Skip to main content
Refutations

Did the Quran Get Distorted? Scholarly Refutations to 8 Major Claims — Al-Hajjaj, Ibn Masoud, Surat Al-Noorayn & More

32 min read 7117 words

Responses to Doubts About the Authenticity of the Qur’an

Table of Contents

1. Fayd al-Rahman — Al-Fatihah and Abdul Malik bin Marwan

Claim Being Addressed The claim that Al-Fatihah was distorted by Abdul Malik bin Marwan — specifically, that the word Maliki (with alif) was introduced by Marwan, and that the Prophet and early caliphs recited Malik (without alif).
The Narration of Al-Zuhri On the authority of Al-Zuhri that it reached him — and I repeat — it reached him — that the Prophet, Abu Bakr, Omar, Othman, Muawiyah and his son Yazid used to recite Malik Yawm al-Din. Al-Zuhri said: And the first one to innovate Malik was Marwan.

Response Points

Point 1 — Sufficiency of the Wording The wording of the hadith is sufficient and every intelligent person understands by the allusion — if he is intelligent at all.
Point 2 — Ibn Kathir’s Commentary Ibn Kathir said, commenting on what Al-Zuhri said: Marwan had knowledge of the correctness of what he recited, Ibn Shihab did not see it — meaning that what Al-Zuhri said is wrong and his statement is not supported.

The question now is: what is the evidence for what Ibn Kathir said?

Point 3 — Narrations from Umm Salamah Narrations were also reported by those who transmitted the hadith of Al-Zuhri that the Prophet used to recite “Malik Yawm Al-Din” without an alif:

First narration: On the authority of Umm Salamah, that she mentioned the recitation of the Messenger of Allah: “In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Malik Yawm Al-Din,” cutting off his recitation verse by verse.

Second narration: On her authority also, she said: The Messenger of Allah used to cut off his recitation, saying: “Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds,” then he would stop, “Al-Rahman, the Most Merciful,” then he would stop. And he used to read it: Maliki Yawm al-Din.

Point 4 — The Uthmanic Copies The Uthmanic copies of the Qur’an agreed on writing (Malik) like this without an alif, and this writing is possible for both readings — with extension and shortening.

2. Fayd al-Mannan — Al-Hajjaj and the Distortion Claim

Claim Being Addressed The Christians raise the suspicion that al-Hajjaj distorted and changed the Qur’an when he came to punctuate it.

The suspicion quoted from their website: “Al-Hajjaj changed the letters of the Qur’an and changed at least ten words, and al-Sijistani wrote a book called ‘What al-Hajjaj changed in the Qur’an of Uthman.’”

Response Points

Point 1 — Rational Evidence How can any of the hadith masters criticize him if al-Hajjaj changed these letters? Or do the Christians want to convince us that no one memorized the Qur’an during the days of Al-Hajjaj?
Point 2 — The True Account of the Dotting of the Qur’an (As mentioned in Madahil Al-Irfan, Part One, from page 280 to page 281)

Al-Zarqani said: It is known that the Uthmanic Qur’an was not dotted… Whether this or that, the dotting of the Qur’ans did not occur, according to the popular opinion, except during the reign of Abdul Malik bin Marwan.

So Abdul Malik bin Marwan ordered Al-Hajjaj to take care of this great matter, and Al-Hajjaj, in obedience to the Commander of the Faithful, appointed two men for this:

  1. Nasr bin Asim Al-Laithi
  2. Yahya bin Ya’mar Al-Adwani

— and they are the students of Abu Al-Aswad Al-Du’ali.

Was this the first dotted Qur’an? No — because Abu Al-Aswad Al-Du’ali had dots in the Qur’an, and Ibn Sirin had a dotted Qur’an, but both Qur’ans were specific, not general.

The Complete Narration About Al-Hajjaj On the authority of Abbad bin Suhaib, on the authority of Awf bin Abi Jamila, that Al-Hajjaj bin Yusuf changed eleven letters in Uthman’s Qur’an. He said:
  • In Surat Al-Baqarah: 259, it was {lam yatasanna wa anzur} without a ha’, so he changed it to “lam yatasannahu.”
  • It was in Al-Ma’idah: 48 {A law and a way}, so he changed it to “A law and a way”.
  • It was in Yunus: 22 {He is the One who resurrects you}, so he changed it to “He guides you”.
  • It was in Yusuf: 45 {I will bring you its interpretation}, so he changed it to “I will inform you of its interpretation”.
  • It was in Az-Zukhruf: 32 {We have divided among them their livelihood}, so he changed it to “their livelihood”.
  • It was in At-Takwir: 24 {And He is not a doubter of the unseen}, so he changed it to “a miser”… etc.

— The book “Al-Masahif” by Al-Sijistani (p. 49).

Ruling on Abbad bin Suhaib — The Narrator
  1. Ali bin Al-Madini said: His hadith is lost.
  2. Al-Bukhari said: He is rejected.
  3. Al-Tirmidhi said: He is rejected.
  4. Ibn Hibban said: He was a Qadari and a preacher, and despite that he narrated things that if a beginner in this profession heard them he would testify to their fabrication.
  5. Al-Dhahabi said: He is rejected.

The narration is fabricated.

The Opinion of Al-Khoei (from the Rafidah) on This Matter Al-Khoei said: “This claim resembles the delirium of the feverish and the fables of the insane. How is it that no historian has mentioned this great sermon in his history, nor a critic in his criticism, despite its importance and the many reasons for transmitting it? How is it that no Muslim at his time discussed transmitting it? How did the Muslims ignore this action after the end of Al-Hajjaj’s era and the end of his authority? Suppose he was able to collect all copies of the Qur’an, and not a single copy from the distant Muslim countries deviated from his ability, would he have been able to remove it from the hearts of the Muslims and the memorizers of the Qur’an, whose number at that time is known only to Allah?”
Important Clarification Imam al-Sijistani did not write a book called “What al-Hajjaj changed in the Mushaf of Uthman.” All that is there is that Imam al-Sijistani translated the aforementioned narration from al-Hajjaj by saying: (Chapter: What al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf wrote in the Mushaf).

3. The Abundance of the Lord — Surahs in the Mushaf of Ubayy ibn Ka’b

Claim Being Addressed The claim that there are two additional Surahs in the Mushaf of Ubayy ibn Ka’b — known as Surat Al-Hafd and Surat Al-Khal’.
Narration 1 — From Al-A’mash On the authority of al-A’mash, he said: In the recitation of Ubayy ibn Ka’b:

“O Allah, we seek Your help and ask Your forgiveness. We praise You and do not disbelieve in You. We abandon and forsake those who disbelieve in You. O Allah, You alone do we worship. To You we pray and prostrate. To You we strive and hasten. We hope for Your mercy and fear Your punishment. Indeed, Your punishment will overtake the disbelievers.”

Narration 2 — From Ibn Sirin On the authority of Ibn Sirin, he said: Ubayy ibn Ka’b wrote in his copy of the Qur’an the opening chapter of the Book and the two Mu’awwidhat, and O Allah, we seek Your help, and O Allah, we worship. Ibn Mas’ud left them out, and Uthman wrote from them the opening chapter of the Book and the two Mu’awwidhat. And on the authority of Ubayy ibn Ka’b, he said that he used to recite the two Surahs in supplication, and he mentioned them, and that he used to write them in his copy of the Qur’an.
Narration 3 — From Abdur-Rahman ibn Abza On the authority of Abdur-Rahman ibn Abza, he said: In the copy of the Qur’an of Ibn Abbas, the reading of Ubayy ibn Ka’b and Abu Musa is:

“In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. O Allah, we seek Your help and ask for Your forgiveness. We praise You for goodness and do not disbelieve in You. We abandon and forsake whoever disobeys You. And in it: O Allah, You alone do we worship. And to You we pray and prostrate. And to You we hasten and hasten. We fear Your punishment and hope for Your mercy.”

Narration 4 — From Omar ibn Al-Khattab On the authority of Omar bin Al-Khattab that he recited the supplication after bowing, and said:

“In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. O Allah, we seek Your help and ask for Your forgiveness. We praise You and do not disbelieve in You. We abandon and forsake whoever disobeys You. In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. O Allah, You alone do we worship. To You we pray and prostrate. To You we hasten and hasten. We hope for Your mercy and fear Your punishment. Your punishment will surely overtake the disbelievers.”

Response Points

Point 1 — Challenge to Authenticate I want any Christian jurist to mention to me one of these narrations and prove to me that it is authentic. Just to give an example, the first narration is from the book Gharib al-Hadith wa al-Athar by Ibn al-Athir. As usual, you will not find Christians except ignorant people who do not know which hadith to accept — or ignorant people who do not know anything about the science of hadith at all.
Point 2 — Is Qunut from the Qur’an?!
Point 3 — Companions’ Copies Contained Non-Qur’anic Material The companions used to include in their copies of the Qur’an things that are not from the Qur’an, such as interpretations, meanings, and supplications — based on the fact that it was not difficult for them to believe that they were not from the Qur’an. And this is what Ubayy ibn Ka’b did.
Point 4 — Abrogated Qur’an Mixed with Non-Qur’an Some of this supplication was a revealed Qur’an, then it was abrogated, and supplication with it was permitted, and mixed with it was what is not Qur’an — so Ubayy’s proof of this supplication.
Point 5 — The Ten Readings Do Not Contain These Surahs It was transmitted from Ubayy ibn Ka’b that he recited as narrated by Nafi’, Ibn Kathir, Abu Amr, and others — and it does not contain the two Surahs of Al-Hafd and Al-Khal’.
Point 6 — His Mushaf Agreed with the Mushaf of the Group Abu Al-Hasan Al-Ash’ari said: I saw the Mushaf of Anas in Basra, with some of his descendants, and I found it equal to the Mushaf of the group, and the descendants of Anas used to narrate that it was the handwriting of Anas and the dictation of Ubayy ibn Ka’b.

4. Fayd Al-Ma’bud — The Mushaf of Ibn Mas’ud

Claim Being Addressed The claim — raised by Christians and Qur’anists — that Ibn Mas’ud denied that Al-Fatihah and the two Mu’awwidhat (Al-Falaq and Al-Nas) are part of the Qur’an, and that his Mushaf omitted them.
The Hadith from Bukhari On the authority of Zur bin Hubaish, he said: I asked Abi bin Kaab, I said, O Abu Al-Mundhir, your brother Ibn Masoud says such and such. My father said, I asked the Messenger of Allah, and he said to me: I was told, so I said, we say as the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said.

The obvious question: Where is Ibn Masoud’s denial? The hadith was mentioned vaguely and there was absolutely no explicit statement in it.

Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar’s Comment He said, may Allah have mercy on him: The hadith was mentioned vaguely, and I thought that what was vague was Bukhari, but I went back to Al-Ismaili’s narration and found it vague as well — meaning there was no explicit statement in it.
The Narration of Imam Ahmad in His Musnad
  • “Your brother is erasing it from the Mushaf”
  • “Abdullah did not write the two Mu’awwidhat in his Mushaf”
  • “Ibn Masoud was erasing it from his Mushaf and saying that they are not from the Book of Allah”
Methodological Challenge to the Christians The Christians and Qur’anic brothers now recognize what is called combining the paths of the hadith — they interpret the hadith of Bukhari with the hadith of Musnad of Imam Ahmad and they make the hadith of Imam Ahmad binding on the hadith of Bukhari.

If the Christians and their Qur’anic brothers agree with us on that, then all doubts have now ended — because their problem is cutting up the verses and hadiths and not combining the paths of the hadith.

Example: The hadith “I have only come to you with slaughtering” — this hadith is in Musnad Al-Imam Ahmad and it has an interpretation in Sahih Al-Bukhari. If you read the two hadiths, you will understand the meaning. Yet the ignorant Christians say: “No, we do not accept this — we want an interpretation for each hadith separately!” — while at the same time combining chains of transmission to prove their doubts!

The Decisive Hadith Response

The Definitive Answer — From Musnad Imam Ahmad On the authority of Zur bin Hubaish, he said: I said to Ubayy bin Ka’b that Ibn Mas’ud did not write the two Mu’awwidhat in his Mushaf, so he said:

“I bear witness that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, informed me that Gabriel, peace be upon him, said to him: Say: I seek refuge in the Lord of the daybreak, so I said it, and he said: Say: I seek refuge in the Lord of mankind, so I said it — so we say what the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said.”

Al-Tabarani’s Narration in Al-Awsat Al-Tabarani narrated in Al-Awsat that Ibn Mas’ud said the same as Ubayy — that is, Ibn Mas’ud proved that they are from the Qur’an!
Ibn Hajar’s Use of “Perhaps” — Misused as Confirmation Al-Hafiz said in Al-Fath: “And it was stated in Al-Awsat that Ibn Mas’ud also said the same thing, and it is well-known that it is from the statement of Abi, so perhaps it is a reversal from the narrator.”

The ignorant used the word “perhaps” as confirmation — it seems we are facing a compound ignorance of religious sciences combined with ignorance of language sciences.

Key Evidence Points

All Hadiths in This Story Are from Zur ibn Hubaish’s Tongue There is not a single hadith, for example, that says: on the authority of Ibn Masoud, that he said: “The two Mu’awwidhat…” — there is no explicit statement from Ibn Masoud himself.
The Interpretive Hadith — From Musnad Imam Ahmad Sufyan ibn Uyaynah told us, on the authority of Abdah and Asim, on the authority of Zur, who said: I said to my father: Your brother is scratching them out of the Mushaf, and he did not deny it. It was said: Ibn Masoud. He said: Yes, and they are not in the Mushaf of Ibn Masoud. He used to see the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, seeking refuge with them for Al-Hasan and Al-Husayn, and he did not hear him recite them in any of his prayers, so he thought that they were two Mu’awwidhat and he insisted on his thought. The rest were certain that they were from the Qur’an, so they deposited them in it.

This hadith is an interpretation from Zur and Sufyan that Ibn Masoud thought that they were not from the Qur’an — because he did not hear the Prophet recite them in prayer.

Scholars Who Declared These Hadiths Anomalous (Shadh) in Text
  • Al-Nawawi in his explanation of Al-Muhadhdhab
  • Ibn Hazm in Al-Mahalli
  • Fakhr Al-Razi in the beginning of his interpretation
  • Al-Baqillani

All agreed that the hadiths of Musnad Al-Imam Ahmad are anomalous in the text (not the chain of transmission).

Supporting Evidence

Evidence 1 — The Ten Readings In the chains of transmission of the ten readings there are readings that revolve around Abdullah bin Masoud, and none of them denied the two Mu’awwidhat — even though they all took from Abdullah bin Masoud. These readers include:
  • Abu Amr Al-Basri
  • Asim bin Abi Al-Najoud
  • Hamza bin Habib Al-Zayyat
  • Ali bin Hamza Al-Kisa’i
  • Ya’qub bin Ishaq Al-Hadrami
  • Khalaf bin Hisham Al-Bazzar

(Al-Nashr fi al-Qira’at al-‘Ashr)

Evidence 2 — Ibn Mas’ud Did Not Memorize the Entire Qur’an Ibn Mas’ud did not memorize the entire Qur’an, and it was said that he learned it after the death of the Prophet, and it was said that he died before completing it. (Al-Qurtubi)
Evidence 3 — Reader, Not Memorizer Ibn Mas’ud was a reader and not a memorizer like Zaid bin Thabit. If Ibn Mas’ud took 70 surahs from the mouth of the Messenger of Allah, then Zaid took the entire Qur’an from him.
Evidence 4 — The Mushaf of Ibn Mas’ud Was Not Comprehensive The Mushaf of Ibn Mas’ud was not a comprehensive Mushaf — some surahs were written in it and others were not written. An example is his not writing Al-Fatihah.
Evidence 5 — His Mushaf Was Specific to Prayer The Mushaf of Ibn Mas’ud was specific to him — he only wrote what he heard from the Prophet in prayer. Evidence:

A. The order of the surahs in his Mushaf is Al-Baqarah, then An-Nisa, then Al-Imran — because the Prophet prayed with them in the night prayer in this order.

B. Ibn Mas’ud not writing Al-Fatihah is the greatest evidence — he said when asked why: “If I wanted to write it, I would have written it at the beginning of every surah.” When do Muslims recite Al-Fatihah at the beginning of every surah? Only in the audible prayer — which proves that Ibn Masoud used to write only what he heard from the Messenger in prayer.

Evidence 6 — No Explicit Statement of Denial We do not have a single explicit hadith in which Ibn Masoud says that he denies the two Mu’awwidhat.
Evidence 7 — The Copies Question The narrator said: “And he used to scratch them out from his copies of the Qur’an.” So what are the copies of the Qur’an of Ibn Masoud? Did he write more than one copy? And if he was the one who wrote them, then why did he scratch out what he wrote? Or rather, why did he write what he scratched?
Evidence 8 — No Public Denouncement Why did Ibn Masoud’s denunciation of Uthman or Zaid not spread? And we did not hear any of the companions denouncing him or him denouncing any of the companions.

Alternative Interpretations from Scholars Who Accepted the Hadiths

Interpretation 1 — Erasing the Title/Heading, Not the Surah What is meant by the two Mu’awwidhat is the wording — i.e., what was written as a label. Ibn Mas’ud used to order the wording to be erased, not the Surah itself.

Evidence — Ibn Abi Dawud narrated on the authority of Abu Jamrah, who said: I brought Ibrahim a copy of my Qur’an in which was written: Surah such and such and Surah such and such, verses. Ibrahim said: Erase this — for Ibn Mas’ud hated this and said: Do not mix with the Book of God what is not from it.

This is the same wording of Ibn Masoud in the two Mu’awwidhat — his intention was to erase the heading/name, not the surah.

Interpretation 2 — Wrong Placement or Incorrect Writing The author of Manahil al-Irfan said that Ibn Masoud saw them written in the wrong place or written incorrectly, so he ordered them to be rewritten — i.e., corruption of composition or corruption of organization. (Manahil al-Irfan)
Interpretation 3 — Al-Baqillani’s View Al-Baqillani said that Ibn Masoud denied that they were in the Mushaf — not that they were the Qur’an. If the Qur’anists who claim to be the people of the Qur’an do not know the difference between the Qur’an and the Mushaf, then this is another calamity.
Interpretation 4 — Al-Razi’s View Al-Razi said that he denied it and then it was transmitted to him, so he confirmed it. (Tafsir al-Razi)
Conclusion There is not a single proof of Ibn Masoud’s denial of Al-Fatihah or the two Mu’awwidhat — whether in Bukhari or others — and all of this evidence indicates one of two matters:
  1. The text of the hadith is anomalous (shadh) — as in the hadiths of Musnad Imam Ahmad.
  2. The interpretation is anomalous — and as for the hadith of Bukhari, its wording was mentioned ambiguously; the hadith of Bukhari does not explain the hadith of anomalous text, nor does a hadith explain it with an anomalous interpretation.

In both cases, this proves one thing: the ignorance of the Qur’anists and their brothers from the Christians is compound ignorance — and thus their argument is weak and their mother is the abyss.

5. Surat Al-Wilaya or Al-Noorayn

The Claim Refuted This surah does not have the ability to do anything except claim that it is from the Holy Qur’an — and he is not able to mention that with a single chain of transmission, even if it is weak.

We repeat: He is not able to mention that with a single chain of transmission, even if it is weak.

Rather, a slanderer fabricated it and attributed it to what the companions omitted from the Qur’an, so the people of misguidance after him from his followers followed him in his lies and slander because they thought that it would support what they belong to.

The Challenge Can they come with a single chain of transmission for these texts called Surat Al-Wilaya?

6. Hadith of the Rooster

The Hadith — From Ibn Majah and Others Abu Salamah Yahya bin Khalaf told us, Abd al-A’la told us, on the authority of Muhammad bin Ishaq, on the authority of Abdullah bin Abi Bakr, on the authority of Umrah, on the authority of Aishah, and on the authority of Abd al-Rahman bin al-Qasim, on the authority of his father, on the authority of Aishah, who said:

“The verse of stoning and ten breastfeedings for an adult were revealed, and they were on a sheet of paper under my bed. When the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, died and we were preoccupied with his death, a rooster came in and ate it.”

— Narrated by Imam Ibn Majah 1/625, al-Darqutni 4/179, Abu Ya’la in his Musnad 8/64, al-Tabarani in his Mu’jam al-Awsat 8/12, and Ibn Qutaybah in Ta’wil Mukhtalif al-Hadith. Its origin is in the two Sahihs. Ibn Hazm included it in al-Muhalla 11/236 and said: This is a sahih hadith.

Understanding Abrogation in Islamic Legislation Islamic legislation in the life of the Prophet went through several stages until his death, including the occurrence of the abrogation of some rulings and verses. Abrogation was defined by scholars as: the Lawgiver removing an earlier ruling from Him for a later ruling from Him.

There was no disagreement among nations about abrogation. The Jews differed in this and denied the permissibility of abrogation rationally — and based on that, they denied the prophethoods after Moses, and raised doubts, claiming that abrogation is impossible for God Almighty because it indicates the emergence of an opinion after it did not exist.

The Holy Qur’an responded: “Whatever verse We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?” (Al-Baqarah: 106)

The Three Types of Abrogation First: Abrogation of recitation while the ruling remains. Example: The verse of stoning — “The old man and the old woman, if they commit adultery, stone them both to death.” Its wording was abrogated, but its ruling remains.

Second: Abrogation of the ruling and recitation together. Example: The statement of Aisha: “Among what was revealed in the Qur’an were ten known breastfeedings that prohibit marriage, then it was abrogated by five known breastfeedings that prohibit marriage.” The first sentence was abrogated in recitation and ruling. The second sentence was abrogated in recitation only, and its ruling remains according to the Shafi’is.

Third: (Implied: Abrogation of ruling while recitation remains — the standard case of most abrogated verses.)

Ibn Hazm on the Rooster Hadith “Its wording was abrogated, and the page on which it was written remained as Aisha said, and the rooster ate it, and there was no need for it… The proof of this is that they had memorized it. If it had been established in the Qur’an, then the rooster eating the page would not have prevented it from being established in the Qur’an from their memorization. And God is the Grantor of success.”
Ibn Qutaybah’s Defense of the Hadith “If the wonder is in the page, then the pages in the time of the Messenger of God were the highest of what the Qur’an was written on — because they used to write it on palm leaves, stones, pottery, and the like.

If the wonder is in placing it under the bed, then the people were not kings who would have had safes, locks, and chests. When they wanted to protect something or preserve it, they would place it under the bed to protect it from being trampled on and from the mischief of a child or an animal.

If the wonder is from the sheep, then the sheep is the best of the livestock — so what is wonder at the sheep eating that page? And this mouse is the worst insect on earth; it gnaws at the Qur’an and urinates on it. And if the fire had burned the page or the hypocrites had taken it, the wonder from them would have been less.”

Conclusion on the Rooster Hadith It is clear that the verses that were lost — if the Messenger of Allah had ordered them to be conveyed, he would have conveyed them, and if he had conveyed them, they would have been preserved, and if they had been preserved, his death would not have harmed them — just as his death did not harm everything he conveyed of the Qur’an.

Even if he did not convey it, or if it was conveyed but he was not ordered to be written in the Qur’an, then it is abrogated by clarification from Allah, and it is not permissible to add it to the Qur’an.

“And if they had referred it back to the Messenger or to those in authority among them, then what they deduce from them would have been known to him.” (An-Nisa’: 83)

7. The Yemen Manuscript — Question and Answer

The Question A study by German scholars on the authenticity of the Qur’an was discussed in an article in the Atlantic Monthly entitled “What is the Qur’an?” by Toby Lester, published in the January 1999 issue.

The crux of the matter was that there was a very old copy of the Qur’an in a mosque in Yemen that was believed to have been distorted in the existing Qur’an — in some places the writing had been erased and written over.

The article tried to cast doubt on Muslims’ view of the Qur’an as being completely reliable, and tried to prove that the Qur’an is a word that is subject to change like any other word.

The Response

Point 1 — Multiple Available Proofs of Authenticity The authenticity of the copies of the Holy Qur’an that we have in our possession has not been proven to us by one or two pieces of evidence — rather it has been proven by many available pieces of evidence that no fair-minded person would come across without being certain that it is as Allah revealed it to the heart of Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.
Point 2 — Preserved in Hearts, Not Just Writing Generations have passed one after the other, reciting the Book of Allah and studying it among themselves, memorizing it and writing it down. Not a single letter has escaped them, and no one can change the vowel of a single letter in it. Writing was only a means of memorizing it — otherwise the original state of the Qur’an is in their hearts.
Point 3 — The Full Tradition Was Transmitted The Qur’an was not transmitted alone — rather, the interpretation of its verses, the meanings of its words, the reasons for its revelation, the grammar of its words, and the explanation of its rulings were all transmitted. How could such care for this book be exposed to sinful hands that distort a letter in it, add a word, or omit a verse?
Point 4 — Qur’anic Prophecies Prove Divine Origin If the Qur’an speaks about future unseen matters — for example, it spoke about the defeat of the Romans by the Persians, and spoke in the verses themselves that they would be victorious later on in a certain period of time — if that had not happened, the infidels would have had the greatest opportunity to attack the Qur’an.
Point 5 — Universal Consistency Across the World If you came to a verse from the Book of Allah and went to America, Asia, the jungles of Africa, or came to the desert of Arabia, or to any place where there are Muslims — you would find this same verse in all of their hearts or in their books, not a single letter of it having been changed.

So what is the value of an unknown copy in Yemen that we have not seen, in which one of the frivolous people in this era could distort a verse or a word? Does such talk stand in the market of research and consideration?

Their answer is our answer: If we came to one of their reliable books by well-known authors — a book with many copies in the world, all in the same format — and then a claimant claimed a copy in a certain country contained additions and distortions, would they take it into account?

Point 6 — Manuscript Authentication Rules The handwritten copies of the Muslims are not proven in this simple way. We have experts who know the history of writing, and we have rules that control the proof of the authenticity of a manuscript — such as the presence of hearings and readings on it, and the name and signature of the one who heard and read it. We do not think that this was found in the alleged copy from Yemen.
Point 7 — The Historical Story from Baghdad A Jew in Baghdad during the Abbasid era wanted to know the truth of the books attributed to God by their people.

He went to the Torah and added and subtracted things that were not very obvious, then gave it to a scribe from them and asked for a copy. He said: It was only a short time before my copy was in the temples of the Jews and among their senior scholars.

Then he went to the Gospel and added and subtracted from it as he did with the Torah, gave it to their scribe and asked for a copy. He said: It was only a short time before it was read in their churches and the hands of their scholars reached it.

Then he went to the Qur’an and added and subtracted from it as he did with the Torah and the Gospel, and gave it to the Muslim scribe to copy it for him.

When he returned to receive his copy, the scribe threw it in his face and informed him that this was not the Qur’an of the Muslims!

From this experience, this man learned that the Qur’an is truly the Book of Allah and that everything else is nothing more than a human creation.

We will not tell her to show her copy of the Qur’an to a scribe — we will tell her to show it to Muslim boys and children so that they can reveal to her the errors in her copy!

Some Muslim countries have printed copies of the Qur’an that contain errors that were discovered by young children before adults.

8. Response Regarding Surat Al-Wilayat and Al-Noorayn (Shia Source)

Source Caveat This response is from a Shia website. We do not endorse the Shia doctrine.
The Question Addressed Is it true that the Shia Qur’an differs from the Qur’an of all other Muslims, and that it contains a Surah called Al-Wilayat and another called Al-Noorayn?
The Shia Response It has become very clear to those with understanding and insight that there are spiteful and paid parties behind such accusations, lies, and slander against the Imami Shia — followers of the Household of the Prophet. These parties only want to stir up sectarian strife and love nothing but to spread division among the ranks of Muslims.

Sometimes they accuse the Shia of saying that the Qur’an has been distorted, clinging in their accusation to a single statement by one of the scholars — despite it being a personal opinion that does not express the opinion of the Shia — ignoring the rest of the strong and clear opinions in defense of the Holy Qur’an made by great Shia scholars since the first day this accusation was directed at them.

Sometimes they invent something from themselves and call it a surah and attribute it to what they call the Qur’an of the Shia — despite the absurdity and weakness of what they invent and fabricate.

The Origin of the Accusation Kaykhusraw Isfandiyar, the author of the book “Dabestan al-Madhahib”, claimed that the Shia believe in the distortion of the Qur’an — and claimed that Uthman burned the Qur’ans and omitted Surahs revealed about the virtues of the Ahl al-Bayt. He then mentioned weak, fabricated sentences he called Surah al-Wilayah. His book became a source for enemies of the Shia.
Who Is Kaykhusraw Isfandiyar?
  • Son of Azar Kaywan, founder of the Kaywani sect during the reign of Akbar Shah Timurid (963–1014 AH) in India
  • Born in the town of “Patna” in India in the middle of the third decade of the eleventh century AH
  • A preacher of the Kaywani sect that believes in the unity of existence and rejects sects
  • Agrees on the book “Al-Dasatir” which he claimed is the mother of books, attributed to a prophet said to be “Sasan”
  • The book’s first English translation was by “Francis Gladwin” in 1789 AD; it was first printed in “Calcutta” in 1809 AD by order of the English representative “William Bailey” — an agent of colonialism in India and Iran
The Text of the Alleged Surah — Surat Al-Noorayn “In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. O you who have believed, believe in the two lights which We have sent down, reciting to you My verses and warning you of the punishment of a tremendous Day. Two lights, one from the other, and I am the Hearing, the Knowing. Indeed, those who fulfill the covenant of God and His Messenger in the verses will have gardens of pleasure. And He chose from among the angels and the messengers and made from among the believers those among His creation. God does what He wills. Indeed, those who turned away from My verses and My judgment have lost. And indeed, Ali is among the righteous. And indeed, We will give him his due on the Day of Judgment. We are not unaware of his injustice. O Messenger, indeed We have sent down to you clear verses in which whoever takes him as a believer and whoever takes him as a guardian after you will prevail…”
Al-Nuri’s Own Admission — The Primary Source for the Distortion Claim Al-Nuri — to whom the statement of distortion of the Qur’an is attributed, and whose statement enemies of the Shia cling to — said in his book “Fasl Al-Khitab” commenting on this alleged surah:

“I did not find any trace of it in the books of the Shia except what is narrated about the book ‘Al-Mathalib’ attributed to Ibn Shahr Ashub: that they omitted the entire Surah of Al-Wilaya, so perhaps it is this surah.”

The Book “Al-Mathalib” — Does Not Exist The primary source is the book “Al-Mathalib” attributed to Ibn Shahr Ashub — which has no external existence and no one has seen it.

Ayatollah Sheikh Muhammad Hadi Ma’rifah said: “As for the book ‘Al-Mathalib’ about which that statement was narrated, no one has seen it at all, nor have the biographers mentioned it, except what came in the presentation of the words of Ibn Shahr Ashub himself in ‘Ma’alim Al-Ulama’ when translating himself — so he mentioned a book among his compositions with this name, but did he leave it to bleaching, and did its version spread? This is something that no one mentioned.”

The investigator al-Ashtiani also said after transmitting this alleged surah: “I did not find it in any book other than this, except what is said about the book ‘al-Mathalib’ by Ibn Shahr Ashub.”

Literary Evaluation of the Alleged Surah Ayatollah Sheikh Muhammad Hadi Ma’rifah said:

“Among the vulgar, common fabrications is what the author of the book ‘Dabestan al-Madhahib’ attributed to an unknown group of the Shia.”

And in another place: “As for the alleged surah itself, it is a fabricated hadith that is nothing but crude fabrications and hybrid expressions that do not belong to a righteous father or a righteous mother. It violated the rules of grammar, in addition to high literature — which confirms the strangeness of attributing it to any group of Shia, who in their various classes were and still are the imams of criticism and scrutiny, and the professors of literature and rhetoric.”

The investigator Ashtiani said: “You are well aware that it does not compare to anything in the wise Qur’an that was revealed as a miracle to the heart of the Master of Messengers — since it is certain that anyone can fabricate such words and phrases that have no connection or harmony between them, let alone the correct meaning.”

Allah Almighty said: {Say, “If mankind and the jinn gathered to produce the like of this Qur’an, they could not produce the like of it, even if they were to each other assistants.”} (Al-Isra’: 88)

Evaluation of the Book “Dabestan al-Madhahib” and Its Author Professor Rahim Reza Zadeh Malik said:

“What the author has established in his book about religions and sects are mostly common aspects taken from the mouths of people or witnessed in the behavior of some of those who follow those religions in markets, cafes, and public clubs… He used to meet with those common people and exchange conversations with them, then record them in his book… There was a group of charlatans from the people of seduction, as they sensed his urgent desire to collect strange and wonderful things, and they began to flatter him, desiring a rich meal or a gift or a connection — so they would weave lies and fabricated stories for him, and due to his naivety, he would record them in his book.”

Al-Tehrani said about the book: “Since the author did not mention his name in it, there was a difference of opinion about its authorship… It is said about some orientalists that in the library of Brussels there is a copy of the book of doctrines by Muhammad Fani… just as the author concealed his name, he also deliberately concealed his doctrine so that his words would not be interpreted as fanaticism.”

Conclusion How can a wise and prudent person believe this claim and ignore the great and deep-rooted interest of the Shia in the Holy Qur’an — an interest not limited to reading and memorization, but extending to all aspects of their lives: reading, memorization, interpretation, printing, dissemination, jurisprudence, doctrine, ethics, education, and other fields.
Closing Verse “Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best. Indeed, your Lord is most knowing of who has strayed from His way, and He is most knowing of the rightly guided.” — An-Nahl: 125