This is the chapter that shall hurt Nawasib the most as it shall provide no opportunity for them to advance the excuse of abrogation because the pious Sahaba and Tabayeen had unequivocally marked ‘mistakes’ in different parts of the Holy Quran and submitted ‘actual’ words that are markedly different to what we read today in the Holy book.
We read in Quran:
[Shakir 24:27] O you who believe! Do not enter houses other than your own houses until you have asked permission and saluted their inmates; this is better for you, that you may be mindful.
27. YA AYYUHA ALLATHEENA AMANOO LA TADKHULOO BUYOOTAN GHAYRA BUYOOTIKUM HATTA TASTA/NISOO/ WATUSALLIMOO AAALA AHLIHA THALIKUM KHAYRUN LAKUM LAAAALLAKUM TATHAKKAROONA
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/transliteration/024.html
Now according to certain revered figures in Islam, all Muslims have faith in distorted and incorrect word in the above cited verse while the ‘actual’ and indeed ‘correct’ word has been done away with by a ‘mistake’ on the part of the scribe of Quran, raising serious concerns over the authenticity of the Holy Book. We are relying upon the following reliable books of Ahle Sunnah to substantiate our claim:
Imam Hakim records:
Narrated Mujahid:
Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) used to say about the statement of Allah ‘{ LA TADKHULOO BUYOOTAN GHAYRA BUYOOTIKUM HATTA TASTA/NISOO }’ It is a mistake by the scribe’ (actually its) TASTAZINO’
Not only this but Sunni scholars have even attested to the authenticity of such an audacious claim, as stated by Imam Hakim:
“This Hadith is (Sahih) as per the conditions of the two Shaykhs although they have not recorded it”
On the top of it, Imam Dhahabi stated:
“Its on the condition of Bukhari and Muslim”
Mustadrak al Hakim, Vol 3 page 253 Hadith 3496
Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani is also among such Sunni scholars who attested to the authenticity of this statement:
Sa’id ibn Mansur, al-Tabari and al-Bayhaqi in al-Shi’b have narrated through a Sahih chain that Ibn Abbas used to recite “HATTA TASTAZINO’” and used to say: ‘The scribe made a mistake’.
We read the same testimony of the Sahabi Ibn Abbas in Tafseer Tabari through another authentic chain of narration:
Ibn Bashar narrated from Muhammad bin Jaffar from Shu’aba from Abi Bashir from Saeed bin Jubair from Ibn Abbas about this verse ‘{O you who believe! Do not enter houses other than your own houses until you have asked permission (TASTA/NISOO) and saluted their inmates}’ . He said: ‘It is a mistake by the scribe. ‘{ until you have asked permission (TASTAZINO) and saluted their inmates}’ .
According to Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani’s Taqrib al-Tahdib, Muhammad bin Bashar, Muhammad bin Jaffar al-Hadali and Shu’aba are ‘Thiqah’ while Abu Bashr Bayan bin Bashr and Saeed bin Jubair are ‘Thiqah Thabt’.
Moreover we read a similar testimony by one of the revered Tabayeen namely Saeed bin Jubair:
Ibn al-Muthana narrated from Wahab bin Jarir from Shu’aba from Abi Bashir from Saeed bin Jubair the same but he added: ‘It is supposed to be ‘{until you have asked permission (TASTAZINO)}’ but it was a mistake of the scribe‘
According to Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani’s Taqrib al-Tahdib, Wahab bin Jarir and Shu’aba are ‘Thiqah’ while Muhammad bin al-Muthana, Abu Bashr Bayan bin Bashr and Saeed bin Jubair are ‘Thiqah Thabt’.
Qadhi Shokani in Tafseer Fatah al-Qadir very proudly enlists some of the Sunni scholars who have recorded such an audacious statement implying Tahrif in Quran:
“Faryabi, Saeed bin Mansur, Abd bin Hameed, Ibn Jarir, Ibn Manzar, Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn Anbar in Masahif, Ibn Mundah in Gharab Sho’ba, Hakim who authenticated it, Ibn Mardawiya[, Bayhaqi in sho’aib and Diya in Mukhtara from Ibn Abbas who said regarding the verse that it is a mistake by the scribe.”
Similar statements have been narrated by Abdullah Ibn Masud and Ubai bin Ka’ab in different Sunni commentaries cited above.
Whenever a reference is cited from Sunni books before Nawasib implying that the Sahaba and Tabyaeen marked a ‘mistake’ in the Quran that all Muslims have in their possession or they believed in ‘different’ words in respective verses of Quran, the same lame excuse is advanced, namely:
‘Such references have no nexus with Tahrif, distortion or a mistake in the Quran rather the respective personalities would ‘recite’ such words in a different manner, that would not alter the meaning of the words in any way. There exists more than one method for Quran recitation and it would thus make no difference if some Sahabi or Tabayee recited it differently as it doesn’t alter the meaning’
The acute discomfort suffered by the Sunni clergy through the aforementioned statements of the Sahaba and Tabyeen and their fear that such statements might open the gates for Tahrif in Quran shall suffice to negate this Nasibi excuse. Imams of Ahle Sunnah clearly pointed out the fact that such statements wherein the Sahaba and Tabayeen have marked ‘mistake’ in Quran indeed raises doubts on the authenticity of Holy Quran i.e. such statements imply Tahrif.
After citing the above statement of Ibn Abbas, Imam Ibn Adil Demashiqi al-Hanbali (d. after 880 H) in his esteemed commentary of Quran wrote in Tafseer al-Lubaab, Volume 14 pages 341-342:
Ibn Abbas said that it is ‘HATTA TASTAZINO’ and is not a variation of the recitation. What has been narrated by him is that he said: ‘TASTA/NISOO’ is a mistake by the scribe and that it is ‘TASTAZINO’ has been made up.
Some have rejected this because it questions the authenticity of the Quran that has been narrated by Tawatur and that it incumbent that we accept the authenticity of the Quran over that which has not been narrated by Tawatur and opening those two doors will question the authenticity of whole Quran, that is void (Batil).
(3) B – it is (fa inahou)
(4) see Alfagher Arazee 197/23
Tafseer al-Lubaab, Volume 14 pages 341-342
To deal with the statement by Ibn Abbas, Allamah Mehmood Alusi al-Baghdadi relied upon the opinion of Imam Ibn Hayan. We read in Tafsir Ruh al-Ma’ani:
But Abu Hayyan said: ‘One who narrates from Ibn Abbas claiming that he said this, then he is attributing a fault to Islam and is an apostate and Ibn Abbas is innocent of such claims’.
Tafseer Ruh Al-Ma’ani, Volume 18 page 133
Let us now quote the actual words of Imam Abu Hayan Andlasi from his authority work Tafseer Bahr al-Muheet, Volume 8 page 302:
‘And it is narrated from Ibn Abbas that {TASTA/NISOO } is in the meaning of TASTAZINO whereas what is narrated from Ibn Abbas, namely that he said {TASTA/NISOO } is a mistake by the scribe and that he recited TASTAZINO, then he has lied upon Islam and is an apostate and Ibn Abbas is free from this saying’
Not only this but Imam Fakhruddin al-Razi also recognised that such testimonies of the Sahaba and Tabyeen were nothing to do with different or abrogated recitations as the present day Nawasib would like us to believe, they were in fact alluding to Tahrif/distortions of the Holy Quran, that thus created grave doubts over the sanctity of the Holy Quran. He states:
Be aware that the statement by Ibn Abbas is one that requires consideration because it questions the authenticity of the Quran that has been narrated by Tawatur and that it necessitates one to accept the authenticity of the Quran (over that) which has not been narrated by Tawatur and opening those two doors will question the authenticity of whole Quran.
Throughout this chapter, whenever we cite a statement by a Sahabi or Tabayee marking a ‘mistake’ in respective Quranic verse, the abovementioned reply shall be taken therein by default against the usual Nasibi excuse.
At times the statement by a Sahabi or Tabayee marking a ‘mistake’ in Quran and mentioning the original/correct word does indeed very clearly highlight ‘different’ meaning which nullifies the usual Nasibi excuse.
An unequivocal statement by a Sahabi or Tabayee marking a ‘mistake’ in the Quran and suggesting the ‘original’/correct wording cannot be discarded by a simple excuse offered by today’s Cyber Nasibi. The Nasibi excuse will always be thrown on their own dirty faces until they produce a statement from the same respective Sahabi or Tabayee substantiating what they have deduced i.e. it is merely a different pronunciation/recitation and does not mean different meaning (implying Tahrif).
It is now apt to ask a direct question to the Nawasib of Sipah-i-Sahaba:
“Do you really believe that the Quran that today’s Muslims hold in their hands is correct and complete? If yes then what does your brutal organization deem about the testimonies of the Sahaba recorded by your esteemed Ulema who attested to mistakes in the present Quran? If abandoning the Sahaba is Kufr and its perpetrator acquires the wrath of Allah (as taught by Nawasib) then are you people not likewise accursed ones as you have abandoned the 'correct' versions of Quranic verses taught by some of your renowned Sahaba?”
We would like Nawasib to make themselves clear from the objection against them for not believing in the present Quran, it is only then that they will have the right to demand answers from us about the traditions present in our texts.
We read in Holy Quran:
[Shakir 17:23] And your Lord has commanded that you shall not serve (any) but Him
23. WAQADA RABBUKA ALLA TAAABUDOO ILLA IYYAHU
http://www.usc.edu/
But Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti records in Al-Itqan fi Uloom al Quran, Volume 1 page 542:
Al-Dahak was asked: ‘How do you recite the verse ‘WAQADA RABBUKA’?’. He replied: ‘Neither we nor Ibn Abbas used to recite this verse in this manner, actually its “WA WASA RABBUKA”. This verse used to be read and written like this but your writer diped his pen into ink pot, he got more ink than required and hence [alphabet] ‘WAA’ (و) got mixed up with [alphabet] ‘SAAD’ (ص)’.
We should point out that as per Ibn Abbas the word we are reciting today ‘was never revealed’ on Holy Prophet (s) and if it would have indeed been revealed like that, then the entire meaning of the verse according to Ibn Abbas would have changed. Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani records:
Maimon bin Mehran narrated from Ibn Abbas that he said: ‘Allah revealed this word on the tongue of Holy Prophet (s): ‘WA WASA RABBUKA ALLA TAAABUDOO ILLA IYYAHU’ but [alphabet] ‘WAA’ got mixed with [alphabet] ‘SAAD’ so it became ‘WAQADA RABBUKA ALLA TAAABUDOO ILLA IYYAHU’, had it been revealed with ‘AL QADA’ none would have committed shirk then’
al-Matalib al-Aalia, volume 10 page 342 No. 3745
Imam Fakhruddin al-Razi has recorded a more clarified version of Ibn Abbas’s arguments for not believing in the word we all recite today in the cited verse. We read in Tafseer Kabeer, Volume 10 page 30:
Maimon bin Mehran narrated from Ibn Abbas that he said: ‘The actual word in this verse was ‘WA WASA’ but ‘WAA’ got mixed with ‘SAAD’ that is why it is recited as ‘WAQADA RABBUKA’. Then he said: ‘Had it been Qada (fate) then none would have disobeyed Allah as it would have been impossible to go against Qada of Allah’. This narration was narrated from him by Dahak and Saeed bin Jubair and this is the Qirat of Ali and Abdullah
Ibn Abbas is making a serious point here. Had the word ‘QADA’ (destination/fate) been revealed/used, then Allah would have woud not have ‘destined’ anyone to commit Shirk by worshipping someone besides Him (swt), but since He (swt) did not reveal the word ‘QADA’ therefore we see human beings not worshipping him (swt). But advancing this argument, Ibn Abbas has hmiself silenced the Nawasib to claim that Ibn Abbas was merely relying upon ‘different recitation’ which does not bring in the meaning of the verse!
This belief of Tahreef in Quran advanced by Ibn Abbas is also authentic in the eyes of Ahle Sunnah as recorded by Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani in Fatah al-Bari, Volume 8 page 373:
“A similar narration comes in regards to ‘And your Lord has commanded that you shall not serve (any) but Him’ He said: WA WASA and WAA has joined SAAD; Saeed bin Mansur narrated it with a great chain from him’
Remember, Ibn Abbas was not alone in this belief but he was accompanied by companions like Abdullah Ibn Masud (Maujam al-Kabir al-Tabarani, v8 p46 No.8598), Ubai bin Ka’ab and Tabayee Mujahid (Tafsir Tabari, v17 p414) and Dahak (Tafsir Ibn Abdusalam, v3 p322).
Although we have made it clear earlier in this chapter and then just above as well that Nasibi excuse of ‘mere difference in the recitation with no change in the meaning of the verse’ will not work for the reasons supplied thereunder but specefically with respect to word under discussion hereinabove, let us advance the testimony of Imam Fakhruddin al-Razi that Ibn Abbas was indeed referring to Tahreef in Quran. We read in Tafseer Kabeer, Volume 10 page 30, the view that has also been vouched by Imam Ibn Adil Hanbali in Tafsir Al-Lubab, Volume 12 page 248, Muhammad Sharbini Khateeb in Tafsir Siraj al-Munir, Volume 4 page 195 and Khazin in his Tafsir, Volume 4 page 451:
“I know this saying is very weird as it no doubt opens the gates of Tahreef and changes in the Tareeq of Quran and if it is accepted then it will mean that Quran is out of protection and it will take out Quran from the status of Hujja and no doubt that it will open great criticism in religion”
We read in Quran:
[Shakir 13:31] And even if there were a Quran with which the mountains were made to pass away, or the earth were travelled over with it, or the dead were made to speak thereby; nay! the commandment is wholly Allah’s, Have not yet those who believe known that if Allah please He would certainly guide all the people? And (as for) those who disbelieve, there will not cease to afflict them because of what they do a repelling calamity, or it will alight close by their abodes, until the promise of Allah comes about; surely Allah will not fail in (His) promise
31. WALAW ANNA QUR-ANAN SUYYIRAT BIHI ALJIBALU AW QUTTIAAAT BIHI AL-ARDU AW KULLIMA BIHI ALMAWTA BAL LILLAHI AL-AMRU JAMEEAAAN AFALAM YAY-ASI ALLATHEENA AMANOO AN LAW YASHAO ALLAHU LAHADA ALNNASA JAMEEAAAN WALA YAZALU ALLATHEENA KAFAROO TUSEEBUHUM BIMA SANAAAOO QARIAAATUN AW TAHULLU QAREEBAN MIN DARIHIM HATTA YA/TIYA WAAADU ALLAHI INNA ALLAHA LA YUKHLIFU ALMEEAAADA
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/transliteration/013.html
We are quoting from the following esteemed books of Ahle Sunnah .
We read in Al Itqan:
“Ibn Abbas recited this verse as ‘AFALAM YATBAIN ALLATHEENA’. He was told that it is ‘AFALAM YAY-ASI ALLATHEENA’ to which Ibn Abbas replied: “The writer has written YAY-ASI but I think that he may not have been wakeful at that time of writing this word.”
Imam of Ahle Sunnah Ibn Hajar Asqalani writes in his commentary of Sahih Bukhari i.e. Fatah al Bari, Volume 8 page 373:
“And Tabari and Abd bin Hamid narrated with a Sahih chain containing all the narrators from the rijal of Bukhari, from Ibn Abbas that he recited “AFALAM YATBAIN” and said that the writer had written it [YAY-ASI] when he was drowsy.”
Notice big difference between the two spellings and hence in their respective pronunciations. So would Nawasib like to tell us whose version Muslims should adhere to? Uthman’s one which as per Ibn Abbas is a result of a ‘mistake’ of the writer or the ‘corrected’ version told by Ibn Abbas?
Here we would like to ask the filthy Nawasib of Sipah e Sahaba and Salafi/Wahabi movement straight questions:
It is palpable that both Shias and Sunnis believe that Imam Mahdi (as) will come before Qiyamah and will rule according to the perfect divine laws.
So will he rule with a book that is made up of incorrect words?
If yes then Nawasib are calling the book of Allah (swt) incorrect which will not be corrected by him or his caliph even before Qayamah, the Quran will thus remain incorrect.
If the answer is no, will Imam Mahdi (as) correct the words (in the manner in which they were revealed from Allah) so that the truth shall be made manifest known to the Muslims prior to the end of this world? If yes then why do these followers of Muawiya bark at Shias for believing that the correct form of the Quran is with Imam Mahdi (as) when we actually believe that the Quran shall be no different?
Which ever answer they provide, both will read to one path, namely proof that the Nasibi ascribe to Tahrif.
This serious matter has been claimed and recorded by the esteemed authorities of their sect not by us. It has been the ‘impure’ blood of unknown fathers flowing into the veins of Haq Nawaz Jhangvi, his Sipah-e-Sahaba followers and the ‘Wahabi Movement’ that has issued edicts against the followers of Ahlulbait (as) for having traditions that imply Tahrif in the Quran, tragically we are yet to find these hatred filled people issuing takfeer against their own Imams for recording similar traditions.
We read in the Quran:
[Shakir 3:81] And when Allah made a covenant through the prophets: Certainly what I have given you of Book and wisdom– then an messenger comes to you verifying that which is with you, you must believe in him, and you must aid him. He said: Do you affirm and accept My compact in this (matter)? They said: We do affirm. He said: Then bear witness, and I (too) am of the bearers of witness with you.
Now we are quoting from the following books of Ahle Sunnah
We read in Tafseer Tabari:
Al-Rabee used to read: ‘and Allah made a covenant with the people who were given the book’. He said: ‘And that is how Ubai bin Kaab used to read it.’
So we have the beliefs of a Tabayee al-Rabee bin Anas and a Sahabi Ubai bin Kaab that the ‘correct’ form of this verse is the one they used to recite and not the one we have today in our copies of the Quran. If Nawasib are planning to bring any sort of excuse about the statement of the two aforesaid personalities, we would like to nip that in the bud by presenting the elaborated testimony of one of the pious and revered Tabayee namely Mujahid, who clearly stated that the present form of this verse is a ‘mistake’ by the scribe, as he likewise believed in the same form of this verse as testified by Al-Rabee and Ubai bin Kaab previously. We read in Tafseer Tabari:
Muhammad bin Amro narrated from Abu Asim from Isa from Ibn Abi Nujaih from Mujahid who said about the verse: “And when Allah made a covenant through the prophets: Certainly what I have given you of Book and wisdom” . He said: ‘It is a mistake of the scribes. In the recitation of Ibn Masud it was in this manner: “And Allah made a covenant with the people who were given the book” ’.
According to Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani’s Taqrib al-Tahdib, Muhammad bin Amro bin Abaad is ‘Seduq’. Abu Asim al-Dhahak bin Mukhalad is ‘Thiqa Thabt’ while Isa bin Maymoon, Abdullah ibn Abi Nujaih and Mujahid bin Jabr are ‘Thiqah’.
Dear readers, here we see another proof from Sunni texts regarding Tahreef in the Quran. Unsurprisingly Nasibi mullahs of modern age try their best to defend their beloved Sahaba who attested to alterations in the Holy text, and for this Nawasib advance their usual abrogation excuse. But they should know that there must be an authentic hadith to support their claim. And whenever they don’t have any solid thing to say, then we see the Nawasib calling such traditions fabricated. If they are really going to advance the same opinion then we would like to thank the Almighty (swt) who has made our opponents admit that the narrators and scholars of their sect were liars and we should not forget that Allah (swt)’s curse is upon liars.
We read in Surah Jum’a:
[Shakir 62:9] O you who believe! when the call is made for prayer on Friday, then hasten to the remembrance of Allah and leave off trading; that is better for you, if you know.
9: YA AYYUHA ALLATHEENA AMANOO ITHA NOODIYA LILSSALATI MIN YAWMI ALJUMUAAATI FAISAAAW ILA THIKRI ALLAHI WATHAROO ALBAYAAA THALIKUM KHAYRUN LAKUM IN KUNTUM TAAALAMOONA
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/transliteration/062.html
For the proof of Tahreef offered by Umar, we will rely on the following Sunni texts:
We read in Tafseer Dur al Manthur:
Abu Ubaid narrated in his (book) al-Fadhael and Saeed bin Mansur, Ibn Abi Shayba, Ibn al-Mundher and Ibn al-Anbari in the Masahif (book) from Kharsha bin al-Hur that he said: ‘Umar bin al-Khatab saw me carrying a tablet written in it ‘{when the call is made for prayer on Friday, then hasten to the remembrance of Allah} (FAISAAAW ILA THIKRI ALLAH)’. He (Umar) asked: ‘Who dictated this to you?’ I replied: ‘Ubai bin Kaab’. He said: ‘Ubai recited the abrogated (part), he (Umar) recited it ‘FAMZO ILA THIKRI ALLAH’
Regarding its chain of narration, Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani records in Fatah al Bari, volume 8 page 642:
“Narrated by Saad bin Mansur and he clarified the medium [narrator] between the [narrator] Ibrahim and Umar who is Kharsha ibn al Hurr therefore the chain is Sahih”
Imam AbdulRazaq Sanani records in his Musnaf:
Abdulrazaq narrated from Mu’amar and others from al-Zuhari from Salem from Ibn Umar who said: ‘Umar used to recite the verse of Juma chapter in this manner: ‘FAMZO ILA THIKRI ALLAH’ until he passed away’
According to Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani’s Taqrib al-Tahdib, Abdulrazaq al-San’ani is ‘Thiqah’ (v1 p599), M’amar bin Rashid is ‘Thiqah Thabt’ (v2 p202) and Salem bin Abdullah is ‘Thabt’ (v1 p335) and about Al-Zuhari he said: ‘There is a consensus on his magnificence’ (v2 p132).
If Nawasib argue that these two different words doesnt result in different meanings then we should point out that the word we Muslims recite today is ‘FAISAAAW’ which means ‘to hasten’ but according to Umar the ‘correct’ word and word which we all are supposed to write and recite is ‘FAMZO’ which means ‘to go’, that is why we read the following words of Sahabi Abdullah Ibn Masud:
Ibn Masud used to recite ‘FAMZO ILA THIKRI ALLAH’. He said: ‘If it was ‘FAISAAAW’, I would walk so quickly that my cloak would fall down’
Tafseer Dur al Manthur, Volume 8 page 161
Ibn Abbas too believed that the actual word in this verse was ‘FAMZO’.
We are eager to know the Nasibi fatwa here. These traditions not only show the belief of companions but they also confirm that the Sunni ulema too believed in the distortion of the Quran for they copiously recorded Sahih traditions from Sahaba who testified to a form of word which is absent in the present Quran and thus we are also deprived of the ‘correct’ meaning which the verse wanted us to know. Have the malicious Nawasib belonging to Salafi/Wahabi cult and Sipah Sahaba for that matter, never come across such traditions? Now the Nawasib are left in a difficult position. Their Mullah recite Surah during every Friday prayer. What recitation do they perform? The version from the Quran that Umar deemed incorrect or Umar’s version? If they adopt the version from the existing Quran then is that not an insult to the memory of their second king who made it clear that the word ‘FAISAAAW’ is incorrect?
The 45th verse of Surah Zukhraf is in the following manner
[Shakir 43:45] And ask those of Our messengers whom We sent before you: Did We ever appoint gods to be worshipped besides the Beneficent Allah?
In order to show the different wordings of this verse recited by the famed companion Abdullah Ibn Masud, we shall rely on the following Sunni books.
We read in Tafseer Ibn Kathir:
Abdullah bin Masud recited it as:
“And ask those whom We sent before you of Our Messengers”
Tafseer Ibn Kathir [Arabic]
Tafseer Ibn Kathir (Urdu), Vol 5 Parah 25 Page 35 (Farid Book Depot Dehli)
Now apart from this version of the verse recited by Ibn Masud, Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti has recorded yet another version of this verse recited by Ibn Masud which again is not the one we read today.
In Ibn Masud’s recitation: ‘And ask those who read the book before you’
Tafseer Dur al Manthur, Volume 7 page 382
Interestingly, after recording the tradition, Ibn Kathir then says:
“Yet this appears to be an explanation rather than an alternate version of recitation. And Allah knows best.”
There are numerous traditions according to which Ibn Masud and his companions had the Quranic verses in their Mushafs with words that differ from the manner in which Muslims recite verses today. Are all of those traditions going to be explained away as explanations rather than alternate verses? And why don’t Nawasib deem such Shia traditions as ‘explanation’ as well? We are yet to find the primary source from where Ibn Kathir was informed about this.
The alleged belief in distortion in the Holy Quran that is used as a tool by Sipah e Sahaba to declare others as Kaafir has struck the necks of their own scholars and caliphs and they have unashamedly recorded those views and beliefs in their renowned and authentic books. Ibn Kathir says about the above mentioned tradition that his beloved may have read the verse in this manner to enable an “explanation” but has then he destroyed his own excuse by concluding with the words “And Allah knows best”, which clearly shows that even he wasn’t sure of the reality. And why don’t these people accept the Shia reply about similar traditions found in their books?
We read in Tafseer Ibn Abi Hatim, Volume 8 page 2595:
Ali bin al-Hussain narrated from Nasr bin Ali from his father from Shebl bin Abaad from Qays bin Saad from Atta from Ibn Abbas ‘{Allah is the light of the heavens and the earth; a likeness of His light is as a niche}’. He said: ‘This is a mistake by the scribe, He (Allah) is greater than to be his light as a niche, He said (that its): ‘{a likeness of the believer’s light is as a niche}’’.
According to Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani’s Taqrib al-Tahdib Ali bin al-Hussain bin Ibrahim al-Ameri is ‘Seduq’ and Nasr bin Ali al-Jahdhami is ‘Thiqah Thabt’ where as Ali bin Nasr, Shebl bin Abbad, Qays bin Saad al-Makki and Atta bin Rabah are ‘Thiqah’.
See the big difference between the two versions of this verse. According to Mushaf of Uthman, we believe the the verse is talking about Allah (swt) while Ibn Abbas (ra) not only unequivocally rejected this but advanced the ‘correct’ version of this words according to which this verse is talking about ‘believers’. So what is the fatwa of Nawasib against Ibn Abbas here? Are they going to declare him Kaafir since he openly challenged a word of Holy Quran and did it with reasoning?
Imam Abu Daud’s son Allamah Abi Bakar Sajistani records this daring tradition in his esteemed book Al Musahif:
“Abdullah narrated from Al-Fadhal bin Hamad al-Khayri narrated from Khlad (he meant Ibn Khalid ) from Zaid Ibn Hubab narrated from Ash’ath from Saeed bin Jubayr: “There are four mistakes in Quran:
“ALSSABI-OON” [ 5:69] , “WAALMUQEEMEEN” [4:162 ] , “FAASSADDAQA WAAKUN MINA ALSSALIHEEN” [63:10], “IN HATHANI LASAHIRANI” [20:63]”.
When the beloved personalities of the Nawasib have narrated clear traditions about mistakes in the Quran and their Imams had the audacity to endorse these traditions then what right do these Nawasib have to attack Shias? Why do these Nawasib not bat an eyelid when their texts contain such statements from their beloved ones, but are content on declaring the Shias Kaafir because their books contains traditions suggesting tahreef?
We read in the following texts of Ahle Sunnah:
We read the following bold testimony of Ayesha in Tafseer Thalabi:
Abu Bakr bin Abdoos and Abu Abdullah bin Hamid narrated from Abu al-Abbas al-Asim from Muhammad bin al-Jahm al-Samri from al-Fara from Abu Mu’awiyah from Hisham bin Arwa from his father that Ayesha was asked about Allah’s statements in Surah Nisa (verse 162) ‘LAKINI ALRRASIKHOONA’ and ‘WAALMUQEEMEENA’ and the Almighty’s statement in Sura Maidah (verse 69) ‘INNA ALLATHEENA AMANOO WAALLATHEENA HADOO WAALSSABI-OON’ and His statement (Taha, 63) ‘IN HATHANI LASAHIRANI’. Ayesha replied: ‘O my nephew, this is due to mistakes committed by the scribe’.
Abu Bakr Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Abdoos: Dahabi said: ‘Imam’ (Siar alam alnubala, v17 p58). Abu Abdullah bin Hamed al-Waraq: Dahabi said: ‘Sheikh and Mufti of Hanbalis’ (Siar alam alnubala, v17 p203). Abu al-Abbas al-Asim: Dahabi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Tazkirat al-Hufaz, v3 p860). Muhammad bin Jahm al-Samri: Dahabi said: ‘Darqutni said that he was Thiqah’ (Siar alam alnubala, v13 p164). Al-Fara bin Yahya: Dahabi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Siar alam alnubala, v10, p119). Abu Mu’wiyah Muhammad bin Khazem: Dahabi said: ‘Thabt’ (Tazkirat al-Hufaz, v1 p294). Hisham bin Urwa: Dahabi said: ‘Hujja’ (Tazkirat al-Hufaz, v1 144). Urwa bin al-Zubair: Dahabi said: ‘Thabt’ (Tazkirat al-Hufaz, v1 p62).
Shias attest that Uthman made mistakes whilst writing the Quran and have marked errors in the Quran compiled by Uthman.
It is not us; rather it was Ayesha who marked errors in the Quran compiled by Uthman. If marking errors of Uthman is a sin then Ayesha was the first person to do so.
The chain of narrators in the above cited tradition in which Ayesha marked mistakes in the Quran of Uthman is weak, and a weak tradition carries no importance.
The chain is strong, all of the narrators have been graded as reliable by the great Imam Dhahabi that nullifies this argument. Moreover Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti’s statements are sufficient to refute any such attempt by Nawasib:
Abu Ubaid stated in Fadhail Quran that Abu Muawiyah narrated from Hisham bin Urwah from his father that Ayesha was asked about the following mistakes in the Quran ‘IN HATHANI LASAHIRANI’ and His (swt) statement ‘WAALMUQEEMEENA ALSSALATA WAALMU/TOONA ALZZAKATA’ and His (swt) statement ‘INNA ALLATHEENA AMANOO WAALLATHEENA HADOO WAALSSABI-OON’. She replied: “O son of my nephew, this is due to the act of the scribes of the Quran who committed a mistake whilst transcribing them. The chain of this tradition is Sahih according to the conditions of the Shaikhain.
Al Itqan fi Uloom al Quran, Volume 1 page 210
Moreover he wrote in Volume 1 page 212:
“There is no strength with the replies that are advanced against the above cited reply of Ayesha, namely that it contains a weak chain. The chain is Sahih.”
Uthmani advocates say: “We can conduct interpretations (Taweel) of the words that have been marked as incorrect by Ayesha and they can be dealt with under the rules of grammar and syntax.”
The excuse of ‘interpretation’ is indeed a very convenient and accommodating. Nasibi scholars utilized this excuse when they issued a fatwa permitting the writing of the Quran with urine. The Sahaba offered the same excuse after setting the Quran manuscripts on fire. Muawiyah who raised the Quran on spears in the Battle of Sifeen offered the same excuse. Since Ayesha’s statement about errors in the Quran of Uthman casts serious aspersions on the faith of both personalities the interpretation excuse is offered yet again.
Ayesha’s views about the above cited words are a mistake in Ijtehad similar to when she rebelled and fought the fourth khalifa.
Jalaluddin Suyuti has unequivocally accepted her statement [Al-Itqan]. In consequence, the authenticity of the hadith of Ayesha has spun the heads of Sunni scholars in a manner so severe that the spinnig shall not cease until Qayamah. The mistakes in the Quran of Uthman marked by Ayesha cannot be refuted on the feeble basis of conjecture and the tricks of Sunni hardliners.
Sahaba were Huhfaz / Qurra i.e they knew the Quran by heart, how could they commit mistakes in the words of the Quran?
Abu Bakar, Umar and Uthman were not complete Hufaz of Quran.
The Sahaba had taken Quran from Prophet (s) in the manner in which it was revealed and likewise taught it in the same manner. How could they then make errors when compiling the Quran?
This is a baseless claim because we read in authentic Sunni literature that the companions weren’t sure about the place or sequence of Surah Infaal and Surah Barat.
It is strange to assume that all the companions were happy to with the inclusion of incorrect words in the Quran.
Not all companions agreed to it, after all Umro would not have asked Ayesha about those mistakes.
Dear readers, Ayesha’s tradition that states that writers had made errors whilst lettering some words in the Quran, has been narrated with a Sahih chain of narration according to Sunni sources. Whilst contemplating Ayesha’s research, several questions appear,
Notice the double standards of the Nasibi ulema who cannot validate Ayesha’s atrocious belief that the Quran contains incorrect words but if same words have been uttered by someone else (of the opposite sect) these mullahs instantly issue a fatwa of Kufr.
This approach proves how disingenuous the Nawasib are.
This atrocious view of Uthman has been recorded in the the following esteemed books of Ahle Sunnah.
Allamah Baghwi writes in Tafseer Ma’alam al-Tanzeel:
“There is disagreement over ‘ALMUQEEMEENA ALSSALAT’. Ayesha (ra) and Aban bin Uthman said that was written in the Quran due to a mistake on the part of the transcriber. Its correction is essential and it should be written as ‘ALMUQEEMOONA ALSSALAT’. Similarly in Surah Maidah ‘AALSSABI-OONA’ and in Surah Taha ‘IN HATHANI LASAHIRANI’ have also been written due to the mistake of scribes. Uthman stated that he had seen some mistakes in the Quran and Arabs would corret the through their language and they had asked him to change them but he said that these mistakes did not change Haram to Halal and vice versa”
We should also mention that Imam of Nawasib Ibn Taimiyah has written in his Minhaj, under the discussion of Tafseer Thalabi that:
“Baghwi’s Tafseer is the abridged form of Thalabi’s Tafseer and he (Baghwi) didn’t include fabrications in his Tafseer”
We read in Tafseer Kabeer:
“When Uthman saw his [compiled] Quran he stated that he observed some mistakes that would be corrected by the Arabs through their language”
We read in al-Musahif:
“When the Quran was written it was brought to Uthman who saw mistakes in its scripture. He said that there was no need to correct them, as the Arabs would make the correction themselves”
One of the beloved scholars of Deobandies namely Qazi Thanaullah Uthmani Pani Patti in his commentary of verse 162 of Surah Nisa records in his esteemed work Tafseer Mahzari (Published by Daarul Isha’t Karachi):
“Baghwi has written the statements of Ayesha (ra) and Aban Bin Uthman (ra) that ‘ALMUQEEMOONA ALSSALAT’ should have been written at this place. Similarly ‘WAALSSABI-OON’ in Surah Maidah’s verse ‘INNA ALLATHEENA AMANOO WAALLATHEENA HADOO WAALSSABI-OON’ and ‘HATHANI’ in the verse ‘IN HATHANI LASAHIRANI’ are the mistakes of writer (It should have been SABI-EEN & HATHAIN respectively). Hadrat Uthman (ra) had also stated that there were some mistakes (of writing) in the Mushaf and Arabs whilst reciting them would make the corrections themselves, through their language. When asked why he did not make the amendments, Uthman asked that it remain the same as it does not alter Halal to Haram and Haram to Halal”
Tafseer Mazhari, Volume 3 page 215 & 216
Nawasib claim that Uthman was a shy person and count it as one of his merits. We want to ask them where his shyness went when he described the book of Allah as ‘incorrect’? Since he observed mistakes in the Quran compiled and written by him, why didn’t he correct them? The very mistakes that he expected the Arabs to correct remain unaltered in the Quran and are similarly read both by Arabs and non Arabs. It is amazing that Sunnis extol Uthman for compiling the Quran, when he testified to his compilation containing mistakes!
We read in Al Itqan fi Uloom al Quran:
“Akramah states that when Mushafs were written, they were presented before Uthman and he found some incorrect words written in them and then said that they shouldn’t be changed as Arabs would themselves make the corrections. Or he said that they would themselves correct the pronunciations (vowel points, diacritics). Had the narrator been from the tribe of Thaqeef and the writer been from the tribe of Hadheel, these mistakes wouldn’t have been in the Mushaf.”
Uthman’s belief in the incorrectness of Quran has been testified by his own son Aban. We read in Tafseer Qurtubi:
“Aban bin Uthman recited the cited verse [IN HATHANI LASAHIRANI] before his father Uthman. Uthman said: “It is incorrect”. Someone asked him: “Why don’t you correct it?”. Uthman replied: “Leave it there, it doesn’t make any difference in respect of what is Halal and Haram’”.
Dear readers, the Quran is a miracle due to its in-depth rhetoric and eloquence. If according to Uthman there are mistakes in the Quran then there remain no virtues of Quran. Had this testimony been that of anyone else, the Nasibis would have immediately issued fatwas of Kufr, but as such words have been spoken by an individual from their own ilk their voices automatically fall silent.
Qazi Shawkani also records Uthman’s blasphemy against the Quran. We read in Fatah al Qadeer:
“There are traditions according to which Uthman said that certain Quranic words were wrong due to mistakes committed by writers”
Uthman’s deeming certain Quranic words to have been incorrectly transcribed by his appointed scribes is a bone that remains lodged in the Nasibi throat and despite several operations by Nasibi surgeons the swelling has increased. Here are just some of the excuses offered by the defenders of Uthman in respect of the above-cited narrations.
Rasheed Khan the student of Shah Waliullah in his book “Ezah Litafat almaqal” claims that there exists no such tradition wherein Uthman called the Holy words as incorrect. Hence the allegation of Shias against Uhman is baseless.
It is not surprising that Uthman’s adherents would be ashamed for the bold statement of Uthman and for all those people who would at once reject the statement, we have included scanned pages and direct links from some of the cited Sunni sources.
The second excuse that is presented by the advocates of Uthman is that the recitation of Uthman was “IN HATHAINI LASAHIRANI” which is why he did not like the statement being recited as “IN HATHANA LASAHIRANI” and declared it as wrong.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/transliteration/020.html
There were Seven Qirah (with seven recitations), but none of them declared the recitation/pronunciation of the others as wrong, therefore Uthman’s deeming other pronunciations as wrong not only disrespects the Quran, but it is nothing short of Kufr (Ayesha knew Uthman better, which is why she issued takfeer against him).
If Uthman considered the correct pronunciation to be “IN HATHAINI LASAHIRANI” and not “IN HATHANA LASAHIRANI” why didn’t he change the phrase, or burn the Quran (as was his forte)?
The compilation of the Holy Quran was done under Uthman’s supervision. If mistakes had occurred in the compilation process, then his sub-ordinates weren’t obeying the caliph, and his concerns fell on deaf ears. If the incorrect pronunciation was transcribed with Uthman’s consent, why did the caliph instruct the scribes to records an incorrect phrase in the Quran? Why did he keep letting others know of the mistake, and not change it?
If a book of any religion [other than the Sunnis] states that at a certain place the word “Aimata” should be replaced by “Aima”, the religion, according to the advocates of Uthman falls out of the fold of Islam. Fifteen Sunni books have recorded that Uthman deemed the correct Quranic words to be “IN HATHANA LASAHIRANI” , yet rather than deem him an apostate, he remains their third rightly guided caliph. Why is this biased approach adopted in this case?
We have proven that Uthman confidently asserted that the [alleged] wrong words would be amended by the Arabs themselves. His confidence was unfounded despite the passage of 1400 years these ‘incorrect’ words remain and are recited in the same manner that Uthman criticized. The Arabs [along with the others] still read continue to recite the [alleged] incorrect words. The Qaris of the Quran from all over the world read the same incorrect words, yet they love Uthman and credit him for compiling the Quran.
In surah Dhariyat verse 58 we read the following verse:
“Surely Allah is the Bestower of sustenance, the Lord of Power, the Strong”
According to Sunni scholars, this is not the form of verse that was taught by the Holy Prophet (s) to the Sahabi Abdullah Ibn Masud. We read in Sunan Tirmidi:
The Messenger of Allah taught me to recite: “I am the Bestower of sustenance, the Lord of Power, the Strong”.
Abu Isa said that this hadith is Hasan Sahih.
Online Sunan Tirmidi with Commentary, Hadith 2864
What is the view of Ahle Sunnah regarding the words taught by the Prophet (s) to Ibn Masud? According to Sunni traditions the Prophet ordered his adherents to learn the Quran from Ibn Masud. The tradition is deemed Hassan Sahih by Imam Abu Isa Ibn Isa Tirmidi.
We read in Surah Noor verse 25:
“On that Day Allah will pay them the recompense of their deeds in full, and they will know that Allah, He is the Manifest Trut.”
25. YAWMA-ITHIN YUWAFFEEHIMU ALLAHU DEENAHUMU ALHAQQA WAYAAALAMOONA ANNA ALLAHA HUWA ALHAQQU ALMUBEENU
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/transliteration/024.html
Now we read in Tafser Tabari, Volume 18 page 141 that the Sahabi Ubai bin Kaab had this verse in his compilation in a shuffled manner:
Jarir said: ‘I read it in Ubai bin Ka’ab’s Mushaf as ‘Allah the just will pay back to them their reward in full (YUWAFFEEHIMU ALLAHU ALHAQ DEENAHUM)’
Allamah Jalaluddin Suyuti has recorded that the Prophet (s) recited the same verse in an even more different manner:
Tabarani and Ibn Mardweh narrated from Behz bin Hakim from his father from his grand father that the Prophet (pbuh) recited: ‘{Allah the just will pay back to them in full their reward} (YUWAFFEEHI ALLAHU ALHAQ DEENAHUM)’
Tafseer Dur al Manthur, Volume 6 page 167
Dear readers, please ponder over the big difference between the verses recited by the Holy Prophet (s), Ubai bin Kaab and the version that is present in the mushaf of Uthman. It has the word “ALHAQ” after “ALLAH” and the word “DEENAHUM” after the “ALHAQ” whereas in the Quran compiled by Uthman the word “DEENAHUM” is present between the words “ALLAH” and “ALHAQ” which results in the emergence of a term ‘Allah the just’ according to the Prophet and Ubai. Moreover, there is another difference in the version of the verse (24:25) the Prophet (s) believed in and what we have today and the difference is in the word “YUWAFFEEHIMU” which is plural whilst the Prophet used to believe in a word “AFFEEHI” that was singular.
In the Holy Quran (93:8) we read:
“Did He not find thee destitute and enrich (thee)?”
Imam Suyuti in Tafseer Dur al-Manthur and Ibn Attia al-Andalusi in al-Muharar al-Wajiz, Volume 5 page 495 have recorded that a great Sahabi did not believe in the aforesaid words of the Quran, rather he believed in a different form of this verse:
Narrated Ibn al-Anbari in al-Masahif from al-Amash that he said: ‘Ibn Masud recited it like this: ‘He found you lacking and enriched you’
Tafseer Dur al-Manthur, Volume 8 page 544
The Quran has used the word ‘Aael’ which means that he had money but not enough, thus he was in need whereas the Sahabi Ibn Masud believed in the word ‘Adeem’ which means he had nothing at all. Moreover, the grammars of the two forms of verse are entirely different from one another since the form of verse we have today is interrogative whilst Ibn Masud believed in an affirmative form of the verse.
In the Holy Quran (4:40) we read:
“Surely Allah does not do injustice to the weight of an atom”
Now Imam Suyuti in Tafseer Dur al-Manthur, Volume 2 page 539, Imam Abu Ishaq Thalabi in Tafseer Thalabi, Volume 3 page 308 and Ibn Attia al-Andalusi in al-Muharar al-Wajiz, Volume 2 page 254 have recorded that Abdullah Ibn Masud did not believe in the aforesaid Quranic verse rather he believed in a different version of this verse:
Ibn Abi Dawood recorded in al-Masahif (book) from Atta from Abdullah (Ibn Masud) that he recited: ‘Surely Allah does not do injustice to the weight of an ant’
Tafseer Dur al-Manthur, Volume 2 page 539
We can see the difference between the two versions of this verse, the version we have today of this verse assures us that Allah (swt) does not do injustice even to the weight of ‘an atom’ whilst Abdullah Ibn Masud believed that Allah (swt) does not do injustice even to the weight of ‘an ant’ that is a name that has been given to a particular creature.
In Surah Yusuf verse 36, we read:
“[Shakir 12:36] And two youths entered the prison with him. One of them said: I saw myself pressing wine….”
36. WADAKHALA MAAAAHU ALSSIJNA FATAYANI QALA AHADUHUMA INNEE ARANEE AAASIRU KHAMRAN
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/transliteration/012.html
We read in Tafseer Dur al Manthur, Volume 4 page 19:
Ibn Masud read it as “AAASIRU ANBAH” (pressing grapes) and he (Ibn Masud) said: ‘By Allah, I heard it from Allah’s Messenger likewise’
Tafseer Dur al Manthur, vol 4 page 536 Surah Yusuf verse 36
So here we learnt that in the Quran compiled by Uthman we read “AAASIRU KHAMRAN” (pressing wine) instead of “ASR ANBAH” (pressing grapes) which according to great Sahabi Ibn Masud was not only the word he believed in but that was the (correct) word the Holy Prophet (s) had taught him. So what is the Nasibi fatwa now? Who should they indict for believing in Tahreef of the Quran? Was it Abdullah Ibn Masud or Uthman? One of them is wrong, now if they jump on Uthman’s side then it means that they are going against their own belief that deems Abdullah Ibn Masud as one of the most knowledgeable Sahaba on the Quran. Should they side with Ibn Masud’s, then they have by implication deemed their Ummayad Caliph a Kaffir.
We read in the Quran:
[Shakir 4:117] They do not call besides Him on anything but idols, and they do not call on anything but a rebellious Shaitan.
17. IN YADAAOONA MIN DOONIHI ILLA INATHAN WA-IN YADAAOONA ILLA SHAYTANAN MAREEDAN
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/transliteration/004.html
Allamah Jalaluddin Suyuti in his commentary of the above cited verse in his esteemed work Tafseer Dur al Manthur, Volume 2 page 223 records:
“Ayesha narrates that the Holy Prophet (s) recited “IN YADAAOONA MIN DOONIHI ILLA AUNTHA”
We also read:
Ibn Abbas used to recite “IN YADAAOONA MIN DOONIHI ILLA AUNTHA”
We have relied on the following esteemed Sunni sources:
We read in Holy Quran (26:20):
He said: I did it then, when I was of those who are astray.
20. QALA FAAAALTUHA ITHAN WAANA MINA ALDDALLEENA
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/transliteration/026.html
But our opponents believe that one of their beloved Sahaba namely Abdullah Ibn Masud did not believe ‘DALLEEN’ (astray) to be the actual word that was revealed in this verse but it was ‘JAHILEEN’ (ignorant):
Ibn Juraij said: ‘According to Ibn Masud’s recitation its: ‘I did it then, when I was of those who are ignorant (JAHILEEN)”
Tafseer Dur al Manthur, Volume 6 page 291
Prominent Deobandi Imam Sheikh Muhammad Anwar Shah Kashmiri (d. 1352 H) in his esteemed book Faiz al Bari the commentary of Sahih Bukhari writes:
“The tahreef of meanings has not taken place in a lesser amount. In my eyes, this is proved by research that the tahreef of words has taken place in this Quran. This tahreef was done either intentionally or by mistake”
The book can also be downloaded from the following Salafi online library
http://www.almeshkat.com/books/open.php?cat=22&book=2361 (volume 2, MS Word, page No. 491).
This person has been given the title of “Imam al Asr ” [Imam of the present time]. We should point out the revered value this scholar enjoys amongst Deobandies. Another grand scholar of Deobandis Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi praised Anwar Shah Kashmiri in the following words:
“Once Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi sat in a lecture of Allama Kashmiri. After hearing this lecture, Hadhrat Thanvi said: “Every sentence of Shah Saheb can be turned in to a book” (Anwarul Bari, v.2, p.235). Hadhrat Thanvi also said: “I have benefited so much from Hadhrat Shah Saheb that his respect that I have in my heart is on par with the respect that my other teachers occupy, even though I was never his student” (Anwarul Bari, v.2, p.235).”
Another Deobandi scholar Mawlana Abdul Qadir Raipuri wrote about him:
“Indeed Hadrat Shah Sahib is a sign from the signs of Allah” (Akabir-e-Ulama-e-Deoband, p. 98)”.
http://alashrafia.com/english/anwar.html
Deobandis like that of Sipah e Sahaba Pakistan, and Mufti Ebrahim Desai have always taught their adherents that Shias are kafir due to the presence of some traditions in their texts implying that the Quran has been altered. They should likewise inform their adherents about the above statement issued by their Imam! Why does this Mullah remain a sign of Allah, despite his belief in tahreef? What rule excludes him from any form of criticism? Was this sin absolved because he bathed in Ganges River prior to his death?
Do any of these Deobandis have the courage to stand up and ask their sodomy addicted Mullahs from Sipah-e-Sahaba about such idiotic and unislamic statements from their Imam? Islam is a complete code of life that provides thorough guidance till the Doomsday, Islam is not confined to any madressa of Sipah-e-Sahaba where every sodomite may thrust his lustful wishes upon religion, and may start attacking the beliefs of Islam as they attack their students in the madressas. Next time Nawasib should keep the esteemed research of their Imam in mind before attacking Shias.
Certain imbecile Nawasib have come to the aid of their Imam Kashmiri by suggesting that his comments had nothing to do with tahreef to the Quran, he was in fact alluding with the tampering of previous scriptures.
To such children of Hinda, we would like to refer them back to the statement of Kashmiri wherein he stated that people did Tahreef in the book either intentionally or deliberately and Allah knows the best. Leaving the matter to the knowledge of Allah affirms the fact that Kashmiri was obviously not referring to past scriptures for this segment of his statement as it is unanimously agreed that past nations DID commit willful Tahreef with their respective scriptures, a fact attested to by Almighty (swt) Himself who states in 002.075:
Do you then hope that they would believe in you, and a party from among them indeed used to hear the Word of Allah, then altered it after they had understood it, and they know (this).
We also read in 004.046:
Of those who are Jews (there are those who) alter words from their places and say: We have heard and we disobey.
Do Nawasib suggest that their Imam Kashmiri rejected the above cited testimony of the Holy Quran about the intentional distortion committed by past nations and that he substituted it with his own research according to which the said distortion might have on account of a mistake? Are his followers going to suggest their beloved Imam had an opinion that differed with that of Allah (swt), one that was perfectly valid? Nawasib need to face facts, Imam Kashmiri was referring to the Holy Quran!
We have already discussed the tradition of Sahih Bukhari that implies Tahreef i.e Narrated Ibn Abbas: When the Verse:–’And warn your tribe of near-kindred, and thy group of selected people among them’ was revealed….” a Sunni author Syed Ateeq ur Rehman Gilani writes about this tradition in his special edition of a religious Urdu magazine published in June 2005 in Karachi wherein he affirmed the fact that Kashmiri had also arrived at the conclusion on the basis of such traditions from Bukhari that Tahreef has indeed taken place in the Quran:
“This tradition of Sahih Bukhari collides with the protection of the Quran. Therefore this and similar traditions should be declared as unreliable and fabricated. Imam Bukhari (rh) had laid down the toughest conditions for the authenticity of a hadith. Was he incapable of deducing such clear evidence, namely a tradition that affects the protection of Quran is incorrect? Certainly he would have understood this, but someone might have done this act in Sahih Bukhari because no matter how authentic Sahih Bukhari is after the Quran it is not on par with the Quran and it is also not worthy enough so that like the Quran it cannot be suggested that falsehood can come near it. Moreover, if this tradition has really been recorded by Imam Bukhari and he deemed it Sahih then the personal opinion of Imam Bukhari is not an authority that traditions recorded by him be deemed correct in a situation where it begets the belief in the Tahreef of the Quran. Maulana Anwar Shah Kahsmiri while relying upon these traditions of Imam Bukhari wrote in his Faiz al Baari the commentary of Sahih Bukhari:
“The distortion of the meaning in the Quran has not been taken place in a lesser amount. In my eyes, this is proved by research that the distortion of words has taken place (by the Sahaba (ra)) in the Quran and such distortion was either committed intentionally or by mistake”
It would be an injustice to deem the traditions of Sahih Bukhari that allude to the distortion of Quranic words to be true whilst at the same time deriding the comments of Maulana Anwar Shah Kahsmiri. The explanation by Maulana Anwar Shah Kahsmiri was based on his acceptance of the said traditions in Sahih Bukhari. This raises a question, (namely) why other than Maulana Anwar Shah Kahsmiri such as his teachers, students and other scholars not draw this conclusion from the traditions of Sahih Bukhari? The answer is that unlike Maulana Anwar Shah Kahsmiri, the other scholars did not ponder into the traditions of Bukhari. Maulana Anwar Shah Kahsmiri whilst writing Faiz al Baari Sharh Sahih Bukhari expressed his personal view for the reason that previously no one had openly admitted the Tahreef in Quran and it was for the reason that the scholars who had read and understood such traditions had the rule of Fiqh in front of them according to which the traditions that imply Tahreef in Quran are Khabr Ahaad.”
There are very few Sunni Muslims who are unfamiliar with Dr. Israr Ahmed particularly those from the Indian sub continent. Details about him can be ascertained from his website http://www.tanzeem.org/ . A few months ago he stated clearly that the persent Quran is corrupted and is not the same as the one guaranteed protection by Allah (swt). This statement created outrage amongst the Deobandi mullahs that resulted in Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI) one of the largest Deobandi organizations attacking him in their monthly magazine through the following interesting comments:
[Main Heading]
THE CURRENT QURAN CONTAINS MISTAKES AND IS NOT THE REAL ONE: DR. ISRAR
[Sub-Headings]
Like Qadianis those that do not believe in the protection of Quran should likewise be declared infidels under the constitution of Pakistan. No scholar, not even Christians or Jews have never had the gaul to suggest such about the Quran, Commentary by Abdul Quddus Baloch
[News]
Karachi (representative of Zarb-e-Haq): Internationally famed, renowned scholar Dr. Israr Ahmed; the founder of organizations like Khudam al Quran, Tanzeem-e-Islami and Tehreek-e-Khilafat has preached to the public in public gatherings, writings and video cassettes that the Quran we have in our possession is not the real one rather it is a copy. The real Quran is written on Loh-e-Mehfooz which is free from all mistakes whilst the Quran possessed by the Ummah has mistakes in it. Whilst providing a commentary of the verses dealing with the protection of the Quran Dr. Israr asserted that the promise is not about the Quran possessed by the Ummah, rather it is about the Quran of Loh-e-Mehfooz. “Surely We have revealed the Reminder and We will most surely be its guardian” do not refer to the copy of Allah’s book that is in our hands rather these verses were revealed for the verses written on Loh-e-Mehfooz. Allah also says “None touches save the purified ones” this verse likewise does not refer to the copy of the Quran we possess, that is the Usmani scripture that is unprotected and can be touched by impure and pure people.
Zarb-e-Haq’s Commentary: …. the intellectual commentaries of the Ulema exist in their academic and non academic books. Whilst one can also deem such commentaries as incorrect, it remains an unequivocal fact that none of these scholars of commentary ever had doubts over the authenticity of the Quran. This Quranic verses are deemed sufficient enough about the protection of the present Quran. Qazi Abdul Kareem Kalachi kept strking his head on account of the statement of Maulana Anwar Shah Kashmiri about Tahreef of words in the Quran in his ‘Faiz al Baari’. Had Maulana Anwar Shah Kashmiri like Dr. Israr spoken these words in public gatherings or common gatherings of scholars then he would have been excommunicated from Islam and would have been forced for repent…”
We would like to ask the mullhas why they are merely targeting Dr. Israr Ahmed? It is not like he woke up in the morning and inexplicably uttered those words. His theory is based on the various Sunni traditions that imply that mistakes are present in the present Quran. If Deobandi logic suggests that Dr. Israr should be deemed an infidel then what about those scholars that he relied upon to shape his theory?
As for the excuse Nawasib advanced about their Imam Anwar Shah Kashmiri namely that he would have been declared Kafir had he spoken such words in public gathering, if the doctrine of excommunication only applies to one that espouses a belief in tahreef of the Quran in public gatherings and not those who merely wrote such things in their prestigious books then why are they attacking the Shia scholars that recorded such traditions implying Tahreef ? Should they not be afforded the same level of protect as Kashmiri as they had never affirmed belief in tahreef in public gatherings?
We should also point out that the Deobandi writer acknowledged the existence of statements made by their scholars on Tahreef, but suggested that Quranic verses wherein Allah (swt) takes personal responsibility with protecting his Holy Book by Allah (swt) shall suffice prove its authenticity. This mirrors the Shia stance about the Quran, why is it okay if the Deobandis believe this but unacceptable of the Shia say the same?
The prestigious pioneer Imam of Ahle Sunnah Abu Muhammad Ali bin Ahmed Ibn Hazm Andalusi (994-1064) records this bold statement in his esteemed book Al-Ahkam fe usul Al-Ahkam:
“Abu Muhammad said: This is the description of Uthman’s work that (was compiled) in the presence of the companions. Whilst copying the Mushafs he burnt what he burnt from them from what he had changed intentionally or by mistake”
Al-Ahkam fe usul Al-Ahkam, Volume 1 page 528
The book can be downloaded from the following salafi website
http://www.almeshkat.net/books/archive/books/alehkam.zip
This glorious scholar of Ahle Sunnah needs no introduction but still allow us to cite some scholarly Sunni opinions of Ibn Hazm. Ibn Khalkan records in Wafiat Al-Ay’an, Volume 3 page 13:
“Al-Hamidi said: We never witnessed anyone as smart or quick in memory, generous or religious as him”
Ibn Hajar Asqlani records in Lisan Al-Mizan, Volume 4 page 198:
S’aeed bin Ahmad Al-Rubay said: ‘In Andlus (Spain) Ibn Hazm was the most knowledgeable amongst the people in Islamic knowledge and the most acquired in knowledge, in addition to this, he is expanded in statements, rhetoric, biography and origins/breed’
While Imam Dhahabi in his authority work Siar alam alnubala, Volume 18 page 18 stated about Ibn Hazm:
“He was a unique Imam”
What medication do the Nawasib take that protects their minds from thinking negatively of the great Ulema who cast doubts over the authenticity of the Quran? If such a protective taken can be applied to curtail having bad thoughts of these grand Ulema why is it not likewise taken to understand Shia traditions on tahreef?
The beloved Imam of the Nawasib Ibn Taymiyyah after acknowledging that the Sahaba used to curse asserted:
“And likewise some of the Salaf denied words form of the Quran such as the denial of some of them of the verse, ‘Have not yet those who believe known’ (13:31) and them saying that its ‘Has it not been made clear to those who believe’ and the denial of reading of the verse by others (of the Salaf) ‘And your Lord has ordained (quthiyah) that you worship none but He’ and they said that its ‘And you Lord has advised (wassa)’ and some of them used to delete Al-Mu’waithatayn from their copies of the Quran (mushaf) and others used to write a surah called Suratul Qunut (!) and this is a known mistake that is known by consensus (Ijma), and via multiple successive transmission (matawatur).
And even with this the tawatur had not been established for them and so they are not kuffar. It is only after showing one the mutawatir proof (that if he rejects it) then he is kafir”
Majmua al-Fatawa Volume 12 page 492
Ibn Tamiyah after accepting a fact sought to defend the indefensible. How did he know that the tawatur was not established for Salaf ? The Sahaba benefited from the company of the Holy Prophet (s) and yet we see evidences of them not reciting or rejecting parts of Quran we have currently have in our possession. Is this not shameful?
The menace of Salafism/Wahabism has always focused on attacking the unity of the Islamic Ummah through their atrocious and abhorrent teachings. These enemies of Ahlulbait (as) have from every corner of the earth dedicated their time and efforts on attacking Shias – and the topic of Tahreef is the specialist favorite topic. Have these malicious offspring of Ibn Tamiyah and Abdul Wahab ever dared to issue takfeer against their father for testifying that the Salaf Sahaba used to make Tahrif with the Quran ? Or have these people (whose minds resemble the people of Jahilyah) ever issued takfeer against those Salaf who clearly rejected or changed the verses revealed by Allah (swt)? If Shias can be excommunicated due to the presence of texts implying tahreef why should the Nawasib not do the same with their beloved Shaykh ul Islam? Why is it one rule for the Nawasib Imams, and another rule for Shia scholars?
Renowned scholar of Ahle Sunnah Shiekh Abdul Wahab bin Ahmed bin Ali Al-Sherani writes in his esteemed book Al-Yawaqit wa al-Jawahir:
“I say if people were not so weak minded and if there was not a prohibition on sharing this wisdom, I would have certainly disclosed those matters that were missing from the Uthmani Mushaf, as for what exists in the Uthmani Mushaf, there is no dispute over its authenticity”
Al-Yawaqit wa al-Jawahir, Volume 1 page 143
Dear readers, to believe that the Quran is the victim of distortion is deemed Kufr by the Ahle Sunnah. Tragically, this was a belief espoused by their own clergy, Sahaba inclusing their Heads of State. Amongst the Ulema Anwar Shah Kashmiri and Abdul Wahab Sherani were lead advocates of this stance.
It is interesting that rather than present the harsh truth, this Imam of the Nawasib seeks to hide the truth so as to prevent hearts from deviating. Why should presenting the truth lead to people becoming deviants?
Renowned scholar of Ahle Sunnah Shiekh Abdul Wahab bin Ahmed bin Ali Al-Sherani writes in his esteemed book Al-Yawaqit wa al-Jawahir:
Scholars have narrated that many of the pious Salaf had the privilege of viewing Allah (swt) in their dreams and amongst them are Imam Ahmed, Hamzah Ziyat and Abu Hanifah.
Hamzah Ziyat said: ‘When I saw Allah (swt) and recited the words of Surah Yaseen “Tanzeel ul Aziz Araheem” with Thamma on the Laam, He (swt) rectified me by reading the Laam with Faat-Ha because He (swt) had revealed it like that. Moreover when I recited the verse “WA ANA IKHTARTUKA” of Surah Taha before the Almighty Allah (swt), He (swt) again rebuked me and ordered me to recite it “WA INNA IKHTARTAKA”.
Al-Yawaqit wa al-Jawahir, Volume 1 page 110
The intial words uttered by the Sunni Imam exist in the present Quran, and differ to those that Allah (swt) directed him to recite. From this narration it is evident that Hafiz Hamzah Bin Ziyat was superior to Abu Bakar, Umar and Uthman since despite their being Caliphs, Allah (swt) did not deem them worthy enough to appear in their dreams, and instruct them of the correct recitals.
It is worthy to note that the author of ‘Al-Yawaqit’ counted Ibn Hamzah amongst the prestigious Salaf, Ibn Hajar Asqalani in Taqreeb al Tehdeeb, page 83 and in Tahdib al-Tahdib, Volume 3 page 28 graded him as authentic and truthful figures and showered him with epithets such as Rijlan, Salehan and Sidooqan. He was born in 80 H and died at the age of 56. Did the process involving abrogation of verses and recitation continue until that period? By that time the compilers of the Uthmani manuscript were in their graves.
Let us first introduce this personality from the pen of Imam Dhahabi who said ‘He is an Imam, a major Hafiz and Mufasir’ (Siar alam alnubala, v11 p151). Imam ibn Haban mentioned him in his book of Thiqah narrators i.e. al-Thuqat, Volume 8 page 454. Imam al-Ejli declared him ‘Thiqah’ (Marifat al-Thuqat, v2, p130) as did Imam Ibn Moin (Tazkirat al-Hufaz, v2 p444) whilst Imam Abu Hatim Al-Razi graded him ‘Seduq’ (Al-Jarh wa al-Tadil, v6, p167).
Imam Dahabi in his esteemed book Siyar Alam al Nubla, Volume 11 page 153 records:
”Darqutni said: Ahmed ibn kamil has narrated that Al Hasan ibn Alhabab said that Uthman ibn Abi Sheybah recited for them in the tafsir ‘Have you not considered how your Lord dealt with the possessors of the elephant?’ that he recited it as: ‘Alif-lam-meem’”.
Dear readers, as you know, there are some words/letters in the Quran known as Al-Muqattaat i.e. the abbreviated letters that Muslims believe are words whose true meaning is known only to Allah (swt). One of those words/letters is الم i.e this term is recited making its letters separate in this manner “Alif-lam-meem”. Examples wherein this term exist are in the opening verses of Surah Baqrah and Surah Aal e Imran:
Baqrah:1. Alif-lam-meem
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/transliteration/002.html
Aal e Imean:1. Alif-lam-meem
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/transliteration/003.html
On the other hand we read in the first verse of Surah Fil (which was recited by Uthman bin Abi Sheybah):
Alam tara kayfa faAAala rabbuka bi-as-habi alfeeli
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/transliteration/105.html
[Shakir 105:1] Have you not considered how your Lord dealt with the possessors of the elephant?
This word ألم may sound the same like that special letters of Allah (swt) but it differs and is a complete word that is recited as “Alam” which means ‘Have you not?’.
Now, instead of reciting this actual word in the verse, Uthman bin Abi Sheybah believed that it was the former and kept committing open Tahreef with the Holy Quran.
Another example Tahreef of the Quran committed by Uthman bin Abi Sheybah was with regards to the verse:
[Shakir 12:70] So when he furnished them with their provisions…
Imam Dhahabi has recorded:
Ali ibn Muhammad Ibn Kas said that Ibrahim al-Khisas said: Uthman ibn Abi Sheybah read: ‘And when he provided them with their ship‘, on that they told Uthman that it should be ‘And when he provided them with their provisions‘. He replied: ‘I and my brother do not recite on the recitation of Asim”
NB: People were taught the Quran by Asim.
Those that utter takfeer against the Shia scholars with every breath for recording traditions or statements that imply Tahrif in the Quran should in the first instance examine the contents of their own house. Their scholar Uthman bin abi Sheybah committed a clear distortion in the words of the Holy Book yet we do not find any filthy Nasibi of the Sipah e Sahaba or Salafi/Wahabi movement issuing takfeer against him nor against those that recorded his comments in their esteemed works. If such tahreef is pardoned in the Nasibi school of thought then why do they always show have their swords unsheathed against the Shia?
In the Urdu translation of Musnad Ahmed bin Hanbal rendered by Maulana Muhammad Zafar Iqbal, Volume 2 pages 619-620 Hadith 3929 (Maktaba Rehmaniyah Lahore) we read:
“Khamir bin Malik said: ‘Once a state order was issued that all the copies of the Quran be changed (except those copies collected by Uthman Ghani (ra), no other arrangement should remain). When Ibn Masood (ra) came to know about it, he said: ‘Whosoever amongst you can hide his copy of the Quran should hide it because he who conceals anything he shall have to bring that which he had concealed on the Day of judgment. Then he also said: ‘I had heard seventy Surahs from the tongue of the Holy Prophet (s), shall I leave all those things that I had obtained from the tongue of Holy Prophet (s)?’’.
Musnad Ahmed bin Hanbal, Volume 2 pages 619-620 Hadith 3929 (Maktaba Rehmaniyah Lahore)
This narration has been declared as ‘Sahih’ by Shaykh Ahmed Shakir in Musnad Ahmed bin Hanbal, Volume 4 page 88 Hadith 3929 where as Shaykh Shoib al-Arnaut has declared it ‘Hasan’ in Syar alam alnubala volume 1 page 487.
We have learnt a number of serious things from the cited tradition, that Ibn Masud counted in Sunni works as one of the most revered companions of Rasulullah (s):
Since the Nawasib regard all the Sahaba as their guides or in other words Imams, we have learnt from this narration that one of the prominent Imams of Nawasib set about hiding the ‘real Quran’ from Muslims including Caliph of the time and he would reveal the ‘real’ Quran’ on the day of Qayamah when he would be summoned along with it. Since the Ahl’ul Sunnah believe that all of the Sahaba are just and truthful they will need to accept that Ibn Masud ascribed Tahreef to the Qur’an compiled by Uthman. The view of Ibn Masud is significant since as per Sunni traditions Ibn Masud is counted as of four individuals that Rasulullah (s) recommended that people should learn the Qur’an from stating “I heard the Holy Prophet saying, ‘Take (Learn) the Qur’an from four: Abdullah bin Masud, Salim, Mu’adh, and Ubai bin Ka’b’.” (Sahih Bukhari Arabic – English Vol 6 hadith number 521)
It is logical that Rasulullah (s) would not bestow such a designation upon Ibn Masud unless he possessed a complete knowledge of the contents of the Qur’an, without that knowledge his role as a teacher would be completely otiose. It is ironic that this is the same Qur’an read by Muslims in this age, one that Ibn Masud claimed had seventy verses missing from it! We leave it to Nawasib to issue their fatwa against this just, truthful, renowned Sahaba.
We are quoting the famous incident of Gharaniq from the following esteemed Sunni sources:
Some Nawasib embarrassed by such blatant blasphemy of the Prophet (s) and the Holy Book in their esteemed works have sought to question the authenticity of this reference. The very fact that their esteemed scholars like Suyuti recorded this tradition from authentic sources makes such excuses null and void. We read in Tafseer Dur Manthur that:
Al-Bazaar and Al-Tabarani and Ibn Mardaweh and al-Ziya’ have narrated through a chain of all trustworthy (Thiqa) narrators by the way of Saeed Ibn Jubayr, from Ibn Abbas that Prophet (s) recited the words of Surah Najm in the following manner:
“Have you then considered the Lat and the Uzza And Manat, the third, the last? These are the lofty (idols), verily their intercession is sought after.”
Mushrakeen became delighted on hearing this from Holy Prophet (s) and said that their idols have also been mentioned in Quran. Then Gebrail came and said to Prophet (s): “Recite same revelation and Quran which I have brought.” Prophet (s) again recited the words:
“Have you then considered the Lat and the Uzza And Manat, the third, the last? These are the lofty (idols), verily their intercession is sought after.”
Gebrail said: “I had not brought these words, these are from Satan”. Then the following verse was revealed:
[22:52] “And We did not send before you any messenger or prophet, but when he desired, the Shaitan made a suggestion respecting his desire; but Allah annuls that which the Shaitan casts, then does Allah establish His communications, and Allah is Knowing, Wise”.”
Tafsir Dur al Manthur, vol 6 page 65 Surah Hajj, verse 52
Besdies this, Allamah Jalauddin Suyuti records similar versions of this incident from several other Sahih chains, for example:
“Ibn Jarir and Ibn al-Munder and Ibn Abi Hatim and Ibn Mardaweh have narrated through a Sahih chain by the way of Saeed Ibn Jubayr who said….”
“Ibn Jarir, Ibn Al Munzir and Ibn Abi Hatim narrated with a Sahih chain from Abi Al ‘Aliyah…”
“Abd bin Hamid and Ibn Jarir by the way of Yunis, from Ibn Shahab narrated:… with Mursal Sahih chain”
Qadhi Thanaullah Pani Patti Uthmani in his commentary of the above mentioned verse adopted the questions based on casting doubts over the authenticity of the episode like his Imams but had no choice than to quote their statements as they deemed the episode to be true:
“..However the tradition we previously mentioned from Saeed bin Jubayr by Bazar, Ibn Mardwaeh and Tabarani is indeed successive [Mutawatur] and strong [Qawi]. Ibn Hajar Asqalani has stated that from the abundance of traditions reported, it is deemed that there is some truth in it…”
The actual statement of Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani which Qadhi Thanaullah referred to is (Fatah al Bari, Volume 8 page 439):
Not only these but Imam Ibn Abi Bakar al-Haythami is also among those Sunni scholars who deemed the incident to be authentic [Sahih] as he stated after recording the tradition:
“Al-Bazar and Tabarani narrated it and they added ‘{the penalty of a Mighty Day}’ in the day of Badr, the narrators are the narrators of Sahih”
Majma al-Zawadi, Volume 7 page 248 Tradition 11376
Imam of the Nawasib Ibn Tamiyah also believed that Holy Prophet (s) recited Satanic verses and in this regard he cites the testimony of his beloved Salaf. He writes:
“What occurred with suratul Najm and its recitation ‘These are the lofty (idols), verily their intercession is sought after’ is well known amongst the Salaf; that this was recited by Rasulullah and then Allah abrogated it.”
Minhaj Sunnah, Volume 2 page 409
The dirty Jhangvi cult and Salafies/Wahabies who love attacking the Shia have clearly questioned the authenticity of the Prophethood of Muhammad [sws] and hence the Holy Quran we have in our hands. When they believe that the Holy Prophet (s) had on one occasion come under the influence of Iblis and recited a verse that was dictated to him from Iblis rather than that revealed by his Lord one can easily ascertain their true view over the authenticity of the Quran and blessed Messenger (s) who delivered it.
We now know that those that attack the Shia who ‘disgrace’ the Sahaba have themselves committed blasphemy against the Holy Prophet (s) and the Holy Quran. These people who demand the imposition of stern penalties against those that speak ill if the Sahaba need to take a good look at their ulema that recorded this tradition. The Shiekhayn and Muhaddatheen of Sipah e Sahaba like Bazar, Tabrani and Ibn Jarir have left behind them such a well developed text of blasphemy against Quran that if Sunnis were to read these books, they would be committing blasphemy against Quran till Qiyamah.
Alhamdulilah we, the Shia of Ahlulbayt (as) reject the notion that our Holy Prophet (s) could ever come under the influence of Iblis but condemn such a blasphemous belief espoused by our opponents. About the actual reason for the revelation of verse 22:52, we read in Mukhtasar Tafsir al-Mizan by Tabatabai, page 399:
‘{but when he desired}’ he desire success for the religion and the people drew near to it and believed in it ‘{Satan threw some (vanity) into his desire}’ by whispering men and instigating the unjust.
Regarding the views of Shia scholars on the incident of Gharaniq, we read in Tafsir al-Mizan by Tabatabai, Volume 14 page 399:
“The conclusive proofs related to His (pbuh) infallibility are sufficient to evidence the falsehood of this tradition”
We read in Tafsir Min Wahi al-Quran by Fadhlullah, Volume 16 page 99:
“This tradition is one of those fabricated traditions that has been attributed to the companions by the errant who want to offend the Prophet and Islam.”
In the footnote of Bihar al-Anwar, Volume 17 page 56 by Rabani Shirazi, we read:
“The incident of Gharaniq is a myth narrated by Amma (Sunnis) and it is verily a fabrication.”
We read in Tafsir al-Amthal by Makarem Shirazi, Volume 10 page 379:
“The myth of Gharaniq is fabricated by stupid enemies”.
People should take the ignorance of these Nawasib seriously. They believe that some words in the Quran were incorrect and that Archangel Jibrail revealed them in this wrong manner, and our Holy Prophet (s) kept reciting them in the same incorrect way and he transferred those taught these incorrect words to the Sahaba kept on making this incorrect recital. This unfortunate state of affairs continued until one Sunni scholar met Allah (swt) and presented his recitation before Allah (swt) who informed him of the correct recitation and he subsequently disseminated the original revelation of Allah (swt) to the Ummah.
If this is indeed the belief of Nawasib then we Shias keep aloof from those whose atrocious beliefs raise doubts over the authenticity and truthfulness of Jibrail and the Holy Prophet (s). If Sipah e Sahaba are going to present justifications and explanations, then we would like to know who has given them the right to provide justifications when they do not afford the same write to their opponents?