Ayatollah Sayed Murtadha Qazwini believes in changed Quran

[Mightyspunge]

Does Ayatollah Sayed Murtadha Qazwini really believe that the Quran has been distorted or is it a lie? I saw a video where he says that it is but I don’t know if it’s true that he thinks that.

[Mightyspunge]

13 hours ago, Mightyspunge said:

Does Ayatollah Sayed Murtadha Qazwini really believe that the Quran has been distorted or is it a lie? I saw a video where he says that it is but I don’t know if it’s true that he thinks that.

I saw a video where Ayatollah Sayed Murtadha Qazwini claims a verse is missing from the Quran. I am asking if he really believes that the Quran is distorted?

[Zainuu]

I don't listen to him. I don't know his beliefs much. But this definitely is a deviant belief. Even if anyone from the marja' states that, my position won't change.

 

Reason:

Quran itself states in surah al Hijr verse 9.

This is not one verse. I recite the Quran daily and I quite frequently have come around such verses. Anyone who believes in tehreef of the book is deviant and maybe punished if doesn't repent for this nonsense. He is not only himself deviated but he is even leading others astray and making the path of Allah crooked. Such people are in great error as per Quran Surah Ibrahim verse 3.

Yes, tehreef of certain types done by muslims does exist. Tehreef has different categories:

1. Some people misinterpret the holy book for their personal desires.

2. Some people misquote the verses, pick what they like and leave what they don't.

3. Some people don't read the Quran at all and talk about religion from their own side while claiming to be talking from the Quran.

 

These tehreefaat exist. What does not exist is the change in words, verses of Quran or chapters or change in sequence in any sense. 

Edited April 13 by Zainuu

[shiajafari12]

On 4/12/2023 at 12:42 PM, Mightyspunge said:

Does Ayatollah Sayed Murtadha Qazwini really believe that the Quran has been distorted or is it a lie? I saw a video where he says that it is but I don’t know if it’s true that he thinks that.

I doubt this you might have misunderstood what he said, do you have a link to the video brother?

[Syed Mohammed Yunus Quli]

21 minutes ago, shiajafari12 said:

I doubt this you might have misunderstood what he said, do you have a link to the video brother?

Here

 

 

[shiajafari12]

33 minutes ago, Syed Mohammed Yunus Quli said:

Here

 

 

Lol hahahahah brother for one he is speaking in Arabic and there is subtitles and who knows who translated this and even if the translation was correct he could be referring to the interpretation of the verse from the tafsir meaning he could have been saying that people changed the interpretation of the meaning of the verse. No where did I see him say that the Quran had literarily been changed. Also this is a clip you also have to see what he said before this and after it obviously some brainwashed sunni cut out a part of the speech and tried to put accusations on the sheikh but ya I am 100 percent sure this sheikh does not believe the Quran was changed lol. There could no so many other things he meant and it’s hard to actually tell because the clip is so short brother and plus it’s a translation so ya.

[Patient Warrior]

On 4/13/2023 at 10:32 PM, :

He literally said that 'wa Aali Muhammad' was removed from the Qur'an verse.

This is blasphemy for the reason that you stated above. The Quran is incorruptible and absolute, any hadith or lecture that contradicts it in any sense is void and attributable to Kufr. We can debate tafseer to a point, but it's not really up for discussion of the wording.

[shiajafari12]

1 hour ago, Abu Nur said:

He literally said that 'wa Aali Muhammad' was removed from the Qur'an verse. Thus he believes that Qur'an had been changed. 

He refers to hadith but we have literally an Quran verse of protection that contradict the hadith. So this belief becomes baseless. 

do you know if he is a twelver shia or does he belong to a different group? Sorry I havent heard of him before.

[Abu Nur]

1 hour ago, shiajafari12 said:

do you know if he is a twelver shia or does he belong to a different group? Sorry I havent heard of him before.

Twelver. But I still don't trust the video. It seem the lips are moving slower than audio and these people always have bad agenda and heavy editing. 

[shiajafari12]

1 hour ago, Abu Nur said:

Twelver. But I still don't trust the video. It seem the lips are moving slower than audio and these people always have bad agenda and heavy editing. 

Exactly that is what I was trying to imply

[Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi]

Tehreef in Quran is a fact that has alot of evidence in Shia and Sunni narrations. Majority of our classical scholars held view that a bunch of verses (parts of verses) went missing from the Quran.

However, whatever is in there, is by Lord Almighty. Theres just too much evidence for tehreef. Can't be denied

On 4/12/2023 at 2:42 PM, Mightyspunge said:

Does Ayatollah Sayed Murtadha Qazwini really believe that the Quran has been distorted or is it a lie? I saw a video where he says that it is but I don’t know if it’s true that he thinks that.

[Mightyspunge]

3 hours ago, Abu Nur said:

Twelver. But I still don't trust the video. It seem the lips are moving slower than audio and these people always have bad agenda and heavy editing. 

This is why I had to ask about him because I see so many scholars like Jawad Qazwini and Baqer Qazwini really respect and quote this guy so it’s highly questionable to see him “say” that

[Guest Mustard Seed]

6 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Tehreef in Quran is a fact that has alot of evidence in Shia and Sunni narrations. Majority of our classical scholars held view that a bunch of verses (parts of verses) went missing from the Quran.

However, whatever is in there, is by Lord Almighty. Theres just too much evidence for tehreef. Can't be denied

 

 

"We have clear evidence of tahrif" is not a reasonable argument. Please present some of the suggested evidence to support this claim, as it is not one made lightly.

 

Furthermore, if such tahrif occurred during the time in which the Quran was being compiled or even just before the time of the 12 Imams, they would have made mention of it. On the contrary, we have examples of the opposite. 

 

Imam Ali mentioned the following as seen in Nahj al-Balaghah, Sermon 176:

 

"And know that this Qur'an is indeed an adviser who does not deceive, a leader who does not mislead, and a narrator who does not lie."

 

It wouldn't make sense for him to say this without any mention of what was supposedly removed if there had been such a thing. 

[Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi]

On 4/14/2023 at 10:38 AM, Guest Mustard Seed said:

"We have clear evidence of tahrif" is not a reasonable argument.

I'm surprised that having clear evidence of something is not reasonable argument.

On 4/14/2023 at 10:38 AM, Guest Mustard Seed said:

Please present some of the suggested evidence to support this claim, as it is not one made lightly.

Sure I'll open up a separate topic to prove tahrif once i get time, till then, hadith of 17,000 verses is there which is sahih by chain in Al-Kafi.

Just have a look at books of Tafsir and you'll know that evidence for tahrif is overwhelming

On 4/14/2023 at 10:38 AM, Guest Mustard Seed said:

Furthermore, if such tahrif occurred during the time in which the Quran was being compiled or even just before the time of the 12 Imams, they would have made mention of it

There are a bunch of narrations that mention tahrif, like Aima (عليه السلام) reciting verses differently then saying for some "this is how it was revealed"

On 4/14/2023 at 10:38 AM, Guest Mustard Seed said:

Imam Ali mentioned the following as seen in Nahj al-Balaghah, Sermon 176:

 

"And know that this Qur'an is indeed an adviser who does not deceive, a leader who does not mislead, and a narrator who does not lie."

 

It wouldn't make sense for him to say this without any mention of what was supposedly removed if there had been such a thing. 

What do you understand from this narration? This narration praises Quran and Alhumdulillah all muslims do. This narration refutes Tahrif.

If you take contents of hadith literally, then please tell me if Quran is a leader who does not mislead, why are majority of muslims, apparently following Quran going to hell? 
There is always some meaning behind narrations, you can't just pick one, interpret it the way you like and then base your belief on it.

[Guest Mustard Seed]

20 minutes ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

I'm surprised that having clear evidence of something is not reasonable argument.

Apologies for the lack of clarity. I was referring to the fact that no evidence was actually provided, only the statement that such evidence exists. 

21 minutes ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Sure I'll open up a separate topic to prove tahrif once i get time, till then, hadith of 17,000 verses is there which is sahih by chain in Al-Kafi.

Just have a look at books of Tafsir and you'll know that evidence for tahrif is overwhelming

There are a bunch of narrations that mention tahrif, like Aima (عليه السلام) reciting verses differently then saying for some "this is how it was revealed"

Please do. I will try to find what you have suggested in the meantime.

26 minutes ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

What do you understand from this narration? This narration praises Quran and Alhumdulillah all muslims do. This narration refutes Tahrif.

If you take contents of hadith literally, then please tell me if Quran is a leader who does not mislead, why are majority of muslims, apparently following Quran going to hell? 
There is always some meaning behind narrations, you can't just pick one, interpret it the way you like and then base your belief on it.

It's not exactly an ambiguous statement. You may argue that the context could be missing, but that's really about it. Not sure how you can interpret such a thing in a manner that is different from what's being said. I don't deny that there are hadiths that aren't so clear, but this one doesn't really seem like one of them. By the logic you present, you can't interpret 95% of religious text because minor ambiguity is present quite often. There is no reason to overcomplicate things that are straightforward. You can't exactly suggest that something requires interpretation because it doesn't fit your narrative. One may as well do that for anything debatable. 
How else would you interpret the above then?

I have no idea whether majority of the Muslims are going hell, not sure if there is another source that supports such a claim. I can only speak for myself, and as far as that is concerned, it's not as if I follow the Quran to the letter all the time. That's part of the battle. So unless Allah is mercy on me, I cannot complain about going to hell. If most other people are anything like me, then perhaps your statement is correct. Besides, just because a text is perfect, does not mean that its followers are as well. If people or even Muslims committed evil deeds when the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) was here (with all clarity present), then I would doubt people wouldn't commit evil deeds when he isn't present. 

[Mightyspunge]

3 hours ago, Guest Mustard Seed said:

 

"We have clear evidence of tahrif" is not a reasonable argument. Please present some of the suggested evidence to support this claim, as it is not one made lightly.

 

Furthermore, if such tahrif occurred during the time in which the Quran was being compiled or even just before the time of the 12 Imams, they would have made mention of it. On the contrary, we have examples of the opposite. 

 

Imam Ali mentioned the following as seen in Nahj al-Balaghah, Sermon 176:

 

"And know that this Qur'an is indeed an adviser who does not deceive, a leader who does not mislead, and a narrator who does not lie."

 

It wouldn't make sense for him to say this without any mention of what was supposedly removed if there had been such a thing. 

No matter what, the basis of our beliefs is all built upon the Quran. So if ANY Hadith or tafseer or marja’ or sheikh or book claims tahreef ultimately it doesn’t matter. Allah promised to protect the Quran unlike the Torah or Injeel. Yes there is a large amount of sunni and Shia classical scholars who held this belief. However if you notice no one follows this opinion contrary to these “authentic Hadith” this is because no matter what, we don’t contradict Quran, Quran is final. It’s a deviation to claim our own holy book has been altered especially when there is so much proof that it hasn’t been. Do you believe in the infallibility of the Prophets, messengers, and imams? If so, it’s so contradictory to claim tahreef then of the QURAN!

[Abu Hadi]

I am 99.999% sure that this video was edited to make it seem like he said that regarding this verse. This is a real clip up until the end where he says 'wa ahl Muhammad...' and at that point it looks to me like someone copied and pasted audio (his voice) over the video and connected it with the previous clip to make it seem like he is saying that. This is a common Salafist tactic. His lip movements are out of sync with the audio in that section only. That is what it seems to me to look like. Another Salafi 'hit job' and unfortunately some Shia brothers and sisters fall for it, again and again. 

This video is only linked in three places, once from Shia chat unfortunately because one of the members posted it and the other two are from Salafist media channels. I would edit those posts and take it out, but then I would be accused of censorship and being biased, so I'll leave it in for now, but I am almost certain this is a fake, edited clip. 

The belief in tahreef (distortion of the quran) is held by a tiny, tiny minority of Shia scholars, so few that they are not even worth mentioning. Sayyid Murtada is a very prominent Shia scholar in Iraq and internationally because 3 of his sons are also alim and they live in the US and other places. If a scholar on his level actually believed in this nonsense (i.e. tahreef) it would be front page and a talking point in every Shia scholarly circle in the world. Yet there is no mention of it when you google his name plus the terms 'quran distortion' or other similar terms. No mention of it other than these videos which are posted on Salafist and Salafi apologist websites. We Shia have no control over google. 

I attend Friday prayers in the US and I attend the Masjid where Sayyid Hassan Qazwini (his son) does the Salat. I have also attended a masjid in California where his other son, Muhammad Qazwini does the Friday prayers. I have listened to many lectures from both of them, many on the subject of Quran and a few on the subject of tahreef. They both said this is a false idea (i.e. there is no tahreef) like 99.999% of the other Shia scholars say, and they didn't feel the need to mention anything regarding their father. If their father actually believed in Tahreef, don't you think his sons, who are also alim, would at least mention the fact that they have a different opinion than their father or at least mention that their father believes in this. They never did. What does that mean ? It means their father also doesn't believe in this. 

So I think brothers on this site should be more careful before they post false accusations against ulema. We are all accountable for every word we say and every word we type before Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and we will all be questioned regarding this. If you say a false accusation, knowing that it is false, your fasting is batil. 

Here is a link to a post from brother Abbas back from 2010 which I think is a good summary

 

Edited April 14 by Abu Hadi

[Guest stopbelievingverifyfirst!]

Before accusing someone of something, the least you can do is provide the evidence with the ORIGINAL CLIP NO EDITS NO OUT OF CONTEXT, FULL LECTURE. THEN make a conclusion. Do not just believe in anything or everything you see and hear until the full context unedited version. So many bad faith hatred filled anti shia bafoons make false disinformation and misinformation of bad translations or fake text etc etc God has given you a brain. Use it please. Rationally speaking, the Qazwini family all of their scholars hold the position that the quran is NOT changed and perfect, it would make no sense what so ever if it was opposite of that. Listen to any and every single one of their english lectures on the topic of the quran.

[Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi]

1 hour ago, Guest Mustard Seed said:

It's not exactly an ambiguous statement. You may argue that the context could be missing, but that's really about it. Not sure how you can interpret such a thing in a manner that is different from what's being said. I don't deny that there are hadiths that aren't so clear, but this one doesn't really seem like one of them. By the logic you present, you can't interpret 95% of religious text because minor ambiguity is present quite often. There is no reason to overcomplicate things that are straightforward. You can't exactly suggest that something requires interpretation because it doesn't fit your narrative. One may as well do that for anything debatable. 
How else would you interpret the above then?

Exactly there is no reason to overcomplicate things.
Its very clear that the hadith you mentioned doesn't have anything to do with tahrif, nor does it disprove tahrif.

5 hours ago, Guest Mustard Seed said:

Imam Ali mentioned the following as seen in Nahj al-Balaghah, Sermon 176:

 

"And know that this Qur'an is indeed an adviser who does not deceive, a leader who does not mislead, and a narrator who does not lie."

I can make up an argument to explain better how you might interpret it to disprove tahrif:

1. Quran is an adviser who does not deceive and a leader that doesn't mislead. If it doesn't deceive and doesn't mislead, it proves there is no tahrif because if there was tahrif, people would be misled, and deceived.

Thats the only thing probably you can make up from above hadith. However its very clear that this statement is conditional. It has a condition that is if you follow the right interpretation and sunnah, otherwise, you will be misled. Thats what I was referring to! 

We can have countless examples one of them is Ayah of Ulil-Amr.

Shias use it to prove the infallibility Ismah of Imams. Sunnis use it to prove fallibility of rulers after prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). Same ayah, same Quran, yet two totally different meanings and each accusing the other of misguidance. Both base their proofs on single verse.

And examples might not end.

So hadith you quoted, must have a condtion, which as a shia, for us if if you follow the Path of Ahlebait (عليه السلام). And it doesn't disprove tahrif, rather as i mentioned, it has nothing to do with Tahrif.

[Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi]

2 hours ago, Guest Mustard Seed said:

Please do. I will try to find what you have suggested in the meantime.

2 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Yeah sure here's one with complete chain and matn:

يُّ بْنُ الْحَكَمِ عَنْ هِشَامِ بْنِ سَالِمٍ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ الله (عَلَيهِ السَّلام) قَالَ إِنَّ الْقُرْآنَ الَّذِي جَاءَ بِهِ جَبْرَئِيلُ (عَلَيهِ السَّلام) إِلَى مُحَمَّدٍ (صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وآلِه) سَبْعَةَ عَشَرَ أَلْفَ آيَةٍ.

Ali ibn al-Hakam has narrated from Hisham ibn Salim from abu ‘Abd Allah ((عليه السلام).) who has said the following: “Abu ‘Abd Allah ((عليه السلام).) has said, ‘The Holy Quran that Jibril (Gabriel) brought to Muhammad ((عليه السلام).) had seventeen thousand verses.’”

Al-Kafi - Majlisi said: موثق Sheikh Asif Muhseni: معتبر, as he included it in his collection of Authentic ahadeeth. besides there are plenty of other classical scholars who call it Saheeh.

[Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi]

2 hours ago, Guest Mustard Seed said:

Please do. I will try to find what you have suggested in the meantime.

3 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

From Al-Kafi Volume 8

يُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي عُمَيْرٍ عَنْ عُمَرَ بْنِ أُذَيْنَةَ عَنْ بُرَيْدِ بْنِ مُعَاوِيَةَ قَالَ تَلَا أَبُو جَعْفَرٍ (عليه السلام) أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَ أَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَ أُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنْكُمْ فَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ تَنَازُعاً فِي الْأَمْرِ فَأَرْجِعُوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَ إِلَى الرَّسُولِ وَ إِلَى أُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنْكُمْ ثُمَّ قَالَ كَيْفَ يَأْمُرُ بِطَاعَتِهِمْ وَ يُرَخِّصُ فِي مُنَازَعَتِهِمْ إِنَّمَا قَالَ ذَلِكَ لِلْمَأْمُورِينَ الَّذِينَ قِيلَ لَهُمْ أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَ أَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ

And look at the chain: Ali Bin Ibrahim, from his father, from Ibn Abu Umeyr, from Uman Bin Azina, from Bureyd Bin Muawiya who said.

Each one of them is well known thiqa. also majlisi said: حسن

translation:

from Bureyd Bin Muawiya who said, ‘Abu Ja’far (asws) recited “[4:59] O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from among you; then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, and to the Guardian (asws) of the Command among you (Ul-Al-Amr)”. Then said: ‘How can He (azwj) Command for their (asws) obedience and then allow them (the people) to dispute with them (asws). But rather, He (azwj) has Said that to the Commanded ones when He (azwj) Said to them (the people): “Obey Allah and obey the Messenger”.

Translation from current Quran: 

Believers! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger, and those from among you who are invested with authority; and then if you were to dispute among yourselves about anything refer it to Allah and the Messenger.

[علوي]

There really is a plethora of evidence in ahadeeth of Ahlulbayt (A) for tahreef. But the vast majority of our scholars reject them.

In Mushaf Ali (عليه السلام), the verses of the holy Quran are written with the tafaseer. So it may seem like it points to tahreef, whereas in reality it's only the tafseer of Amir al-Momineen or Rasoulullah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). Or maybe Jibraeel (عليه السلام) came down with the verse and the tafseer, but Rasoulullah only recited the verse to the people.

Anyhow, I don't like making speculations, especially about something as important as the Book of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى).

[Guest thequraniscomplete]

Anyone who believes the quran is incomplete or missing verses has contradicted and invalided the essence of tawheed for the justice of Allah dictates that this book RIGHT NOW is a witness and a guidance and to claim otherwise is to claim it as an incomplete witness and not guidance and Allah is beyond perfect beyond just ALL guiding. No amount of hadith or scholarly opinion can go against this rational argument and to do so, means your faith is nothing but an incomplete illogical way of life for why would anyone follow such a God who cannot even bring about and protect His own revelations nor guide mankind properly while contradicting his own claims.

Besides an even easier argument is that the quran is nothing but revelations to the prophet to the people. There is no way nothing in the quran revealed without the peoples knowledge of it and there were countless people around the prophet at all times. So to claim otherwise goes against the very essence of people memorizing and writing down the verses.

Quote

 

The Quran we have today is the same one that was compiled during the prophet’s time,[11] and even if anyone does not accept this he must know that even those who have different opinions regarding the current order of the chapters and other detailed issues agree that not even one word was added or taken away from the Quran; because Muslims strived to memorize and learn the Quran to the extent that the social status of individuals was somewhat determined by how much Quran they knew by heart.

There were so many Muslims which memorized the Quran that history says that 400 of them died as a result of only one war which took place at the time of Abu Bakr's reign. [12]

In another war that took place at the time of the prophet and occurred in a village not far from Medina named "Bi’r Ma’unah" history recounts that 70 Muslims who knew the Quran by heart were martyred.[13]
 

There were numerous writers which the prophet had assigned to write the divine revelations that were sent down to him by Allah. Historians have mentioned up to 43 Muslims[17] as the writers of the Quran, although Imam Ali and Zeyd Ibn Thabet would accompany the prophet more than others in this task.[18]

The question is how can a book with so many writers be altered?

Since the advent of Islam all of the imams have encouraged Muslims to recite, ponder and act upon the Quran at hand[19], this comes to show that it was certain it hadn’t undergone any change, especially in the first few centuries of Islam.

 

In the Nahjul-Balaghah we find proof for such a claim. In sermon 133 we read: "The Book of Allah is among you. It speaks and its tongue does not falter. It is a house whose pillars do not fall down, and a power whose supporters are never routed."[20]

In sermon 176 Imam Ali says: "And know that this Qur'an is an adviser who never deceives, a leader who never misleads and a narrator who never speaks a lie.[21] No one will sit beside this Qur'an but that when he rises he will achieve one addition or one diminution-addition in his guidance or elimination in his (spiritual) blindness."![22]

If the Quran had been changed or altered it would not make sense for the imams to invite the people to the current Quran. If it had been altered it would not have been introduced as a light that helps distinguish between true and false or as Allah's steady and firm rope which we all must hold on to.[23]

 

 

 

[Cool]

On 4/13/2023 at 10:15 PM, Zainuu said:

or change in sequence in any sense. 

Salam!

Change in sequence in the sense of order of revelation is self evident as we find makki & madani chapters in totally different sequence. Some makki chapters contains the verses which were revealed in madina & some madani chapters contains verses which were revealed in makka. 

The first verse revealed is present in chapter 96. The last verse revealed was not known, some says it was 5:3, some says it was 2:281. 

Anyway, tehreef in the text of Quran is not possible according to the verses of Quran as well as hadith e thaqalayn. Perhaps some of the ahadith mentioning the tehreef are pointing towards the tehreef in ta'veel. While the ahadith mentioning the tehreef in text are not considered as authentic as they are colliding with the verses of Quran as well as other ahadith of ma'soomeen. 

Personally, I find the existing arrangement of Quranic text quite decent. It is challenging, in the sense that we need to use intellect & do some hard work to understand the message. Seems to me that its like puzzle, which is arranged for testing the capacity of "Ulil Albab". These " Ulil Albaab" are the people for whom Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has specifically revealed the Quran as one of the verse states:

فَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ يَا أُولِي الْأَلْبَابِ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا ۚ قَدْ أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ إِلَيْكُمْ ذِكْرًا

65:10) therefore be careful of (your duty to) Allah, O men of understanding who believe! Allah has indeed revealed to you a reminder,

The word لب (lub) means the seed which is present inside the shell. It means those who have ability to use their intellect for understanding things. So whatever is the existing arrangement of Quranic text, the men of understanding, always find a way out & guidance from it. 

[Abu Hadi]

I would like to clarify the meaning of 'tahreef' the way I mentioned it in my post. In Arabic, 'tahreef' simply means 'distortion'. In this context, it means 'distortion' of the Holy Quran. Like the brother above (previous post) has clearly and eloquently stated, change in the chronological order of Surah or ayas is not 'tahreef' because each Surat and each ayat are independent units of meaning, i.e. you don't need to see another in a particular order or sequence to understand the subsequent ones. 

'tahreef' as it is commonly understood, at least the way I understand it, is within a Surat or ayat. It is internal changes to a Surat or Ayat, such as removing of words from an ayat or adding of words or letters or changing the meaning of a Surat or Ayat by changing the grammatical structure. 

When Shia scholars talk about 'tahreef' (the vast majority of them), they are talking about 'tahreef' (distortion) in the interpretation of the Quran, not the Quran itself.

Edited April 15 by Abu Hadi

[Zainuu]

On 4/14/2023 at 9:30 PM, Cool said:

Change in sequence in the sense of order of revelation is self evident as we find makki & madani chapters in totally different sequence. Some makki chapters contains the verses which were revealed in madina & some madani chapters contains verses which were revealed in makka. 

Salaam.

You are correct. But this is not tehreef. By divine will, the Quran is compiled in the way it is and not by the will of people.

Surah Al Qadr is a proof and surah Dukhan verse 2. Which says that entire Quran was brought down in one night.

If we will consider that compilation is changed by human will then that would be tehreef and it will contradict what numerous verses say about tahaffuz (protection) of Quran. Like just imagine you put the first chapter last in a novel where all chapters are related to each other. Isn't it tehreef? Won't it affect the meaning and spirit of the word? Won't it affect the context? It will. So, that is an invalid accusation.

So, Quran was revealed in 2 ways:

1. Portion by portion (as in 17:106)

2. Once entirely in a night (as in Al Qadr and Dukhan: 2)

Now why not a historical sequence? Because Quran is not a book of history. It is a book of guidance. (18:54)

Wassalam

May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) bless you immensely.

[Zainuu]

On 4/15/2023 at 2:37 AM, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Yeah sure here's one with complete chain and matn:

يُّ بْنُ الْحَكَمِ عَنْ هِشَامِ بْنِ سَالِمٍ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ الله (عَلَيهِ السَّلام) قَالَ إِنَّ الْقُرْآنَ الَّذِي جَاءَ بِهِ جَبْرَئِيلُ (عَلَيهِ السَّلام) إِلَى مُحَمَّدٍ (صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وآلِه) سَبْعَةَ عَشَرَ أَلْفَ آيَةٍ.

Ali ibn al-Hakam has narrated from Hisham ibn Salim from abu ‘Abd Allah ((عليه السلام).) who has said the following: “Abu ‘Abd Allah ((عليه السلام).) has said, ‘The Holy Quran that Jibril (Gabriel) brought to Muhammad ((عليه السلام).) had seventeen thousand verses.’”

Al-Kafi - Majlisi said: موثق Sheikh Asif Muhseni: معتبر, as he included it in his collection of Authentic ahadeeth. besides there are plenty of other classical scholars who call it Saheeh.

Ok. So, Al majlisi is now above the word of allah or Sheikh Mohsini for that matter. 

Stupidity of the argument is that the narrations from 'corpus of ahadith' that is full of corruption and contradictions are now being used to prove tehreef in Quran which is itself denied by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) in the same book.

Hypocrisy at its best. 

It must be a reminder to the entire mankind (whether a scholar or not) that what does it actually mean to say Quran has tehreef:

Verse 17:88, 17:89, 17:106, verse 18:28, 18:54, 56,57, verse 16:2, 16:98-105, 15:9, 15:86-91, 14:1, 13:36-37, 12:1-3)

Their is a huge list of verses in Quran that prove it as truth, guidance, reminder, guarded by Allah, divine sign of Allah, cannot be forged.

So, please first read the Quran you accuse of tehreef.

 

The biggest satanic trick played upon shias and sunnis alike is that they are manipulated to stay away from Quran. This is the reason we have problems in society today.

[Zainuu]

On 4/15/2023 at 3:08 AM, Guest thequraniscomplete said:

Anyone who believes the quran is incomplete or missing verses has contradicted and invalided the essence of tawheed for the justice of Allah dictates that this book RIGHT NOW is a witness and a guidance and to claim otherwise is to claim it as an incomplete witness and not guidance and Allah is beyond perfect beyond just ALL guiding. No amount of hadith or scholarly opinion can go against this rational argument and to do so, means your faith is nothing but an incomplete illogical way of life for why would anyone follow such a God who cannot even bring about and protect His own revelations nor guide mankind properly while contradicting his own claims.

Besides an even easier argument is that the quran is nothing but revelations to the prophet to the people. There is no way nothing in the quran revealed without the peoples knowledge of it and there were countless people around the prophet at all times. So to claim otherwise goes against the very essence of people memorizing and writing down the verses.

Yes exactly.

 

Their is no hublullah if Quran is distorted. Their is no thaqalain if Quran is distorted. 

Basically the denial of Quran is the denial of deen completely and absolutely.

 

Such a person is deviant and by the standards of Quran (15:91-93) will be questioned for what he did.

[Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi]

On 4/16/2023 at 5:41 PM, Zainuu said:

Ok. So, Al majlisi is now above the word of allah or Sheikh Mohsini for that matter. 

Stupidity of the argument is that the narrations from 'corpus of ahadith' that is full of corruption and contradictions are now being used to prove tehreef in Quran which is itself denied by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) in the same book.

Hypocrisy at its best. 

I could say the same,

when ahadtih declare tahreef, are you and our scholars more knowledablge than Ahlebait (عليه السلام) about Quran and know its interpretation more than Ahlebait (عليه السلام)?

When Ahlebait (عليه السلام) clearly has said in ahadtih that tahreef has occured, who are you and your scholars to interpret some verses today, in a certain way, again majority of hadiths, and make up something new. !?

On 4/16/2023 at 5:41 PM, Zainuu said:

It must be a reminder to the entire mankind (whether a scholar or not) that what does it actually mean to say Quran has tehreef:

Verse 17:88, 17:89, 17:106, verse 18:28, 18:54, 56,57, verse 16:2, 16:98-105, 15:9, 15:86-91, 14:1, 13:36-37, 12:1-3)

Their is a huge list of verses in Quran that prove it as truth, guidance, reminder, guarded by Allah, divine sign of Allah, cannot be forged.

So, please first read the Quran you accuse of tehreef.

You know, interpreting the book of Allah, in your opinion, is haram according to shias, so make sure to bring some hadiths as proof in commentary of the verses you've quoted.
Otherwise, you have no proof, except for your custom taweel of the Quran which is haram and is not Hujjah for anyone.

Being a Reminder, Guidance, Divine Sign of Allah, Truth has nothing to do with argument of tehreef as we only believe in naqs, that things have been taken out of Quran and its context as well. As you know that too.

You have to refer back to waris e Quran to understand verses, just following the book alone is misguidance. Even wahabi ulima are known to have said anyone who demands proof from Quran alone is zindeeq, Quran alone isn't sufficient.

Still, its considered as Guidance, Truth and we believe in it for sure, then why you have issues when hadiths of tehreef are bought into discussion?

As for the verse inna nahnu nazalna Al-zikr wa inna lahu la hafizun, there is no signle hadith in the world that says it means no tehreef can occur in Quran. If there is, then bring one. 
If you say, verse is clear, i'd argue its ambigious and will come up with plenty of tafaseer from arabic scholars where they argued that in wa inna lahu la hafizun , lahu refers to Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). or that Al-Zikr doesn't mean Quran, it refers to Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

If one of those translations has become famous in English, doesn't mean other opinions are wrong. Truth is, the verse is ambigious and doesn't prove your point. 

[Abu Nur]

Quote

As for the verse inna nahnu nazalna Al-zikr wa inna lahu la hafizun, there is no signle hadith in the world that says it means no tehreef can occur in Quran. If there is, then bring one. 

And know that this Qur'an is indeed an adviser who does not deceive, a leader who does not mislead, and a narrator who does not lie.  Nahj al-Balaghah, Sermon 176.

If verses are missing, is it not that Qur'an is now deceiving the readers? For example: then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger Is literally misleading because one is missing. 

[Cool]

2 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

when ahadtih declare tahreef, are you and our scholars more knowledablge than Ahlebait (عليه السلام) about Quran and know its interpretation more than Ahlebait (عليه السلام)?

Salam Brother!!

I would suggest you to use your intellect as well. So lets say you have cited many ahadith mentioning the tehreef in the text of Quran, now what would you say about the three most authentic ahadith we have with us:

1. Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said:

إنّي تاركٌ فيكم الثقلين : كتابُ الله ، وعترتي أهل بيتي ، ما إنّ تمسّكتم بهما لن تضلّوا بعدي

2. Imam al-Sadiq (عليه السلام) said:

إذا ورد عليكم حديثان مختلفان ، فأعرضوهما على كتاب الله ، فما وافق كتاب الله فخذوه، وما خالف كتاب الله فردّوه

الوسائل 27 : 118 | 62 ،333

3. Imam al-Sadiq (عليه السلام) said:

خطب النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم بمنى فقال : أيُّها الناس ، ما جاءكم عنّي يوافق كتاب الله فأنا قُلتُه ، وما جاءكم يخالف كتاب الله فلم أقُله

الكافي 1 : 69 | 5 

So if you are considering that the ahadith mentioning tehreef in the text of Quran are true, that would mean the hadith e thaqalayn is false and no one can be protected from going astray even if he cling to the two weighty things as the book is said to be a victim of distortion.

And the second & third ones are also false as you cannot compare contradicting ahadith with the thing which itself a victim of distortion.  

Now coming to Quran, tehreef in the text would mean that batil has access to Quran from every side hence distortion took place while Quran says:

وَإنَّهُ لَكِتابٌ عَزِيزٌ * لا يأتِيهِ البَاطِلُ مِن بَيْنِ يَدَيهِ وَلا مِنْ خَلْفِهِ تَنزِيلٌ مِنْ حَكِيمٍ حَمِيدٍ

Fussilat 41-44

Quran also says:

إنَّ عَلَينا جَمعَهُ وقُرآنَهُ * فإذا قَرَأناهُ فَاتَّبِعْ قُرآنَهُ * ثُمَّ إنَّ عَلَينا بَيَانَهُ

Qiyamah 17-19

There is a hadith in al-Kafi explainig these verses:

فعن ابن عباس وغيره: إنّ المعنى: إنّ علينا جَمْعَهُ وقُرآنَهُ عليك حتّى تحفظه ويمكنك تلاوته، فلا تخف فوت شيءٍ منه

مجمع البيان ١٠: ٦٠٠.

(The meaning is: We have to collect it and recite it to you so that you can memorize it and be able to recite it, so do not be afraid to miss something from it.)

I hope this will help you.

Wassalam!!

Edited April 24 by Cool

[Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi]

On 4/24/2023 at 6:26 AM, Abu Nur said:

And know that this Qur'an is indeed an adviser who does not deceive, a leader who does not mislead, and a narrator who does not lie.  Nahj al-Balaghah, Sermon 176.

If verses are missing, is it not that Qur'an is now deceiving the readers? For example: then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger Is literally misleading because one is missing. 

Brother I'd say all Muslims believe in what has been said in above narration. I mentioned one example before, that his hadith, can't be taken literally, or unconditionally.
Its because, The Book of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), is used, by Qadiyanis, Wahabis, Deobandis, and us Shias, to prove our beliefs, but our beliefs are contradicting.

As an example, i put forward ayah 4:59, That says obey Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), obey Messenger (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and those in authority among you, if you disagree over anything, refer back to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and his messenger.

Sunnis argue prove falibility of Ulil-Amr and say ataat is conditional
Shias say Ataat is unconditional and prove ismah of Ulil-Amr.

Similarly Qadiyanis use words Katam un Nabiyeen to prove their own point, while others disagree.

So my question is, all read the book of Allah, who got deveived and who was mislead?

On 4/24/2023 at 8:41 AM, Cool said:

Salam Brother!!

Wa aliakum as salam. I hope you're doing good brother.

Its just that holding onto Quran and Ahlebait (عليه السلام), is the same thing and is not different. Both are with each other and will never separate.

When Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) passed away, he didn't leave a compiled book, it was scattered and Imam Ali (عليه السلام), compiled and gathered it. Later AbuBakr and Umar wanted to do the same and all of that is in Saheeh hadiths. So you cannot refer to The Book of Allah, without referring back to Ahlebait (عليه السلام).

Because if you want to follow Quran, you'd have to go back to Ahlebait (عليه السلام)., and if you follow Ahlebait (عليه السلام), you're following the Book of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى).

This is how i don't see any contradictions. Besides the Book we have today is without a doubt the Book of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and Ahlebait (عليه السلام) recited it and told us to do the same. Whatever is in it is 100% from Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) this is why any hadeeth that contradicts with the Book of Allah, no one accepts it.

[Ashvazdanghe]

2 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

When Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) passed away, he didn't leave a compiled book, it was scattered and Imam Ali (عليه السلام), compiled and gathered it. Later AbuBakr and Umar wanted to do the same and all of that is in Saheeh hadiths. So you cannot refer to The Book of Allah, without referring back to Ahlebait (عليه السلام).

Salam there has been some compiled Quran which compiled book by Imam Ali (عليه السلام) has been most complete compiled one that it has included reasons of revealing of each verse & time of it's revealing & place of revealing of each verse which other compiled Qurans likewise compiled manuscript of Quran by Ibn Masud (رضي الله عنه)

How was the Holy Quran compiled?

Concise answer

According to the history of the compilation of the Quran, the Prophet (s) himself chose the verses where to be placed. It was not the companions who arranged the verses or the number of the chapters. The Quran, which is presently in our hands and which is available to every Muslim, is the same Quran which was collected and compiled during the period of Uthman. Given that a group of reciters and memorizers of the Holy Quran were cooperating in the compilation of the Quran, we cannot say that the Quranic verses were arranged by the order and according to the liking and desire of Uthman. In addition, there are many traditions from the infallible Imams ((عليه السلام).) which denote that they sanctioned and approved the compilation of the verses during Uthman’s era.

Detailed Answer

 The compilation of the Holy Qur’an took place in three stages:

1. Arrangement of verses which led to formation of the chapters. This was done during the period of the Holy Prophet (s). It was the Prophet himself who would indicate in which Surahs each verse was to be placed.

2. Collections of the Quran and separate pages (or parchments) and putting them together in the form of a single volume. This was done during during the period of Abu Bakr.

3. Collection of different copies of the Quran which had been written down by scribes and making them look the same in order to prevent variation in the copies. This was done during the period of Uthman, the third caliph.[1]

Quote

Following the demise of the Holy Prophet (s), the compilation of the Holy Quran took place by the order of the first caliph with the help of Zaid bin Thabit. Before him also, the Commander of the Faithful, Ali ((عليه السلام).) who was more acquainted with the Quran than all other Companions had compiled the Quran.

 

Quote

the Quran which had been compiled by Imam Ali ((عليه السلام)) was arranged on the basis of the order of the revelation of the chapters, since the present Quran has been approved and sanctioned by the Infallible Imams ((عليه السلام).), there is no need to print the Quran on the basis of the order of revelation, even if it may not be bid’ah (innovation); because bi’ah means adding to the religion what is not a part of it. Bid’ah in this sense is forbidden as also stated by the Imams, peace be upon them.

 

Quote

The Commander of the Faithful, Ali ((عليه السلام).) expressed his consent somehow with unification of the scriptures. Ibn-e Abi Dawood narrates from Suwaid bin Ghaflah that Ali, peace be upon him, said: “By Allah, Uthman did not do anything about Mushaf except after seeking my advice.”[7]

 

Quote

In another narration, Imam Ali ((عليه السلام)) has been narrated as having said: “If I were in command in place of Uthman, I would have done the same".[8]

https://www.islamquest.net/en/archive/fa5375

Quote

Furthermore, these materials were not made available to the Muslim community, which continued to possess the Qur’an only in its primitive scattered form. The sheets remained in the keeping of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, and after ‘Umar’s death they passed to his daughter Hafsa. ‘Uthman took the sheets trom Hafsa during his caliphate and had them put together in the form of a volume. He had several copies sent to dif- ferent parts of the Muslim world and he then ordered that any other collection or portion of the Qur’an found anywhere else be burned.15. But he could not convince his colleagues to insert it in the Qur’an because nobody else came forward to support him,16 and the requirement that there be two witnesses for any text to be accepted as a part of the Qur’an was therefore not met.

https://en.wikishia.net/view/Hafsa_bt._Umar

Quote

In the Time of 'Uthman

For her maidservant had enchanted her, Hafsa ordered that she should be killed, by which 'Uthman b. 'Affan was distressed^[15]

It is reported that Hafsa had asked a scribe of Qur'an to call for her when he gets to the verse 238 of Qur'an 2 so that he would write the verse as she wished.^[16]

After the death of her father, 'Umar, also, she, according to his will, conserved the Qur'an manuscripts which were compiled during the caliphate of Abu Bakr, and in the process of the final compilation of Qur'an, she provided 'Uthman with those manuscripts, which were returned to her afterwards^[17]

https://en.wikishia.net/view/Hafsa_bt._Umar

[Ashvazdanghe]

At this time (years 24 and 25 Hijri), all the agents of the second caliph were dismissed by Uthman, and some of the Umayyads were ruling the Islamic countries, and the Muslims knew each one of them and every one of them with infamy. In verses from the Qur'an and hadiths of the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) about the hatred and enmity of these people against the Messenger of Allah ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) there were some points that were not very pleasing to the government and had no result for them other than shame. With the domination of the Umayyads over the social situation of the Muslims and taking over their religious and worldly destiny, latent protests began with the recitation of hadiths condemning the Umayyads. Anyone who had heard the slightest thing from the Messenger of Allah ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) in condemning them would present it to another by noting  it to the verses of the Qur'an, and he would write it down next to the mentioned verse. The reason for these notes was that there were many verses and hadiths that caused people to make mistakes in "applying the hadith to the specific verse" and if they immediately heard what they heard, in full or in abbreviated form, next to the relevant verse.If  They did not write comments. With the passage of time, they would forget the relationship between the verse and the hadith and could not correctly know that the verse they were looking for was revealed in respect of what subject or person.

This cultural movement in a short period of time, reaped a great fruit. A time did not pass when every Muslim knew a few hadiths about many verses of the Qur'an, which he wrote next to the verse or separately, and when reciting the verses, he was also informed about its interpretation and Tafsir .

With this situation, the best possible time was provided to pursue the project of "separating the Quran from the hadith", but the social and political situation required a new plan that was not similar to the suffocating plan of the past. The best suggestion was the topic of collecting Qurans and making them uniform. By following this plan, all hadiths in people's hands will be collected and destroyed once again, and when time passes, the future generation will not know anything about it to enlighten them.

With this guess, it is better to understand the reason for not accepting the Qur'an of Ali bin Abi Talib ((عليه السلام).) and Abdullah bin Masud and for destroying all the Qur'ans in people's possession. If, in fact, the reason for collecting the Qur'ans and unifying them was the difference in their readings, then it would not be necessary to destroy the Qur'ans after unifying them. Those inscriptions solved many problems and ambiguities of the Qur'an and it was not the case that people could not separate the Qur'anic text from their Mushafs with the text of hadiths. In addition to that, destroying the Quran by burning and tearing up the papers was an illegal act, and the caliph has been blamed for it to this day.

https://hawzah.net/fa/Magazine/View/5211/5566/53538/راز-نگارش-جدید-قرآن-در-عصر-عثمانی

[Guest Psychological Warfare]

fyi

Al-Bayan fi Tafsir al-Qur’an, The Prolegomena to the Qur’an

Sayyid Abu al-Qasim al-Khoei

https://www.al-islam.org/al-bayan-fi-tafsir-al-quran-prolegomena-quran-sayyid-abu-al-qasim-al-khoei/7-protection-quran

Quote

The Meaning of Alteration

The word tahrif is applied, and carries a number of meanings, by way of concurrence. Some types of alteration were made to the Qur'an and were agreed upon by the Muslims; other types of alteration did not occur, as Muslims also agreed. Still others are the subject of dispute among them. Let us now turn to the details.

First, the word tahrif has the sense of "transferring a word from its original sense to another, and transforming its meaning into another." Such is the meaning derived from the following verse of the Qur'an:

"Some of those who are Jews change (yuharrijfuna) from their context [in the Scripture]" (Qur’an 4:46).

There is no dispute among Muslims about whether this kind of alteration occurred in the Book of God. Thus, anyone who explains the Qur'an incorrectly, ascribing to it meanings other than those it conveys, has committed an alteration. One can find many followers of the sinful deviations and corrupt doctrines, who have changed the meaning of the Qur'an by interpreting its verses in accordance with their own opinions and their heretic tendencies.

There are prophetic statements prohibiting such alteration of the meanings, and the doer of these alterations has been condemned in a number of traditions. Among these traditions is the one reported by al-Kulayni, whose chain of transmission goes back to the Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (peace be upon him), who wrote in his letter to Sa'd al-Khayr:

Among their ways of repudiating the Book [of God] is that they stand by its wording, whereas they misconstrue its limits. Hence, they see it but do not submit to it. And the ignorant ones are pleased with their memorization of the text, while the learned are grieved by their leaving obedience to it.1

Second, the word tahrif has also the sense of "an omission or addition in the letters or the vocalization [of a word], while the Qur'an remains preserved [in its meanings] and without loss [of any part], even if [the altered words] were not distinct from others."

Alteration in this sense definitely occurred in the Qur'an. Earlier in this book, we demonstrated that the readings of the Qur'an have reached us through an uninterrupted transmission. This means that the revealed Qur'an accords with only one of the [ten preserved] readings, while the rest contain additions or omissions.

Third, the word tahrif is used in the sense of "the omission or addition of a word or two, while the revealed Qur'an remains preserved [in its meanings]."

Alteration in this sense occurred in the early days of Islam, and definitely during the period of the Companions. The evidence of this is the consensus among Muslims that 'Uthman ordered his governors to bum all the codices except the one codex that was collected under his orders. This shows that these [destroyed] texts were different from the one that was officially compiled; otherwise, there was no justification to destroy them. Some scholars have recorded the instances that had occasioned differences among these codices. One of them was 'Abd Allah b. Abi Dawud al-Sijistani, who named his work Kitab al-Masahif (The Book of the Codices [of the Qur'an]). Thus, there is no doubt that alterations were made either by 'Uthman or by the scribes of the destroyed codices. However, we shall explain that what was compiled under 'Uthman was the Qur'an that is now known among Muslims, which had passed to them, successively, from the Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny), hand to hand. The addition and omission had occurred in those other codices that were discontinued after 'Uthman's reign. As for this existing Qur'an, there is no addition or omission in it.

In short, for those who maintain that the transmission of those other codices has stopped-which is actually the case-tahrif in this third sense did occur in the early days of Islam, but it certainly ended during the reign of 'Uthman, and the text was restricted to the one whose uninterrupted transmission from the Prophet was estab­ lished. As for those who maintain that all the codices continued to be transmitted without interruption, they have to accept the corollary that alteration in the sense that Muslims arc not in agreement upon would have occurred in the revealed Qur'an, and that part of it is lost. We noted the statements of al-Tabari and other scholars regarding 'Uthman's abolition of the six other harf in which the Qur'an was revealed, and restricting it to only one.2

Fourth, tahrif occurs in the sense of "addition or omission in a verse or a sura, while the revealed Qur'an remains preserved"; and it is accepted that the Prophet had recited these.

Alteration in this sense also definitely occurred in the Qur'an. For example, one of the things on which Muslims are agreed is that the Prophet recited the basmala [the verse that reads, "In the name of God, the Merciful, the Beneficent"] before each sura except the ninth, entitled "al-Tawba." Sunni scholars, however, are in a disagreement on whether this sentence is part of the Qur'an. A group of them opted for the view that it is not part of the Qur'an; in fact, the followers of the Maliki school of jurisprudence go as far as regarding it as reprehensible to recite it before the Surat al-Fatiha (Opening Sura) in the obligatory daily prayers, except if the worshiper determines it to be outside the dispute; on the other hand, others among the Sunnis consider the bismalla to be part of the Qur'an.

As for the Shiites, they have accepted the bismalla as part of each sura except sura nine, "al-Tawba". Some Sunni scholars have adopted this as the sound opinion. We shall treat the matter in detail when we begin our commentary on "Surat al-Fatiha." Thus, in the revealed Qur'an, there has certainly occurred tahrif [in the fourth sense]­ that is, through addition or omission in the verse or the chapter.

Fifth, tahrif is used in the sense of addition; this is to say that parts of the Qur'an that we now have are not a revealed Word. Alteration in this sense is not true [of the Qur'an]. This is the consensus of all Muslims and it is, indeed, known imperatively. Sixth, tahrif in the meaning of omission, indicates that the text that we have does not include all of the Qur'an that was revealed from heaven; rather, some of it is lost for the people.

Alteration in this sense is the one on which there is disagreement. A group has accepted it as true while others have denied it.