The Holy Qur’an

What the Shias SAy

By:
Abdilahi Nassir

Translated by:
Abdilatif Abdalla
 ISBN 9987 665 20 9

Published by
Tabligh Sub-Committee of KSI Jamaat - Dar es Salaam
PO Box 233, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
Tel: (255) 22-2115119 Fax: (255) 22-2113107
e-Mail : tablighadmin@gmail.com
 Contents

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Preface to the English Edition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
His Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Who is a Sunni . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
The Holy Qur’an . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
“Misinterpreting” Verses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Fasl al-Khitab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Surat al-Wilaya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Dabistan Madhhab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
al-Kafi is not al-Bukhari . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Waja’alnaa ‘Aliyyan Swihraka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
The Maswhaf of Fatimah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
From Sunni sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Yet more Hadith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Still More Serious Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Arabic Terminologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
 PREFACE

All praise be to Allah, and His blessings and peace be to Prophet

Muhammad (s.a.w.w.), his family, and all those who follow their
footsteps.

The differences between Shia and non-Shia Muslims have a very

long history. They started many centuries ago; in fact immediately
after the death of Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.w.). But even then,
during the period of the first two Caliphs (Abu Bakar and ‘Umar)
these differences did not cause as much controversy and ill feelings
as they did during the last two Caliphs (‘Uthman and ‘Ali). The
reasons as to why it was so are outside our current topic; I therefore
do not intend to deal with them here.

Suffice it to know, for the present moment, that it was after the
assassination of the third Caliph (‘Uthman), and a person called
Muawiya leading the opposition against the fourth Caliph (Imam
‘Ali), that those differences were intensified. It was because of
that opposition, and on Muawiya’s orders, that Imam ‘Ali (a.s.) was
regularly cursed in the course of Friday prayer sermons for not less
than eighty years. It was also why all those who recognized Imam
‘Ali (a.s.) as the rightful Imam (i.e. the Shias) used to be hunted
down like snakes and killed! It was thus that Imam Hassan (a.s.)
the grandson of Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.w.), was killed by
administering poison in his food! Similarly, that was why Imam
Hussein (a.s.), another grandson of Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.w.),
was brutally killed at Karbala (in the present-day Iraq) and his
severed head stuck on a spear with people in a procession dancing
with it, while his torso was left to be trampled upon by horses! That
was why, during Muawiya’s rule, Muslims could not risk even to
call their own children by the name of ‘Ali. Equally the ‘ulamaa, for
fear of facing persecution or even death, were scared to mention
Imam ‘Ali’s name while narrating Prophet Muhammad’s Traditions

1
(ahadith); they, instead, used to say: “The Sheikh said ...” meaning
“Imam ‘Ali said”!

That was the time when these differences and prejudices between
Shias and non-Shias were on the increase, and the trend continued
for many years - with emotional temperatures rising and falling - till
this century. About thirty years ago, some of the Shia and non-Shia
scholars in the Middle East were of the opinion that this situation
could not be left to continue. They therefore met and discussed how
to bring about mutual understanding and unity between different
Muslim sects (madhaahib), especially between Shias and Sunnis.
The outcome of that gathering was the formation of an
organization called Darut Taqrib Baynal Madhahibil Islamiyya
(Institute for Promoting Proximity Between the Schools of Islam).
The idea behind this was for Muslim scholars from a variety of
sects to have a common platform whereby they could discuss and
expound on their differing religious beliefs and positions.

This helped matters a lot, to the extent that Sheikh Mahmud

Shaltut (the then Mufti of Al-Azhar) issued his famous and historic
religious fatwa (ruling) which stated that the Ja’fari sect (i.e. Shia
Ithna-ashari) was part of Islam, and that it could be followed by
other Muslims in matters pertaining to worship like any of the
Sunni sects. For the first time ever, he allowed Shiism to be taught
at the Al-Azhar University in Egypt.

However, some of the scholars of that time were not happy with
that decision; among them was one called Muhibbudin al-Khatib.
He wrote a book in Arabic, al-Khututul Aridhwa (Broad Aspects
of the Shiite Religion), in which he gave his reasons as to why
such an attempt was bound to fail especially when it comes to the
understanding between Sunnis and Shias. In this series we shall be
discussing his arguments, inshaa Allah, starting with the one on the
Holy Qur’an.

2
Although the above mentioned book has already been replied
to in Arabic, it seems that those who do not like to see a united
Muslim ummah are either not aware of or are just not interested
in it. Otherwise, they could not have consistently continued with
its publication in its original language, as well as in translations,
without a mention made of the response it has so far provoked.

In 1983, four years after the Islamic Revolution in Iran, the book
was translated into English and distributed worldwide. Why?
Apparently after it became clear to the disciples of the late Sheikh
Muhibbudin al-Khatib that Iran’s efforts in unifying the Muslims
were succeeding even beyond the Arab world, where English is un-
derstood by many.

In East Africa, the English edition was made more available than
the Arabic one, especially to school and university students. But
after realizing that the impact of the former was below expectation
and, on the contrary, Muslims were becoming more and more
attracted to the late Khomeini’s Islamic line and were, therefore,
eager to know more about Shiism, they thought that it would be
better to have the book translated into Kiswahili. This was published
in December 1988 under the title, Misingi Mikubwa Iliyojengewa
Dini ya Ushia (The Main Pillars of the Shia Religion).

I would like my readers to understand that circumstances have

forced me to embark on writing this rejoinder. Otherwise, I
believe that there are more important issues for Muslims in general
which contemporary Muslim writers like us should be concerned
with. However, due to the fact that the Muslim ummah can face a
very serious disintegration if books such as Sheikh M. al-Khatib’s
are ignored, especially so in East Africa where the number of
indigenous peoples in the area who are becoming Shias is on the
increase; and especially due to the fact that the arguments advanced
by the sheikh in his book are without foundation. I have undertaken
the task of writing this series in order to prevent any disunity which

3
could occur among Muslims, and it is in that spirit that I would like
you, dear reader, to view the contents herein.

Some of the evidence produced in this series might be regarded

by some as harsh. That might well be; but it could not be avoided.
Imagine a surgeon having had to amputate a limb in order to save
the rest of the body. In this context, the body is the Muslim ummah
and the limb is Sheikh M. al-Khatib and those who hold similar
views.

It is my hope that you will read this rejoinder without bias or hatred
while at the same time referring to the sources cited herein in order
to enable you to arrive at the truth. And Allah is the best Protector.

ABDILAHI NASSIR
Nairobi, Kenya
Rajab, 1409
Machi, 1989

4
 PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH EDITION

When I first published this booklet in Kiswahili, East Africa’s lingua

franca, there was a big demand by those who understand English
better for its English translation. To this, I am afraid, I could not
respond positively due to my many other commitments.

However, thanks to my brother (Abdilatif Abdalla), here it is!

Despite his many engagements he, unlike me, found time to
do what now is in your hands. I have gone through Abdilatif ’s
translation and found it to be a proper rendering of what I had
written in Kiswahili.

It is my hope therefore that, as was the case with the Kiswahili

edition, readers of this edition will be able to appreciate that Shias
are not different from Sunnis in their belief that the Holy Qur’an in
our hands today is the same as the one that was revealed to Prophet
Muhammad (s.a.w.w.) fourteen centuries ago - no more, no less.

May Allah guide us to accept the Truth.

ABDILAHI NASSIR
Mombasa, Kenya
Rajab, 1423
September, 2002

5
 HIS ARGUMENTS

On why it is impossible to have unity and understanding

between Sunnis and Shias, Sheikh M. al-Khatib gave the following
eight reasons:
1. Shias have a different Qur’an from that of the Sunnis.
2. The sources relied upon by Shias in understanding Prophet’s
Traditions (ahadith) are not the same as those of the Sunnis.
3. Shias do not respect the Companions of Prophet Muhammad
(s.a.w.w.); on the contrary they in fact insult and curse them!
4. Shias believe in taqiyya, by which they appear to Sunnis
“contrary to what they conceal”. Therefore one is not in a
position to know the truth about them.
5. Shias do not recognize the first three Caliphs accepted by
Sunnis. They only recognize their twelve Imams.
6. On the Uniqueness and Omniscience of Allah, and on whether
He can be seen or not, Shias believe differently from the Sunnis.
7. Shias’ principles of religion and jurisprudence are different
from Sunnis’.
8. Contrary to the Sunnis, Shias believe in raj’ah – which means
that, while approaching the end of this world, the Mahdi
(a.s.) will come and “slaughter all his political opponents and
will consequently restore to the Shias all their rights which
were denied them previously by the followers of other sects
(madhaahib).”

The above were the reasons which prompted Sheikh M. al-Khatib

to write his book. His objective was to warn the Sunnis of the
impending danger of answering to any call meant to bring about
unity and understanding between them and their Shia brothers and
sisters. One could safely conclude that his followers too were driven
by the same reasons to have his book translated into Kiswahili and
English.

Apart from the main points mentioned above, there are other less

6
serious accusations which were repeated here and there in his book.
It is my intention, inshaa Allah, to deal with them as well in the best
of my ability.

In replying to these arguments, I shall try to show that:

i. some of Sheikh M. al-Khatib’s statements go against the very
tenets of Shiism;
ii. whatever religious belief the Shias hold is based on the Qur’an
and the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.w.);
iii. almost all of Sheikh M. al-Khatib’s accusations against the
Shias could also be made against the Sunnis, based on what is
contained in the books relied upon by the latter; and therefore
iv. the differences between Sunnis and Shias are not that great as to
prevent unity and understanding between the two.

And Allah is the One to be asked for assistance.

O Allah! May You show us the Truth so that we recognize it to be

so, and help us to abide by it. And may You show us the untruth so
that we recognize it to be so, and help us to avoid it.

7
 WHO IS A SUNNI?

Sheikh M. al-Khatib’s objective in writing his book was to warn

Sunnis against the dangers of Shiism. I therefore thought that
it would be better if a Sunni knew himself or herself first before
talking about Shias because, as it has so far transpired, either many
Sunnis do not know who they are or, if they do, do so erroneously.
For example, some of the learned Sunnis are of the opinion that
they have been called so because of the fact that they are the only
ones who abide by the sunna of Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.w.)
– as if other Muslim madhaahib, like the Shia Ithna-ashari,
Zaydis or Ibadhis, do not do so! Others think that it has been so
because Sunnism had been in existence from the time of Prophet
Muhammad. However, on both beliefs the contrary is the case.

In actual fact a Sunni is one who, when it comes to matters of

Islamic jurisprudence, follows the opinion of one of the four
imams (Abu Hanifa, Malik, Shafi or Hanbal) or their students; and
in matters of aqida follows the views of Abul Hassan al-Ash’ari.
In other words, if one follows the views of others than the above
mentioned in those two areas, then one is not regarded to be a
Sunni.

In order for one to understand exactly when Sunnism started, it is

important to know, at least in brief, the history of those imams:

Imam Abu Hanifa was born in Kufa in the year 80H, and died in
Baghdad in 150H. Among his teachers was Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq
(a.s.) (who was the sixth Imam of the Shia Ithna-ashari). Abu
Hanifa is quoted to have said that had it not been for the two years
he was the student of Imam Ja’far, he (Abu Hanifa) would have
perished (lahalaka).

Imam Malik was born in Madina in 93H, and died there in 179H.
He, as well, had Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq (a.s.) among his teachers.

8
Imam Shafi was born in Gaza in 150H, and died in Egypt in 204H.

Imam Hanbal was born in Baghdad in 164H, where he died in

241H.

The last, Abul Hassan al-Ash’ari, was born in Basra in 260H, and
died in Baghdad in 333H.

What the above dates testify to is that the first of them, Abu
Hanifa, was born about seventy years after the death of Prophet
Muhammad (s.a.w.w.) who died in 10H. Therefore the question
which arises here is: Between the death of Prophet Muhammad
(s.a.w.w.) and Abu Hanifa becoming an Imam, who did the
Muslims, living during that period of more than seventy years,
follow? Weren’t they Muslims? Or what about those who taught
Abu Hanifa; didn’t they have followers of their own? If they did,
where did those followers disappear to? Is it conceivable that one
who follows the views of a teacher cannot be accepted as a Muslim,
but he who follows the views of that teacher’s student can? If the
answer is in the negative, on what grounds is it so? If it is in the
positive, then why are the ordinary Sunnis made to believe that they
are the only genuine Muslims?

To answer the above questions in a detailed manner, a separate

book will be needed as there is a lot to be said on this matter.
Meanwhile, what I would like you to do, dear reader, is to ask
yourself these questions – or ask whomsoever you think knows
better than you do – and then ponder over the answers given;
because it is only after getting the right answers to them that you
will be in a better position to understand this riddle which has
caused the friction and misunderstanding between Muslims.

As regards the question of aqida, we have seen that Sunnis follow

the opinion of Abul Hassan al-Ash’ari (260H - 333H) who, as we
can see, was born nineteen years after the death of the last Sunni

9
imam, i.e. Imam Hanbal (164H - 241H). Therefore al-Ash’ari never
met any of the Sunni imams. That being the case, which aqida
did the four imams follow during their lifetime? Was it the one
based on the views of al-Ash’ari (who had not been born yet), or a
different one which existed before al-Ash’ari’s birth? If it was the
latter, which one was that? And were those imams still Muslims
despite doing so? If they were – and I don’t think that there is
anyone who can dare say that they were not – why should this
apply only to them? Why should somebody else be regarded as a
non-Muslim just because one follows a different aqida from that of
al-Ash’ari? Definitely al-Ash’ari was not born with his views. Before
forming his own, did he not follow the views of the experts who
were in existence in those times? If he did so – and the truth is that
he did – was he then not a Muslim? If he was, despite following the
views which were not his own, why should one be regarded today
as a non-Muslim by doing exactly the same?

These are among the questions which I would like you to ask
yourself (or whomsoever is more knowledgeable) and consider the
answers very carefully. For the correct answers are the ones that
will help you to understand the source of the controversy we are
discussing in this series.

It is my hope, inshaa Allah, that the brief explanation given above,

and the correct answers one will get to the few questions we have
posed, will enable a Sunni to understand who he or she is. And it is
from Allah that we should seek help.

10
 THE HOLY QUR’AN

Allah (s.w.t.) has said:

1. Verily We are the Ones who revealed (this) Reminder, and
verily We are the Ones who will protect it. (Chapter 15:9)
2. … And verily it is a Book Unassailable. Falsehood shall not
come from before it nor from behind it: a revelation from the
All-Wise, the Most Praised One. (Chapter 41:41-42)

Those are Allah’s words which prove that the Qur’an is a book
which is protected against any additions, omissions or alterations.
All Muslims – of all times and all countries – believe that the
Qur’an which we have in this age is the same one as that which
existed during the time of Prophet Muhammad s.a.w.w., and that
it will remain so till the Final Day (Qiyamah). Therefore, whoever
believes otherwise is not a Muslim.

As Sheikh M. al-Khatib alleges in his book (page 4) that Shias do

not believe so, I have thought it better to begin my reply by quot-
ing various Shia scholars who lived during different periods. These
quotations, as we shall see, will prove Sheikh al-Khatib wrong.
Thereafter, I will deal with his other allegations.

1. al-Fadhl b. Shadhan:
He was among the great Shia scholars who lived in the third century
of Hijra. In refuting the opinions of Sunni scholars of his time that
the Qur’an had been distorted, al-Fadhl said in his book al-‘Idah.
And for those who, by quoting such Traditions think that the
Qur’anic text (nass) has been corrupted, they are definitely
making a mistake.

2. Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Ali b. Babawayh al-Qummi:

This scholar is better known as al-Shaykh as-Saduq; he died in
381H. In his book entitled al-I’tiqadat, he said:
Our belief is that the Qur’an which Allah s.w.t. revealed to

11
 His Messenger, Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.w.), is the same
as the one which is between the two covers and which is in
the hands of the people; no more than that……. And whoever
charges us with believing in excess, is a liar.

3. Sayyid al-Murtadhaa Ali b. al-Husayn al-Musawi al-Alawi:

This is another great Shia scholar, who died in 436H. In reply to the
questions of Tarabulusiyyat, he said:
Knowledge and certainty on the validity of the narration
of the Holy Qur’an are like the knowledge and certainty on
the existence of countries, cities, famous historical events,
popular books, and the poems compiled by the Arabs. This
is because the specific regard and attention, and the strong
motive for the narration of the text of the Holy Qur’an and
its upkeeping, had been much stronger than precision and
attention given to the above-cited items… During the time of
the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.w.), the Holy Qur’an had been
a compiled collection exactly as it is now. The Holy Prophet
(s.a.w.w.) had even charged a group of his Companions with
the responsibility of memorizing and safeguarding the Holy
Qur’an. At that time, it was customary for the people to recite
the Holy Qur’an before the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.) to ensure
the accuracy of the text. The Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.), too,
listened to their recitation. A group of the Companions, such
as Abdullah b. Mas’ud, Ubayy b. Ka’b, and others read the
whole text of the Holy Qur’an several times in the presence
of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w.). With a little attention, one
comes to realize that all these matters indicate that the Holy
Qur’an has been a compiled collection... No one takes into
account the opponents of this belief, be they from Imamiyya
(Shia Ithna-ashari) or Hashwiyyah (non-Shias), for their view
is derived from a group of Akhbariyyun (or Ashab al-Hadith
i.e. followers of the Traditions) who had narrated weak
ahadith on the subject, thinking that they had related
reliable and valid ahadith, whereas such weak ahadith

12
 have no power to challenge something based on definitive
knowledge and certainty.
(Majma’ul Bayaan, Volume One, page 15)

4. Shaykh at-Taifah Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. al-Hasan at-Tusi:

(died in 461H): He said, as is quoted in Tafsirus Safi, Volume One,
pages 48-49:
The remarks about addition and loss in the Qur’anic text
are not worthy of the respect the Holy Qur’an possesses as
(meaning that the text of the Holy Qur’an is today more
than what it was before) there is a consensus among the
ulama regarding the invalidity of this matter. Regarding
the deficiency of the Holy Qur’an (meaning that some parts
of the Qur’anic text have been deleted), apparently the
consensus of the Muslim sects also proves the contrary. The
same holds true in our school of faith. This is exactly the
belief that has been confirmed and proven by al-Sayyid al-
Murtadhaa (may Allah be pleased with him). This belief
has been clearly expressed in the narrations and Traditions.
However, there are a number of Traditions from the Shia
and Sunnis concerning the deficiency of many verses of
the Holy Qur’an and regarding the interchange of some of
the verses. All these Traditions are akhbar al-aahaad, i.e.
Traditions which are not mutawaatir and cannot cause
certainty. Thus, one should turn away and keep away from
these sorts of ahadith and should not engage oneself in
them. Moreover, these Traditions are paraphrasable. Had
these Traditions been correct, they would not have marred
the Holy Qur’an which is presently available between the two
covers, because knowledge and certainty prove the validity
of this Qur’an, and no one from among the Islamic Ummah
has any objection to or complaint against it, nor does anyone
reject it...

13
5. Shaykh Abu Ali at-Tabarsi:
He died in 548H. In the first volume of his translation of the
Qur’an, entitled Majma’ul Bayaan, page 15, he states:
There is a consensus and unanimity among Muslims that
there is not any “addition” in the Holy Qur’an. But with
regard to the omission of the text of the Holy Qur’an, a
group of Imamiyya and a group of Hashwiyyah who are
Sunnis have said that there are alterations and omissions in
the Holy Qur’an, but the belief accepted by the Imamiyya
holds otherwise...

6. Sayyid Ibn Tawus (died in 664H) states in his book, Sa’dus Su’ud,
pages 144-145 and 192-193:
The Imamiyya’s view is that the Qur’an was not corrupted.

Then, in responding to the Sunnis, he continues to state:

I am surprised by those who, while believing that the
Holy Qur’an has been preserved by the Messenger of
Allah (s.a.w.w.), and has been compiled by the Prophet
(s.a.w.w.) himself, have in the same breath narrated the
differences of the people of Makka and Madina, and those
of Kufa and Basra. They have also believed that Bismillaahir
Rahmaanir Rahim (i.e. in the name of Allah, the Beneficent,
the Merciful) is not an integral part of the suras (chapters) of
the Holy Qur’an. It is more surprising that they have reasoned
that if Bismillaah…… (In the name of Allah…….) had been an
integral part of the sura, then it could have been preceded
by something else also. What a surprise! When it is believed
that the Holy Qur’an is immune from and guarded against
any addition and omission, and when such a belief is
supported by man’s wisdom and by religion, how could it
be said that what had been revealed before the suras has not
been included as a part of the Holy Qur’an? Is such a thing
possible?

14
Since it is not our intention to dwell on this issue at length in this
rejoinder (although we would be prepared to do so if necessary),
there is no need to continue quoting yet more Shia scholars on
it. We think that what we have so far cited should suffice for the
time being. But for the benefit of our readers, we hereunder list the
names of only some of the Shia scholars who said that the Qur’an
which was in existence during the lifetime of Prophet Muhammad
(s.a.w.w.) is exactly the same one which is with the contemporary
Muslims – no more no less.
1. Mulla Fathullah al-Kashani (died in 988H), in his translation,
Manhajus Sadiqin.
2. al-Muhaqqiq Zaynuddin al-Bayadhi (died in 877H), in his
book, as-Siratum Mustaqim.
3. Muhammad Bahauddin al-Amili, better known as Shaykh al-
Bahai (died 1031H), as quoted in Tafsir Ala ar-Rahman.
4. Mulla Muhsin, better known as al-Faydhul Kashani (died in
1091H), in his tafsir called Tafsirus Safi.
5. Muhammad b. al-Hasan al-Hurr al-Amili (died in 1104H) in
his treatise in Farsi language Risala fi Ithbati Adamit Tahrif.
6. al-Qadhi Sayyid Nurullah as-Shustari (died in 1091H) as
quoted in Tafsir Ala ar-Rahman.
7. Sayyid Muhammad Mahdi b. Sayyid Murtadha at-Tabatabai,
better known as Bahrul Ulum (died in 1212H) in his book
Fawaidul Usul.
8. Shaykh Ja’far b. Shaykh Khidhr al-Janahi an-Najafi, better
known as Kashiful Ghitaa (died in 1228H) in his book Kashful
Ghitaa an Mubhamatis Shariatil Gharraa.
9. Muhammad Hassan b. al-Mawla Abdullah al-Mamaqani (died
in 1323H) in his book Tanqihul Maqal.
10. Muhammad Jawad al-Balaghi (died in 1352H) in his tafsir
called Ala ar-Rahman.
11. Ayatullah Sayyid Husayn Kuhkamari (died in 1299H), as
explained by his student in Bushra al-wasul ila ilm al-Usul.
12. Mirza Hassan al-Ashtiyani (died in 1319H) in his book Bahrul
Fawaid.

15
13. Sayyid Abdul Husayn Sharafuddin al-Musawi al-Amili (died in
1377H) in his book Ajwibatu Masaili Musa Jarullah.
14. Ayatullah al-Uzma Sayyid Abul Qasim al-Khui (died in 1413H)
in his tafsir called al-Bayan fi Tafsir al-Qur’an.
15. Ayatullah Khumayni (died in 1409H) in his book Kashful Asrar.
16. Muhammad an-Nahawandi in his book Nafahatur Rahman.
17. Sayyid Ali Naqi al-Hindi in the introduction of his book
Tafsirul Qur’an.

The above, therefore, are the views of some of the prominent Shia
scholars – from the third to the twentieth century! Reading them,
one would clearly see that the Shias’ belief on the Qur’an is the same
as that of all other Muslims; that is, since it was first revealed to
date, not even a dot has changed. But, for reasons known to himself,
Sheikh M. al-Khatib decided not to inform the Muslims about these
views. Instead, he preferred to tell them that:
i. the Shia religion is based on the “misinterpretation (taawil)
of the Qur’an and giving it a meaning other than that which
was understood by the noble Companions who received it
directly from the Prophet, and other than that which was
understood by the Imams of Islam who received it from the
very generation amongst whom the Qur’an descended by way
of the Divine Revelation”! (see p. 4 of the Swahili translation of
his book).
ii. “There have been both additions to it and omissions from
it,” and that the evidence of this is in the book called Fasl
al-Khitab Fi Ithbati Tahrifi Kitabi Rabbil Arbab written by Haji
Mirza Husayn at-Tabarsy (p. 4).
iii. Among the proofs that something is missing in the Qur’an is the
Surat al-Wilaya which, according to him, Shias claim that it has
been omitted from the copies of the Qur’an (maswhaf) in our
possession: and that the mentioned sura has been “affirmed” in
at-Tabarsy’s book which we have cited in (ii) above. (p. 5)
iv. That sura is also in their book (Dabistan Madhhab), written in
Farsi by Muhsin Faniy al-Kashmiri (p. 6).

16
v. Just as he mentioned Surat al-Wilaya to prove that changes have
been made to the Qur’an, at-Tabarsy similarly quoted what is
“on page 289 of al-Kafi, 1278H edition, (published in) Iran” to
prove his point. He continues to claim that, to the Shias, al-Kafi
“is what Sahih Bukhari is to the Sunni Muslims” (p. 6).
vi. Among the verses which Shias claim to have been removed from
the Qur’an is that one which says: Waja’alnaa Aliyyan swihraka,
meaning: “And we made ‘Ali your son-in-law.” (p. 7).
vii. Shias have a Maswhaf of Fatima whose contents are “three times
as much as this Qur’an of yours. By Allah, it does not contain
one single letter of your Qur’an”! (p. 9).

Let us, therefore, take a look at and respond to the above allegations:

“Misinterpreting” Verses
This is Sheikh M. al-Khatib’s first allegation: that when the
Shias translate the Holy Qur’an, they misinterpret it and give it
“a meaning other than that which was understood by the noble
Companions who received it directly from the Prophet, and the
other than that which was understood by the Imams of Islam who
received it from the very generation amongst whom the Qur’an
descended by way of Divine Revelation.”

It is surprising that Sheikh M. al-Khatib did not give us an

example of at least few verses which were thus affected. Perhaps
those who are still alive, and who continue with his work, will
do us that favour when they decide to reply to this book. At the
moment, I would like our readers to understand that, as is the case
with the translations of the Qur’an by Muslims of other madhaahib,
some of the translations by the Shias contain authentic as well as
unauthentic transmissions. When reading the books written by
Shia interpreters of the Qur’an and scholars of Hadith, one will see
how these experts analyse them – by either accepting or rejecting -
such transmissions. And the same is the case with the Sunnis.

17
But if Sheikh M. al-Khatib insists that all Shias must be in the
wrong for the simple reason that some of their scholars have
“misinterpreted” some of the verses – irrespective of the fact that
such misinterpretations (taawil) are not accepted by all the Shias
– what should Shias say about similar action by the Sunnis?
Does it mean that Sheikh M. al-Khatib, and others of the same
opinion as his, are not aware of the misinterpretations (taawil) in
the Sunni books on the translation of the Qur’an – such as ad-Durr
al-Manthur by Suyuti, Gharaaib al-Qur’an by an-Nishapuri, Tafsirul
Qur’anil Adhim by at-Tustari, Araisul Bayan by as-Shirazi, Tafsir
by Ibn Arabi, and others? Or does he dispute that all the scholars
mentioned here are Sunni, and not Shia?

Therefore, my fellow Muslim, this issue about the taawil of the

verses should not be an excuse for stopping Shia and Sunni
coming closer to each other and cooperate in the interests of Islam.
For what is alleged against the Shia, could as well be alleged against
the Sunni.

Fasl al-Khitab
Sheikh M. al-Khatib’s second allegation concerns the book called
Fasl al-Khitab Fi Ithbati Tahrifi Kitabi Rabbil Arbab written by Haji
Mirza Husayn at-Tabarsy.

On page 4 of his book, Sheikh M. al-Khatib states that in Fasl

al-Khitab there is evidence that, according to Shia belief, there are
“both additions to and omissions from” the Qur’an.

On this claim please turn to page 11-16 of this book to see how
several Shia ulamaa have rejected that theory. Please turn also to
pages 29-34 of this book to see that Sunnis subscribe to this belief
as well – and this can be seen in their main books which are relied
upon as “the most authentic after the Qur’an”! If that is the case,
why should it be blamed on Shias alone?

It is true, as Sheikh M. al-Khatib has stated, that the book in

18
question was published in Iran in 1298H. But it is not true that
it contains the evidence by “Shiite scholars in different eras”! The
truth is that the mentioned book includes evidences from the
Sunnis as well – and the latter in a bigger quantity!

However, what is important here is to know that, after the

publication of that book, some of the Shia scholars wrote other
books as rejoinders to it. Scholars such as Sayyid Muhammad
Hussein Shahristani in his book, Risalatu Hifdhil Kitabis Sharifi An
Shubhatil Qawli Bit Tahrif, and Sheikh Mahmud at-Tahrani in his
book, Kashful Irtiyabi. Wasn’t Sheikh M. al-Khatib aware of this?

It should also be understood that before his death, the author of

Fasl al-Khitab admitted that it was a mistake to have given his book
that title. He said that it would have been better to have called it
Fasl al-Khitab fi Adami Tahrifil Kitab, because in it he proved that
all the chapters and verses of the Holy Qur’an, which is available in
the four corners of the world, “were a revelation from Allah, which
were tampered with neither by alterations and changes nor by
additions or omissions – since (the day) it was bound together to
this day……”

But even if we are to accept that all that is contained in Fasl

al-Khitab is from Shia transmissions, and even if we do not accept
Sheikh at-Tabarsy’s report that he admitted to his mistake, what will
Sheikh M. al-Khatib tell us concerning those transmissions which
are contained in Volume Two of Al-Itqan by Suyuti, and which
are similar to the ones in Fasl al-Khitab? Because of that, is he or
others who have similar views as his, prepared to judge the Sunnis
in the same manner as he did the Shias? If not, then our readers will
definitely want to know why.

Surat al-Wilaya
This is the chapter which the opponents of Shiism make so much
capital of.

19
According to Sheikh M. Khatib (p. 5), this chapter has been
mentioned on page 180 of Fasl al-Khitab. He also mentions that
one “trustworthy scholar” by the name of Muhammad Ali Saudiy
who was a “chief consultant” to the Egyptian Ministry of Justice,
examined “an Iranian manuscript copy” owned by one Mr. Brown,
an orientalist, and photocopied it.

This is what we have been told by the Sheikh!

What is astonishing, though, is that whoever provides an “evidence”

in support of this claim produces the very same copy (of the
maswhaf) which Ustadh Muhammad Ali Saudiy got from Mr.
Brown! Why is it so? Does it mean that no other copy of such a
maswhaf exists except that of Mr. Brown? How was it possible for
Mr. Brown to have laid his hand on it while Sheikh M. al-Khatib
and his associates failed to do so? Furthermore, why would Shias
conceal that particular chapter (if, that is, they believe that it is an
authentic one from the Qur’an) when it is about the wilaya of Imam
‘Ali – which is one of the main pillars of the Shia faith? Why would
Shias do so with this particular chapter when they do cite various
Qur’anic verses to prove the wilaya of Imam ‘Ali? Moreover, how
come that when we go through all the translations of the Qur’an
written by Shia scholars, and in different languages, we never come
across such a chapter? These are pertinent questions which you,
the reader, should ask yourself lest you are taken in by such
fabrications.

The very fact that such a copy was obtained from someone who is
an orientalist should be reason enough to make any sincere Muslim
who seriously cares about his or her religion to outrightly reject
such a lie, for the simple reason that orientalists are known to be
great enemies of Islam. They are the ones, together with the Jews,
who introduced in institutions of higher learning this field of study
known as Orientalism with the sole objective of weakening and
ultimately destroying the unity among Muslims; to pave the way for

20
colonial rule in, and exploitation of, Muslim countries; as well as
attack Muslims for having opposed Christianity during the Middle
Ages. In order to realize their objectives, they founded a number
of colleges, launched several journals, held numerous conferences,
and published many books which disparaged the Holy Qur’an and
Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.w.) in particular, as well as Islam in
general; and they did all this in a very subtle way.

How, then, could Sheikh M. al-Khatib be satisfied and rely on the

“evidence” of a single copy of such a maswhaf, which was obtained
from such people? Or why did he attach so much importance on
the issue of that chapter alone and elect not to remember what is
contained in books authored by Sunni scholars regarding other
chapters with more missing verses than those seven of the Surat
al-Wilaya? Below we give only three examples; the rest are on pages
29-34 of this book:

i. On page 152 of Volume Seven of Majma’uz Zawaid it is

written “that Abdulrahman b. Yazid, that is an-Nakhai, said that
Abdallah used to erase the muawwidhataini from his copies of
maswhaf, and that, he used to say that they were not from the
Book of Allah (s.w.t).” It continues: “It has been narrated by
Abdallah b. Ahmad and Tabrani. And the people of Abdallah
are upright, and the people of Tabrani are trustworthy.”

Therefore, according to the above Hadith, those two chapters (113

and 114) which are contained in the copies of the maswhaf we
currently use, are additions. If that is the case, wouldn’t the Shia,
then, be justified to accuse their Sunni brothers and sisters that
their Qur’an contains additions?

ii. In al-Itqan of Imam Suyuti (Volume One, page 87), it is written

that in the maswhaf of Ibn Abbas and Ubayy bin Ka’b were two
chapters, Al-Khala‘ na Al-Hafd, which read:
‫اللھم انا نستعينك و نستغفرك ونثني عليك وال نکفرك وخنلع ونرتك من يفجرك‬

21
‫اللھم اياك نعبد ولك نصیل ونسجد وايلك نسیع وحنفد نرجو رمحتك وخنیش عذابك‬
‫ان عذابك بالاکفرين ملحق‬

When one refers to the entire maswhaf, does one come across any
chapters with such names? The obvious answer is No! Are there
such verses in the Qur’an? The answer is equally in the negative.
If, then, according to what is contained in Imam Suyuti’s al-Itqan,
someone were to say that the Qur’an is short of two chapters, would
that person be wrong in saying so? What, therefore, would Sheikh
M. al-Khatib say concerning those two chapters in comparison to
that single one of al-Wilaya?

iii. In Sahih Muslim (see see Volume 2, pages 500-501, Hadith

No. 2286 of the English edition) we are told that Abu Musa
al-Ash’ari said that they used to recite a sura whose length
was somewhat equal to the one of Sura Bara’ah, but he had
forgotten it except one verse only, which reads:
‫لواکن البن آدم واديان من مال البتیغ واديا ثاثلا وال يمأل جوف ابن آدم اال الرتاب‬

He also said that they used to recite a chapter which they used
to compare with one of the musabbihaat (that is those chapters
which start with either the word sabbaha or yusabbihu), but he had
forgotten it except one verse, which he still remembered:
‫ فتکتب شهادة في اعناقکم فتسألون‬،‫يا ايها اذلين آمنوا لم تقولون ماال تفعلون‬
‫عنها يوم القيامة‬

My dear brother and sister! Please be reminded that Sura Bara’ah

is the ninth chapter, which is in the tenth part (juz’u), of the Holy
Qur’an; it is also called Sura at-Tawbah. The sura in question has
129 verses. Therefore, according to the Hadith mentioned above,
the Qur’an which is with us today is short of one chapter which
contains 129 verses; because even if you look for that verse which
Abu Musa al-Ash’ari could remember, you will never find it in the
existing copies of the Holy Qur’an! Would Sheikh M. al-Khatib still

22
want to blame the Shias for being short of seven verses of al-Wilaya,
and that the Shias should not do the same to Sheikh M. al-Khatib
and his ilk for having a shortage of 129 verses?

When we look at the musabbihaat, we will find that they are a total
of six chapters: 57, 59, 61, 62, 64 and 87. The shortest among them
(62), Sura al-Jumu’a, comprises of eleven verses. Looking at it, as
well as the rest of them, one does not find the verse which Abu
Musa al-Ash’ari used to remember, except the first bit only, which is
the second verse of the 61st chapter (Sura as-Saff).

Having seen all this, what would those who volunteered to assist
Sheikh M. al-Khatib in translating and distributing his book, say?
Would they still expect us to believe that it is only the Shias who
claim that the Qur’an is not complete?

Lastly, Sheikh M. al-Khatib said (p. 5) that Sheikh at-Tabarsy

copied the Sura al-Wilaya on page 180 of his book, Fasl al-Khitab.
But Sheikh Lutufullah as-Safi has contradicted this on page 62 of
his Ma’ al-Khatib Fi Khututihi al-Aridha. As-Swafi says:
“There isn’t in Fasl al-Khitab – neither on page 180 nor anywhere
else –from the beginning to the end of the book, where that
fabricated sura (i.e. Sura al-Wilaya) is mentioned!”

Dabistan Madhhab
Sheikh M. al-Khatib’s fourth claim (p.6) is that Surat al-Wilaya is
also contained in a Shia book called Dabistan Madhhab, written
in Farsi by Muhsin Fani al-Kashmiri, and “printed in Iran several
times.”

Our response to this is:

i. That it is not a Shia book;
ii. There is no certainty that its author is the one mentioned by
Sheikh M. al-Khatib;
iii. It is not true that it was printed in Iran several times; and, most
importantly,

23
iv. In it Surat al-Wilaya is not mentioned at all!

This is what Sheikh Lutufullah as-Safi, who did research on that

claim and who understands the Farsi language well, says in his
book, Ma’ al-Khatib Fi Khututihi al-Aridha (pp. 64-66). Below we
just summarise the contents of those pages:
The book in question has nothing to do with Shiism, but deals with
various customs and traditions – authentic and false. It is full of
stories which cannot be believed to be true by any sound-minded
person, and many of those stories are credited to people who are
unknown, although their names suggest that they were Hindu
dervishes.

The book does not carry the name of the author nor his madhhab.
In fact there are disagreements as to who its actual author is. Some
say it is Muhsin al-Kashmiri; Some say it is Dhul Fikar; Some say
it is Muhammad Fani; while others mention the name of Mobed
Shah. Yet others say it is Mobed Afraseyab, while the rest say it is
Kykhosro Ibn Azar Kywan. In short, it is not certain that Muhsin
Fani al-Kashmiri is the one who wrote it.

As regards the claim that it was “printed in Iran several times”,

Sheikh Lutufullah as-Safi says (p. 66) that after searching so hard
for it in all major libraries he managed to find only three copies:
the first edition, published in Bombay in 1262; the second edition,
published in 1268, but with no mention of where it was published;
and the third edition, also published in Bombay, in 1277. Are these
“several times”? And is Bombay in Iran?

Al-Kafi is not al-Bukhari

Sheikh M. al-Khatib’s fifth claim (p.6) is that at-Tabarsy has
produced an evidence to the effect that changes have been made to
the Qur’an “according to what is contained on page 289 of the book
of (al-Kafi)……” and that to Shias this book “is what al-Bukhari is to
Muslims”! As if Shias are not Muslims!!

24
In order to adequately respond to this claim, let us see what Shias
themselves say on al-Kafi, and then compare that to what Sunnis
say on al-Bukhari.

On pages 132 and 134 of his book, Diraasaatun Fil Hadith

Walmuhaddithin, Sayyid Hashim Ma’ruf al-Hasani said that there
was no consensus among the earlier scholars as to the reliability
of all of al-Kafi’s narrations in their generalities as well as in their
details. He went on to say: “In the ahadith contained in al-Kafi,
whose total is 16199, only 5072 are authentic (sahih), 144 are hasan,
1128 are muwath-thaq, 302 are qawiyy (strong) and 9553 are dhaif
(weak).”

According to the above, therefore, it will be seen that more than

50% of the ahadith in al-Kafi are not sahih!

This is what Shias say on their own book. Let us now see how
Sunnis regard theirs, al-Bukhari.

Imam Dhahabi once said that “after the Book of Allah (s.w.t.)
al-Bukhari is the best among all other Islamic books.” And several
prominent scholars of Hadith concur that Imam Bukhari said: “I
have compiled (this book of mine) that it should be an argument/
evidence between Allah (s.w.t.) and me. I have not included in it
except those ahadith which are sahih. And I have left out many more
which are sahih so that the book may not become hefty (see page
379 of al-Hadith Wal Muhaddithun, by Muhammad Abu Zahra).

Moreover, in February 1966, Majallatul Arabiy, a journal

published in Kuwait had, in its issue No. 87, an article written by
Abdul Warith Kabir titled, “Not Everything in Sahih Bukhari is
authentic, But Therein are Also the Fabricated and the Munkar.”
This article angered many Sunni scholars, among them Sheikh
Muhammad Abu Zahra and Sheikh Yusuf al-Qardhawi. In
addition, about 31 lecturers at the Damascus University wrote a

25
strong petition to the Emir of Kuwait opposing it, and also asked
him to use his powers to stop publication of such articles. On
the other hand, a Kuwaiti organization called Jumuiyyatul Islahil
Ijtimaiy put together a number of articles in defence of Bukhari.
These were subsequently published in a book called Kullu Maa Fil
Bukhari Sahih (Everything contained in al-Bukhari is authentic).
Therefore, up to the present century, Sunnis still believe that each
and everything in al-Bukhari is authentic.

If, as we have so far seen, Shias believe that more than 50% of the
ahadith in al-Kafi are not sahih; and if Sunnis believe that all the
ahadith contained in al-Bukhari are sahih, how, then, could the two
books be in the same league? On what grounds? Perhaps those who
share the views of Sheikh M. al-Khatib would try to explain to us.

After this brief explanation, it will be clearly seen that the

evidence which Sheikh M. al-Khatib said is on page 289 of al-Kafi
would be about those ahadith which are not sahih. And that had
already been said by Shia scholars of Hadith in their various books;
for example, Rijaalun Najjaashi; Qaamusur Rijaal; Mu’jam Rijaal
al-Hadith; Khulaasatur Rijaal; and Diraasaatun Fil Hadith Wal
Muhaddithin.

The above, therefore, is our brief response on al-Kafi and its

contents.

Waja’alnaa Aliyyan Swihraka

The premise of Sheikh M. al-Khatib’s sixth claim is that the above
quoted words are of a verse which used to be in the Qur’an which
Shias now claim to have been omitted!

After understanding Shias’ position on the Qur’an (that it is the

same as the one revealed to Prophet Muhammad s.a.w.w.) and the
views of their scholars of Hadith on those ahadith which mention
the omissions from or additions to the Qur’an (being not sahih), it

26
follows therefore that the above mentioned “Qur’anic verse” falls
into that category of unauthentic ahadith.

However, such ahadith are found not only in Shia books, but in
Sunni ones as well! For example, referring to Sahih al-Bukhari:
(Volume 6, p.467, Hadith No, 405) one would see it mentioned
therein that Ibn Abbas said that: “When Waandhir ashiyra-
takalaqrabiyn was revealed, it was followed by warahtwaka minhu-
mul mukhlaswiin.
» ‫وأنذر عشريتك األقربني « ورهطك منهم املخلصني‬

What more should we say after seeing how the infallibility of

al-Bukhari has been so vigorously defended (see page 24-26)?
For instance, is the end-bit which reads, warahtwaka minhumul
mukhlaswiin included in the Qur’an which is in our hands today?
If you have a look at Sura 26:214 you will only find the first part of
that verse! Where would the second part of it have disappeared to?

However, it is sad to note that although the mentioned Hadith

has been included in the English version of al-Bukhari as we
have quoted here in Arabic, but the contentious part warahtwaka
minhumul mukhlaswiin was not translated in English! Therefore,
those who understand English but not Arabic will not realize that
that particular part has been left out! The question which one is
bound to ask is: Was the translation of that part of the Hadith
omitted by mistake or by design?

The Maswhaf of Fatimah

The seventh claim of Sheikh M. al-Khatib is that Shias have a
maswhaf which is called The Maswhaf of Fatimah, and which is
different from the masahif which Muslims have.

It is correct for one to say that there exists a maswhaf by that name.
But the word maswhaf does not mean the Qur’an; for it is explic-
itly mentioned in the ahadith that are in al-Kafi, which is quoted

27
by Sheikh M. al-Katib (see pages 237-242 of the First Volume),
that there is nothing in that maswhaf which can be regarded as the
Qur’an.

For example, the Hadith referred to by him is Hadith No. 1 in

the section called Fiihi Dhikrus Swahifa Wal Jafr Wal Jami’a
Wamaswhaf Fatimah (a.s.). Why does he not mention Hadith No. 3
which states clearly that the Abu Abdillahi mentioned in the Hadith
No. 1, in this Hadith No. 3 said: ‘I don’t claim that in the maswhaf
is the Qur’an’? Or why does he not also cite Hadith No. 4 which
says that what is contained in that maswhaf is “an advice to Fatimah
a.s.”?

It is therefore obvious, from the ahadith which are in al-Kafi, that

the “Maswhaf of Fatimah” does not mean “a copy of the Qur’an”
because in it there is neither a single verse of the Qur’an nor any
words resembling the words of any verse of the Qur’an. The word
maswhaf has only been used there to mean “a collection of suhuf (an
Arabic word meaning pages)”; and not the Qur’an at all. Not every
maswhaf means a Qur’an just as not every Jami’i means a mosque.

It is my hope that this brief response to the main claims made by

Sheikh M. al-Khatib against Shias as far as the Qur’an is concerned,
will remove any doubts which my Muslim brothers and sisters
might have had on their fellow Muslims, the Shias.

Let us now turn to what is contained in Sunni books which

indicate that the Qur’an is not complete, and await to hear what
those with similar views as Sheikh M. al-Khatib’s have to say
because, unfortunately, the Sheikh himself is long dead.

28
 FROM SUNNI SOURCES

1. The first Hadith is the one in Sahih al-Bukhari, which we quoted

earlier on page 27 of this booklet.
2. The second is the one in Sahih Muslim, mentioned herein on
page 22.
3. The third is in Majma’uz Zawaid , as mentioned on page 21.
4. The fourth is the one in al-Itqan, which concerns the two suras
as mentioned on page 21-22.
All the above ahadith show that the Qur’an, as we know it today, is
either incomplete or something has been added onto it! Apart from
them, let us now have a look at the following ahadith:
5. In Sahih al-Bukhari (Hadith No. 21 on p. 212, Vol. 9) Caliph
‘Umar is quoted to have said, “If it were not for the fear that
people would say that ‘Umar has added (something) in Allah’s
Book, I would have written the verse on rajm with my own
hand”!

And in Sahih Muslim (Hadith No. 4194 on p. 912, Vol. 3) it is

mentioned that the very same ‘Umar ibn Khattab said that
the verse on rajm was “among the verses revealed (to Prophet
Muhammad s.a.w.w.)”. He then said: “We used to read and
memorise and understand the verse.”

As for those who do not know the Arabic version of the verse in
question, this is it:
‫ان الشيخ والشيخة اذا زنيا فارمجوهما ابلتة‬
which means: “If (when) an old man and an old woman commit
adultery, stone them both.”

We have to pose a number of questions here: First, was that a verse

from the Qur’an or not? If it was, why did ‘Umar ibn Khattab refrain
from writing it down for fear of fellow human beings instead of
Allah? Second; why was that verse not included in the Qur’an
being used by all Muslims? Third; if it was not a Qur’anic verse, why

29
did ‘Umar wish to write it down in the first place, and then decided
against it for the reason given? Fourth, why on earth would he wish
to write down a verse which was not from Allah? Lastly, what do
such ‘ahadith make you think, my dear brother and sister?

6. Again in Sahih al-Bukhari (Hadith No. 468 on pages 441–442,

Vol. 6) it is mentioned that ‘Alqama used to recite Sura 92:3
differently from either the way we recite it today or the way
it appears in our maswhaf (copy of the Qur’an). He instead,
recited it thus: Wadh dhakari Wal Unthaa! He is then reported
to have said: “I bear witness that I heard the Prophet (s.a.w.w.)
reciting it like this. And these (that is, some of the Prophet’s
Companions) want me to recite: Wamaa Khalaqadh dhakara
wal unthaa. I swear by Allah! I’ll never follow them.”

Is it not, therefore, clear that according to the above Hadith, the

words wamaa khalaqa, as they appear in all copies of the Qur’an,
have been added on in Sura 92:3? In addition, look how ‘Alqama
swore that the way he recited it was the same way he used to hear
the Prophet (s.a.w.w.) reciting it, and that he would not abide by the
wishes of those other people who wanted him not to recite it the
way he did.

It is crucially important at this juncture to note that ‘Alqama was

not the only one who testified to that fact, but by consulting another
Hadith before the one quoted above (Hadith No. 467) one will find
Abud Dardaa saying that he also used to hear the Prophet reciting
the same verse in a manner similar to that heard by ‘Alqama. But
Abud Dardaa’s testimony was also rejected!

7. In Imam Suyuti’s al-Itqan fi ‘Ulum al-Qur’an (page 33 of

the Second Volume, Fourth Edition, published in 1398H) one
finds written therein that Abu Sufyan al-Kala’i said that one
day Muslima ibn Mukhallad al-Ansari said to them: “Tell me
about those two verses of the Qur’an which were not included in

30
 the maswhaf! Nobody responded, although Abdul Kanud Sa’d
ibn Malik was present. Therefore Ibn Muslima recited:
‫ان اذلين آمنوا وهاجروا وجاهدوا یف سبيل اهلل بامواهلم وانفسهم اال أبرشوا انتم‬
‫املفلحون واذلين آووهم ونرصوهم وجادلوا عنهم قوم اذلين غضب اهلل عليهم اولئك‬
‫ال تعلم نفس ما اخفي هلم من قرة اعني جزاء بما اکنوا يعملون‬

Can anyone find the above verses in the copies of the Holy Qur’an
which is in our possession today? Definitely not. The verses closer
to those are the ones appearing in Sura 8:72, 9:20 and 32:17.
Compare them and see how different they are!

Would Sheikh M. al-Khatib, or those who hold similar views as his,

still insist that it is only the Shias who have ahadith which mention
that the Qur’an is not complete?

Yet More Ahadith

So far we have mentioned only a few of the ahadith which deal with
the missing of just one or two verses from the Qur’an. Let us now
turn to those which concern the omission of large chunks:

8. On page 32 of Volume Two of al-Itqan, it is stated that Lady

‘Aisha said: “During the days of the Prophet (s.a.w.w), Sura al-
Ahzab used to be recited in 200 (two hundred) verses. But when
‘Uthman collected (the Qur’an) together, we did not get except
what it (the Sura) is today!”

However, what we have in the copies of the Qur’an today is the

Sura al-Ahzab which contains a total of 73 (seventy three) verses. If
Sheikh M. al-Khatib and his associates were to be asked about the
missing 127 verses, what would their answer be?

9. Again on page 32 of al-Itqan and immediately after the Hadith

mentioned above, it is written that Dharr bin Hubaysh was
asked by Ubayy bin Ka’b. “How many verses does Sura al-Ahzab
have?”
31
He answered: “Seventy two or seventy three verses.”
Ubayy remarked: “Although it was like Sura al-Baqarah or longer!”

As we all know, Sura al-Baqarah has a total of 286 verses. In that

case, therefore, where have the rest (that is 213 verses) of Sura al-
Ahzab disappeared to? Or how could the missing of the seven verses
from Sura al-Wilaya in the Qur’an be comparable to the 213 verses
of Sura al-Ahzab ?

The above mentioned Hadith can also be found in Muntakhab

Kanzul Ummal, which is on the margins of Musnad Ahmad,
Volume Two, page 1.

10. Turning to Sura Bara’ah - which, in the Qur’an we read from,

consists of 129 verses – we are told that it is like Sura al-Baqarah
in length which contains 286 verses! (see page 80 of Volume
One of al-Itqan). If that is the case, where are the missing 157
verses?

11. Furthermore, on page 34 of Volume Two of al-Itqan, we are told

that it has been said by Hudhayfa (in the al-Mustadrak) that
Sura Bara’ah, as is being recited today, is only a quarter of it!

According to that Hadith, therefore, nobody knows where the three

quarters (that is 387 verses) are.

The Hadith in question also appears on page 31 of Volume Seven

of Majma’uz Zawaid, where it is said that its narrators are thuqaat
(reliable).

12. Apart from all that, according to ‘Umar ibn Khattab, number of
letters which make the whole Qur’an is 1,027,000 (one million
and twenty seven thousand). (see page 93 of Volume One of al-
Itqan). The same is stated on page 517 of Volume One of Kanzul
Ummal (Hadith No. 2308).

32
But what is generally known is that the letters in the Qur’an are
only a third of the figure quoted! What this means is that twice the
number of letters in the Qur’an used by Muslims today is missing.
In other words, the Qur’an which ‘Umar ibn Khattaab had in mind,
is three times bigger than the one we have.

Please compare that maswhaf (of Umar) with the one of Fatimah,
which Sheikh M. al-Khatib mentioned on page 9 of his book; then
have a look at our response on page 27-28 of this booklet. After that
ask yourself: Is it the Shias or the Sunnis who have the Qur’an which
is three times the size of the one known to all of us?

More Serious Matters

So far we have mentioned the ahadith from Sunni sources, which
inform us about the missing verses. But, what is more serious, there
also are others which deal with the missing verses the number of
which nobody knows! For example:
13. In al-Itqan (Volume Two, page 32) it is written that it has been
narrated by Nafi‘ that Ibn ‘Umar said: “One of you might say
that he has the whole Qur’an, but what is it that will make him
know what that whole (he is talking about) is? The truth is that
a large part of the Qur’an has disappeared. But (all) he should
say is: ‘I have taken the part that is manifest’.”

I advise you, the reader, to please re-read the above narration and
think seriously about it. What will appear to one is that Ibn ‘Umar
used to prevent people from saying that they had the whole Qur’an
with them because there was nobody who knew the whole of it.
Therefore, according to him, all that one should say is that what one
has (of the Qur’an) is what one got! In that case, one is entitled to
ask what percentage of it has one missed?

14. What about that part which was eaten by a livestock and could
not be retrieved! In Musnad Ahmad (Volume Six, page 269), it
is written that Lady ‘Aisha is quoted to have said that the page

33
 which was under her bed was eaten by a livestock, and that
this incident took place at the time of the death of the Prophet
(s.a.w.w.) when Lady ‘Aisha and others were preoccupied with
the death of the Prophet.

Therefore, according to that narration, one can assume that the

verse on rajm and that which talks about the suckling of an adult
ten times, were on that page which was eaten up. Several questions
here come to one’s mind: Where are those verses now? How
come that they are not included in the Qur’an which is in our
possession? If Lady ‘Aisha said that those verses were on that page
till the Prophet (s.a.w.w) died, who would have them after his
death? And with whose permission?

15. The final point concerns the maswahif (copies of the Qur’an)
of the Companions of the Prophet (s.a.w.w.) On page 9 of
his book, Sheikh M. al-Khatib mentioned the maswhaf of
Fatimah. But it did not occur to him that there were also the
maswahif of the Companions, whose contents have been
mentioned in several Sunni books. The difference is that
whereas the contents of the maswhaf of Fatimah, as we have
seen on page 27-28, are not verses from the Qur’an, all the
contents of those of the Companions are. And in them we find
verses which are worded differently from those of the Qur’an
we currently use! Which ones should we take as authentic – the
Companions’ or the ones we have?

The readers who understand Arabic should look for a book called
al-Maswahif, by Abu Dawud; they will see what we are talking about
here.

34
 Conclusion

My dear reader, the ahadith which we have quoted so far are only
a few which are in Sunni books. As we have seen, all of them show
that the Holy Qur’an is not complete! However, I have not quoted
them because I accept them; I definitely don’t. Nor can any other
Muslim accept them, because they contradict the Qur’an (Sura 15:9
and 41:41-42). I have cited them only to show that just as one can
come across such ahadith in Shia books, which can be understood
to mean that the Qur’an is either incomplete or has some additions,
one can do the same in Sunni books. Therefore, if a Sunni feels
justified to castigate a Shia for having a Qur’an which is different
from the one all Muslims have, the same will be the case with a Shia
against a Sunni – and for the same reason.

What we learn from the above, therefore, is that the Qur’an which
Shias believe in is the very one in which Sunnis believe. There is
nothing for the two to quarrel about.

In the next book, inshaa Allah we shall look at what Shias say about
the ahadith of Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.w.).

35
 ARABIC TERMINOLOGIES

In this booklet there are a number of Arabic terminologies and

abbreviations the explanations of which are given hereunder:

aqida a set of beliefs; theology.

a.s. alayhis/ has salaam (= peace be upon him/ her).
imam (of a school of thought) a leader.
inshaa Allah Allah willing.
madhhab a school of thought.
maswahif plural of maswhaf (see below).
maswhaf a copy of the Holy Qur’an in Arabic.
mufti (in Islamic Law) a deliverer of formal legal
opinions.
mutawaatir (of a Hadith) that which has been narrated by such
a great number of people that it is impossible for
all of them to lie.
raj’ah belief in the possibility of dead souls returning to
earth before the Day of Resurrection.
rajm (in law) the stoning of an adulterer/ adulteress till
he/ she dies.
s.a.w.w. sallal Lwaahu alayhi wa aalihii wasallam (= May
peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and his
progeny).
sunna Prophet Muhammad’s sayings and practices.
sura a chapter of the Holy Qur’’an.
s.w.t. subhaanahuu wa ta’alaa (= Glorified and Exalted
be He!)
ulamaa scholars; people learned in Islamic religion.
ummah the Muslim nation.

36
 Published by
Tabligh Sub-Committee of KSI Jamaat - Dar es Salaam
PO Box 233, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
Tel: (255) 22-2115119 Fax: (255) 22-2113107
e-Mail : tablighadmin@gmail.com