Answering Shia allegations of Tahreef in Quran

Shia website says:
Deobandi Imam Muhammad Anwar Shah Kashmiri has polished the name of Uthman and Deobandism by admitting that the Holy Quran contains distortions

Shia website has lied upon Muhammad Anwar Shah Kashmiri,
Click here for more details

Allegation regarding Ayat of Rajam

Check out the following links for answers

http://shiacult.webnode.com/news/the-hadith-of-goat-eating-quranic-verses-of-rajam-and-suckling-/

http://shiacult.webnode.com/news/the-verse-of-rajam-stoning-in-shia-books/

"Hadhrath Umar said at the Saqifa that the Qur'an has 1,027,000 letters" Tafseer al Itqan" by as Suyuti, page 88

First of all we should notice the opinion of imam Tabarani:
لا يروى عن عمر إلا بهذا الاسناد

"It was not reported from Umar, via other chain than this".(Mizan #7918)

And in the chain is:
Mohammad ibn Ubeyd ibn Adam Askalani.
Zahabi and ibn Hajar said:
تفرد بخبر باطل

"He alone narrated false stories (it mean no one except him narrated such and such false stories)". (Mizan #7918, Lisan al Mizan vol 5, #949)
Shaykh Albani in "Silsila ad daifa" #4073, said narration is false.
Munawi in "Tayseer sharh jamiul sagir" 2/395, cited Zahabi, that narration is false.

Suyuti himself criticized the hadith after narrating it, saying the narrator Mohammad ibn Ubeyd ibn Adam is not thiqat and he has been criticized.

“The sequence of surahs in Ubai bin Ka’ab’s mushaf was in this manner:
[1]Al Hamd, [2]Al Baqrah, [3 ]Aal e Imran, [4]Al-An'am, [5]Al-Ar`af, [6]…[94] At-Takathur, [95]Al-Qadr, [96]Surat al Khul’a, [97] Surat al Haqd, [98]…”
Tafseer al Itqan (Urdu), Volume 1 page 172-173

Like their beloved companions, do Nawasib such as Sipah e Sahaba have these two surahs in their Quran?

In the very same book, in the chapter of Nasikh wa mansookh, it has been mentioned that those two verses were abrogated.

Ibn Umar said "No one can proclaim that I have found the Qur'an complete because most of the Qur'an has been lost." ("Tafsir Duure Manthur" as-Suyuti Volume 1 page 104)

First of all, this has been poorly translated by the shias

Original Arabic text
وأخرج أبو عبيد وابن الضريس وابن الأنباري في المصاحف عن ابن عمر قال : لا يقولن أحدكم قد أخذت القرآن كله ، ما يدريه ما كله؟ قد ذهب منه قرآن كثير ولكن ليقل : قد أخذت ما ظهر منه .

Translation : “None from among you should say I have taken the whole Quran, what does he know what the whole is? A lot of Quran has gone Minhu, rather he should say: I have taken from it what appeared.

secondly this has been mentioned in the chapter, Nasikh wa mansookh , "the abrogating and the abrogated" of the book, so we can understand very well that it is saying about the abrogated verses.

"During the life of the Prophet (s), Surah Ahzab was read with 200 verses, when Uthman collected the verses we only found that amount that is found in the current Qur'an". (Tafseer Durre Manthur Volume 5 page 180; Al Itqan Volume 2 page 25)

Here is the arabic
قال: حدثنا ابن أبي مريم عن ابن لهيعة عن أبي الأسود عن عروة بن الزبير بن عائشة قالت: كانت سورة الأحزاب تقرأ في زمن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم مائتي آية، فلما كتب عثمان المصاحف لم نقدر منها إلا ما هو الآن.

Ibn Lahi’ah is weak

Ibn Luheya is weak. "Mizan" #4530
قال ابن معين: ضعيف لا يحتج به
أحمد بن محمد الحضرمي، سألت ابن معين عن ابن لهيعة، فقال: ليس بقوى. معاوية بن صالح، سمعت يحيى يقول: ابن لهيعة ضعيف. قال يحيى بن سعيد: قال لى بشر بن السرى: لو رأيت ابن لهيعة لم تحمل عنه حرفا

We read in Tafseer al-Kabeer:

نقل في الكتب القديمة أن ابن مسعود كان ينكر كون سورة الفاتحة من القرآن وكان ينكر كون المعوذتين من القرآن

“In some of the previous books it is written that Ibn Masud would reject Surah Fatihah and Mu'awwidh-at [Mauzatain] as being a part of the Quran”


We appeal to justice amongst our readers, after reading the above cited references that clearly state that the Sunni Imams like Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Malik and the Sahabi Ibn Masud clearly opposed Surah Fatihah and Mauzatain being a part of the Holy Quran.

lol at your appeal.

Lets quote what Razi said , without doing tahreef to what he said.

نقل في الكتب القديمة أن ابن مسعود كان ينكر كون سورة الفاتحة من القرآن وكان ينكر كون المعوذتين من القرآن ، واعلم أن هذا في غاية الصعوبة لأنا إن قلنا إن النقل المتواتر كان حاصلاً في عصر الصحابة بكون سورة الفاتحة من القرآن فحينئذ كان ابن مسعود عالماً بذلك فإنكاره يوجب الكفر أو نقصان العقل وإن قلنا إن النقل المتواتر في هذا المعنى ما كان حاصلاً في ذلك الزمان فهذا يقتضي أن يقال إن نقل القرآن ليس بمتواتر في الأصل وذلك يخرج القرآن عن كونه حجة يقينية والأغلب على الظن أن نقل هذا المذهب عن ابن مسعود نقل كاذب باطل وبه يحصل الخلاص عن هذه العقدة

تفسير الفخر الرازي 1/178



Some of the other references , the shia site give are
Tafseer Dur al Manthur

قال السيوطي :
( أخرج أحمد والبزار والطبراني وابن مردويه من طرق صحيحة عن ابن عباس وابن مسعود أنه كان يحك المعوذتين من المصحف

Suyuti said that it has been authentically narrated in Ahmad, Bazzar , Tabrani and Ibn Mardudiya , from Ibn Abbas and Ibn Masud that they considered Muazatain a part of the Mushaf (i.e Quran)

الدّر المنثور 8/683

Tafseer Iteqan
Iteqan was also written by Imam Suyuti and we already mentioned what he said in his other book, Durre Manthur regarding Ibn Masud

Also, it is written in Iteqan,
وقال ابن حزم : ( هذا كذب على ابن مسعود وموضوع وإنما صح عنه قراءة عاصم عن زر عنه وفيها المعوذتان والفاتحة )

Rough translation : Ibn Masud said that It is a lie upon Ibn Masud and a fabrication and the correct thing is that he did consider Muazatain and Fatiha in the Quran.

الإتقان في علوم القرآن للسيوطي 1/213 ، البرهان في علوم القرآن للزكشي 2/128

The correct thing is , that he did not wrote Muazatain and Fatiha in the Mushaf he wrote, because they are very short surahs (ch 1, 113, and 114) and almost every Muslim learns it by heart, so for this purpose, he did not wrote them in his Mushaf, [See Maqalat al Kauthari, Page 16, Tafseer Qurtabi, volume 1, Page 115 , 184] some people thought that he did not believe these to be a part of Quran, so they were mistaken due to this reason that he had not included these chapters in his mushaf, and the narration mentioned in Musnad Ahmad in which it is clearly narrated from Ibn Masud that "Muazatain are not a part of Quran" , first of all, it is only narrated from Abdur Rehman bin Yazeed, and it is against the mutawatir ahadith which confiirms that Abdullah ibn Masud did consider Fatiha and Muazatain a part of Quran, secondly, this hadith is "shaz" due to its being against the mutawatir ahadith

Shaz (شاذ)
Literal Meaning: Isolated.
Technical Meaning: Shaz Hadith is that Hadith wherein a comparatively less authentic narrator of Hadith opposes a more authentic narrator. This opposition may be either in Sanad (chain of transmission) or in Matan (text).
Status: This Hadith is rejected and not accepted.
Difference between Shaz and Munkar
The narrator of Shaz is authentic who narrates against a more authentic narrator whereas the narrator of Munkar is weak or less authentic.

http://publications.islamkashmir.org/classification-of-hadith

Again,
Shia scholar "Sayyad Muhammad Aun Naqwi" says in his book "Irfan ul Quran" , page 364-366, quoting Sayyad Murtaza Ali ibn Al Hussain Al Mooswi (d. 436 H)

"A group of sahaba were appointed to learn Quran by heart. And they would recite the holy Quran in front of the Prophet (peace be upon him) after learning it by heart. And especially a group of sahaba amongst whom Abdullah ibn Masud and Abi bin Kaab were also included, completed the recitation of Quran in front of the Prophet (peace be upon him) many many times."



Shia website al-islam.org says:
Another member of this group was Abdullah ibn Masood, a young Muslim. He was distinguished among the companions of the Prophet by his knowledge and learning, and he was one of the earliest huffaz (men who knew Al-Qur’an al-Majid by heart) in Islam. As each new verse was revealed, he heard it from the Prophet and memorized it.

http://www.al-islam.org/restatement/10.htm

So how is it possible that a person who recites the whole Quran in front of the Prophet (peace be upon him) many many times don't consider 3 chapters of the Quran a part of it? Its impossible.

Allamah Suyuti in al Itqan Volume 1 page 174 narrates the following claim of Hadhrath Uthman, compiler of the Qur'an:
"There are some mistakes in the present mushaf (Qur'an) that we have".

Why not mention this too, Suyooti continued:
أن ذلك لا يصح عن عثمان، فإن إسناده ضعيف مضطرب منقطع،
"Words which attributed to Uthmaan, (in narration from Ikrima from above) are not correct. The chain of this narration is weak, mixed and broken".

At page 509 he continued:
وقال ابن الأنباري في كتاب الرد على من خالف مصحف عثمان: في الأحاديث المروية عن عثمان في ذلك لا تقزم بها حجة لأنها منقطعة غير متصلة،
“Ibn Anbari in his book “Radd ala man khalafa mushafu Uthmaan” wrote: “This narration (from Ikrima) couldn’t be a proof, (the chain) isn’t connected, it’s broken..”.

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

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

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

Saheeh Bukhari Volume 8, Book 76, Number 446:

Narrated Sahl bin Sa'd:
I heard Ibn Az-Zubair who was on the pulpit at Mecca, delivering a sermon, saying, "O men! The Prophet used to say, "If the son of Adam were given a valley full of gold, he would love to have a second one; and if he were given the second one, he would love to have a third, for nothing fills the belly of Adam's son except dust. And Allah forgives he who repents to Him." Ubai said, "We considered this as a saying from the Qur'an till the Sura (beginning with) 'The mutual rivalry for piling up of worldly things diverts you..' (102.1) was revealed."

Imam Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani says in Fathul Bari...

When this Surah was revealed and expressed the same meaning as it (the Adam statement) they knew that the first statement (the Adam statement) was from the statements of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Some of them explained it to be part of the Quran and then its recitation was abrogated when 'The mutual rivalry for piling up of worldly things diverts you..' (102.1) was revealed." so its recitation persisted so it abrogated the recitation of that (the Adam statement). But it's wisdom and ruling was not abrogated if its recitation was abrogated.

Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani, Fathul Bari, Kitab: Al Raqaaq, Bab: Maa Yataqey Min Fitnatil Maal, Commentary on Hadith no. 5959

For more details, check the following link

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/the_variant_on_the_valley_of_riches

brother the arabic website faisal noor.com.. have already refuted and answered all these allegations.. you just need to find a translator to translate all those.

Let me tell you in a nutshell that what is the actual issue.

The shias as always have tried to deceived lay people by mixing the issue of fabrication or corruption(tahreref) and abrogation(mansookh). But actually these two are different and seperate issues. Abrogation is not corruption. And what all authentic reports shias bring from the books of ahle sunnah are actually the issues of "abrogation" not "tahreef". And which even the shias believe in. There is no disagreement among the shias and sunni on the issue of abrogation. So accusing Ahlesunnah for believing in tahreef by citing the ahadees of abrogation is deception and unfair.

And what separates Ahlesunah and shia on issue of quran is actually tahreef of quran, not abrogation of verses of quran. And we accuse the shias for such believe, which is kufr in our view.

SO WE CHALLENGE ANY SHIA TO BRING US AN AUTHENTIC NARRATION FROM THE BOOKS OF AHLESUNNAH WHICH SAYS THAT, CORRUPTION TOOK PLACE IN QURAN(not abrogation). OR PROOF US THAT ANY ESTEEMED AND RENOWNED SUNNI SCHOLAR HELD THIS VIEW.

AND IN REGARDS TO SHIAS THEN WE CAN SHOW THEM FROM THEIR OWN BOOKS THAT THEIR ESTEEMED SCHOLARS DID HELD THIS VIEW AS WELL AS THEIR IMAMS..(though their is disagreement among shias regarding authenticity of such narrations).