler so that I may bear witness (before him) for you.” And ‘Ikrima said, “Umar said to ‘Abdur-Rahman bin ‘Auf, ‘If I saw a man committing illegal sexual intercourse or theft, and you were the ruler (what would you do)?. ‘Abdur-Rahman said, ‘I would regard your witness as equal to the witness of any other man among the Muslims. ‘Umar said, ‘You have said the truth.’ ‘Umar added:
“If I were not afraid of the fact that people may say that ‘Umar has added to the Qur’an extra (verses), I would have written the Verse al-Rajm (stoning to death of married adulterers) with my own hands…”

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9 page 212 & 213

Let us cite an example:

“There is a person who claims in public that such and such sentence was revealed in the book of Allah which cannot be found in it today. It is only the fear of the terrorists of Sipah e Sahaba organization that prevents him from adding it in the Quran. In such a case Sipah Sahaba terrorists would have not wasted a single minute to come on to the streets chanting that the man is Kaafir due to the fact that he has a firm belief of Tahreef in the Quran and it is just his fear of the defunct organization that prevents him from adding a verse into the Quran. Whilst he physically exhibits his belief he cannot implement it, though he still maintains the same belief in his heart”

We should point out that according to the strange testimony of Imam Fakhruddin Razi which we read in his book Al-Mahsool, Volume 3 page 348, the verse Umar was wishing to add in the Quran was neither a part of the Quran nor was it an abrogated verse:

قلت إن ذلك لم يكن قرآنا ويدل عليه قول عمر رضي الله عنه قال لولا أن يقول الناس إن عمر زاد في كتاب الله شيئا لألحقت ذلك بالمصحف ولو كان ذلك قرآنا في الحال أو كان ثم نسخ لما قال ذلك

“I say that it wasn’t part of Quran and Umar’s statement refer to it, he said: ‘If I were not afraid of the fact that people may say that Umar has added to the Qur’an extra (verses), I would have written the Verse al-Rajm (stoning to death of married adulterers) with my own hands’. If that was a Quran or was an abrogated (verse), he wouldn’t have said such thing.”

Anyhow, let us now read the unequivocal testimony of Umar that he believed the verse of stonning to have been ‘lost’ following the death of Prophet (s).

“Abd ul Razzak in Al Musannaf from Ibn Abbas said : Umar bin Al Khattab ordered a pesron to gather people for Salat of Jama’at, then he ascended on a pulpit, praised God and said: “O people! Do not get afraid about the verse of Al-Rajm because it is a verse that was revealed in the book of Allah and we recited it, but it was lost [Zahab] with much of the Quran gone with Muhammad and the proof of that is that the prophet (s) has stoned and Abu Bakr has stoned and I have stoned and there will come people from this nation who would deny the stoning”
Tafseer Dur al Manthur, Muqadmah of Surah Ahzab

As for Ayesha’s belief regarding verse of Rajam we have already yread that:

“When the verse of stoning and verse of suckling descended, they were written on a piece of paper and kept under my pillow. Following the demise of Prophet Muhammad (S) a goat ate the piece of paper whilst we were mourning.”
Sunan Ibn Majah [Arabic], Book of Suckling, Hadith No. 2020

Let us again make one point very clear that in this particular case, we are not arguing whether or not the verse of stoning has been abrogated rather our sole motive in this case is to point out the belief of Tahreef in the Quran held by Umar and Ayesha according to whom the verse of stoning is still a part of the Quran that went missing following the death of Prophet (s).

 

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 →