You are on page 1of 30

AHLUSSUNNAH VAL JAMA:’:AH

Refuting the Allegation Of


Mirza Jhelumi that Imam
Muslim etc. accepted the
Traditions of Tahrif in
Qur’an
Refuting Ali Mirza Jhelumi [with some additions]
Saiyid Muhammad Zaheer Naqvi
31-May-19

Engineer ‘:Ali: Mirza: has borrowed the objection that ‘Ima:m Muslim [3597] . Imam Tirmidh:I and
‘Ima:m ‘Abu Davu:d have included Traditons of Tah:ri:f in their Respective Books, from Enemies of
Islam.In this article this objection is Answered. 1440-09-19 AH
Page 1 of 29

Initially Engineer ‘:Ali: Mirza: of Jhelum did deny “ twelvers deny the conservation of Sacred Qur’a:n
and believe in the corruption and distortion in the Textus Receptus of Sacred Qur’:an”.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5nPd0kOSh4

But he did know that there are traditions in the Tewelvers which support the Alternation and distortion
t [Tah:ri:f] dogma the books of traditions of Twelvers. Finally he was compelled to confess that
‘Akh:ba:ri: do believe in Tah:ri:f and some ‘Us:u:li also believe in it, and a number of their common
elders also believed in it.

So he took the position of some twelvers that Traditions of Tah:ri:f of the Sacred Text of Holy Qur’a:n
exist in books of Twelvers and ;Ah;ussunnah both alike, Then he went forward to declare Traditions of
Tah:ri:f in Holy Muslim, Abu Davu:d etc ,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrUbVz7bS1s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exh2zLL4Sb4&t=5s

Page 1 of 29
Page 2 of 29

If he had only defended Twelvers that they do not believe in Tah:rif, it would have been a different thing
but he crossed all the Limits and Disgraced aagainst Canonical Sunni books by accusing that they also
contain traditions of Tah:ri:f ul QUR’N [Astagh:farullah Va Na’:udh:ubillah].

His Ra:fid:iah was immediately unearthed when this man from Jhelum accused Holy Muslim of
containing a Tradition of Tah:ri:ful Qur’:an it in. [‘Astagh:farullah Va Na’:u:dh:ubillah].

So it is necessary to discuss the problem in some detail.

First Preliminary
There are several sects of ‘Ahluttashaiyu’: .

One of them is of Twelvers.

The Subsect it self is divided in four subsects.

1] ‘Us:u:liah

2] ‘Akh:ba:riah

3] Shaikh:iah

4] Twelvers S:u:fiah [Not to confuse with Sunni S:ufiah]

The ‘Akh:ba:riah do believe in the distortion and manipulation of the Sacred Text of Divine Book.

http://www.akhbari.org/English/tq.htm

So this is a proof that at least on of the Subsect of Tweelvers believe in the Tah:ri:f. But Engineer did not
tell it to any one.

There are at least twenty differences between ‘Akh:ba:riah ans ‘Us:u:liah

http://www.akhbari.org/English/aau.htm

Second Preliminay

Some ‘Us:u:lis are extremely against ‘Akh:ba:ris but no one can deny that a number Elders of Twelvers
did believe in Alternation and manipulation of Textus Receptus of Divine Sacred Text.

To accuse ‘Ahlussunnah for the occurrence of Tah:ri:f was written by a Twelver scholar known as Shia
Pen.

Engineer ‘:Ali: Mirza: actually borrowed this idea from Twelvers who in order to response the objection
that Twelvers believe in Ta:ri:f of Sacred Text of Holy Qur’:an attempted to accuse ‘Ahlussunnah for the
same . The first publish book on the issue was by ‘Allamah H:a:’iri: of Panja:b.

Page 2 of 29
Page 3 of 29

How ever if some one want to see such accusations he may see it on

http://www.shiapen.com/comprehensive/tahreef/sunni-reports-mistakes-quran.html

From then Engineer got the idea that he can accuse Sunnis for Tah:ri:f even from S:ah:i:h: Muslim , ‘Abu:
Davu:d etc. [Na’:udh:ubillah Va ‘astaghfarullah]. He most probably shall use the problem of Saiyiduna:
‘Ibn Mas’:ud RD: and the last two Su:rahs ‘Al Falaq ans ‘An Na:s as well to ascribe the Tah:rif to
‘Ahlussunnah in distant or near future.

But it is also said that this lesson was taught and preached to him by the Ra:fid:i of Layallpu:r, Maulavi:
‘Ish:aq Jhalvi Loayallpu:ri: .

Third Preliminary

Engineer ‘:Ali: Mirza: missed the point i.e there is no Kita:b of Tah:ri:f or Catagori of Tah:ri: in Sunnism.

But it is in Twelvers.

Let it be seen that ‘Akhba:ri: Sect do believe openly it .

http://www.akhbari.org/English/tq.htm

But ‘Us:uli also accept that their common elders do believe in Tah:ri:f.

See:

http://www.twelvershia.net/2014/01/06/response-to-who-believes-the-quran-has-been-a-victim-of-
tahreef-part-1/

We are in agreement with ShiaPen on the second and third point since these points are fair. However,
we have an issue with the first point. ShiaPen themselves are aware that there are Shia Ulema who have
viewed their books as authentic. If we go to Chapter 5 of the article, we find ShiaPen quoting Al-Shaikh
Al-Bahboodi, the author of Saheeh Al-Kafi. So, how is it that ShiaPen can claim that no scholar has
written such a book when they themselves quote from one of the Saheeh Shia books?! Furthermore, the
Twelver Shia Akhbari sect as a whole believes in the authenticity of everything in those early books like
Al-Kafi and Al-Faqeeh. Al-Hurr Al-Amili aggressively argues that the narrations in those books are all
authentic, and spends twenty six pages arguing for this opinion. In other words, such an opinion cannot
be dismissed in its entirety. In other words, if one were to quote a narration from one of those books to
the Akhbari, then it is binding upon them. As for the Usoolis, then they are obligated to look up the
authenticity of that specific narration.

http://www.twelvershia.net/2014/01/06/response-to-who-believes-the-quran-has-been-a-victim-of-
tahreef-part-1/

Similarly one may read the following quotation:=

Page 3 of 29
Page 4 of 29

It is not our intention to play the devil’s advocate, but we simply want readers to be aware that the view
amongst Twelvers that the Qur’an has been corrupted does have weight and arguments. Refer to Fasl
Al-Khitab by Al-Nuri Al-Tabrasi for further reading on the subject. We would also like to point out that
we disagree with opinion that ShiaPen shared that Ali compiled the Qur’an during the life of the Prophet
(salalahu alaihi wa salam), and we will show that even Shia scholars like Al-Faidh Al-Kashaani denied this.

http://www.twelvershia.net/2014/01/06/response-to-who-believes-the-quran-has-been-a-victim-of-
tahreef-part-1/

This does shew that the author of stated above article is right in saying that there are a number of
Twelvers who did believe in Corruption and Distortion of Sacred Text of Sacred Qur’a:n even before the
Schism of ‘Us:u:li and ‘Akh:ba:ri: .

Forth Preliminary

It may be the case that some ‘Us:uliah have declared ‘Akh:ba:riah as Ka:fir, but they cannot declare all
those as Ka:fir who believe in the Distortion and Alternation of Sacred Text.

See once again:

http://www.akhbari.org/English/tq.htm

Engineer ‘:Ali: Mirza: is likely to hide this thing.

Fifth Preliminary

Some ‘Us:uliah of near Past and Present are of the view that there is no change in the in the Qur’a:n .

But they cannot deny that that there is no chapter of Tah:ri:f in their sect. At best they can say that all
such traditions are either Weak or Fabrication. But they cannot deny that some of their elders do
believe in Tah:ri:f.

So there are two different Topics in them . Naskh: and Tah:ri:f.

These two are undeniable of a student of Twelvism.

Due to influence of Sunnism the ‘Us:uliah of Subcontinent in General and of Persia in Particular began to
accept the Sunni view of Conservation of Holy QUR’A:N.

So the immediate problems they faced were the following.

1] How to deal with their traditions.

2] How to deal with ‘Akh:ba:riah

3] How to deal with their common elders.

As for the first the took the following steps.

Page 4 of 29
Page 5 of 29

1] They began to declare a number of such traditions as weak.

2] They began to declare at times that ‘Akh:ba:riah are Heretics and even Ka:fir.

3] The further attempted to declare some of the Traditions of Tah:ri:f as the traditions of Naskh: .

4] Some adopted the explanatory note theory in some cases.

5] But they were unable to declare the common Elders of ‘Us:uliah and ‘Akh:ba:riah as Ka:fir, who did
believe in Tah:ri:f except few.

So some of them began to accuse ‘Ahlussunnah that traditions of Tah:ri:f also exist in their books. So
they declared that some of the traditions of Naskh: are actually the Traditions of Tah:ri:f.So
‘Ahlussunnah began to defend from this false allegation. Latter some Missionaries also did the same
thing . These things are not new to a student of Polemics and history of religions.

Now Knowing all these we must say that Engineer ‘:Ali: Mirza: has accused S:ah:i:h: Muslim of Tah:ri:f
and has done a very bad thing.

He would have consulted some of the books on the issue.

Sixth Preliminary

There are three types of ‘Us:ulis on the issue.

1] Those who claim that that they do believe in Tah:ri:f of Sacred Qur’a:n.

2] Those who claim that the do not believe in Tah:ri:f of Qur’a:n yet say that those who do believe in
Tah:ri:f of Sacred Qur’:an are neither Ka:fir nor Sinner.

3] Those who declare that any one who believe in the Tah:ri:f are Ka:fir.

The third type constitute a small minority.

But the second type is the majority.

In this case it is meant that:=

1] They do not say that “Any one who so ever he may/might be even doubts in the Kufr of a person who
believes in Tah:ri:f under discussion is Ka:fir”.

2] This means that they believe that Qur’a:n is not Mutva:tir , but Not Mutva:tir and Z:anni:. Since it is
Kufr to doubt in the CONSERVATION of Holy Qur’a:n if it is Mutva:tir. So this means that how so ever
improbable, but they do not consider the Tah:ri:f as Impossible.

At best they can say that Qur’a:n is Most Probably Mah:fu:z: [Conserved], or even Almost Certainly
Conserved but NOT CERTAINLY CONSERVED. Since Almost Certain is Not Certain in strict meaning.

Page 5 of 29
Page 6 of 29

So they are accused of believing that Qur’a:ns Conservation is Z:anni: and not Qat:’:i:.[ Probable but Not
Certain].

This is a very valid point.

If some one believes in the Conservation of Qur’:an as Probable [any thing less than Certainty , how so
ever near to it] then this is also a denial of the Certainty.

It is impossible for a thing to be Almost Certainly Conserved and Certainly Conserved both
Simultaneously. This simultaneity is Logically and Mathematically Impossible. What we call in Theology
Absolutely Impossible.

Seventh Preliminary

There is no such thing in Sunnism as Tah:ri:f of Qur’a:. S o a tradition cannot be about Tah:ri:f in
Sunnism. If for sake of an argument there is a Tradiion of Tah:ri:f written in Sunni books then beyond
doubt it is a Fabrication and Concoction [Maud:u:;:. ] . So to say that a Tradition is S:ah:i:h: Muslim is on
Tah:ri:f is the self evident Falsehood and the greatest Falsehood which is so evident that it does not
require any proof. It is just like to say that a Tradition of two G-ds exist in Holy Muslim
[‘ASTAGHFARULLAH VA NA’:UDH:UBILLAH] or a Tradition that Holy Prophet was not a Prophet exist in
Holy Muslim [‘ASTAGHFARULLAH VA NA’:UDH:UBILLAH].

This does mean that the Engineer of Jhelum is making allegations on the Canonical books of Sunnism ,
particularly on the Holy Muslim due to the influence of ‘Ish:a:q Layallpu:ri: , who was an engine of Fafd:
and all these allegations are false [‘Alh:amdulilah].

Coming back to the point , Engineer of Jhelum and Engine of Rafd: of Layallpu:r both may have taken
the stand that the Text of the sentence of the Tradition of such traditions may have two meanings. One
that of Tah:ri:f and one that is not of Tah:ri:f say Naskh: .If I is accepted for sake of an argument then it
must be noted that the meaning of Tah:ri:f Must Necessary be discarded.

Since this meaning contradicts the Necessaries of the ‘Isla:m i.e Fundamental Axioms of ‘Isla:m.

But this also mean that this is not a tradition of Tah:ri:f. Additionally there is no doubt that the Tradion
is of Tah:ri:f. Since it is impossible that Text of a Sunni S:ah:i:h: Tradition is about Tah:ri:f in general , and
a Tradition of Holy Muslim in Particular.

It is equal to the claim that there is a ‘A:yah in the Sacred Qur’a:n in support of the Existence of Shari:kul
Ba:ri: or Naz:i:rul Ba:ri: or there is a Tradition in Support of Existence of Naz:i:rul Ba:ri: or Shari:kul Ba:ri:
in Holy Bukh:a:ri: or Holy Muslim or both. So if the Engine of Rafd: of Layallpu:r has claimed that there
are some/few traditions in S:ah:a:h: in General and in Holy Muslim in Particular then this is the worse
heresy of mankind. This is the worst allegation on ‘Imam Muslim and Holy Muslim.

Ish:a:q Jha:lvi is worse than the Denouncers Of H:adi:th: like Pervezites and Chakrh:alvis etc.

Page 6 of 29
Page 7 of 29

It is more evil to claim that the Real Meaning of this (these) Tradition(s) is of Tah:ri:f and the Virtual
meaning(s) of it (them) is (are) of Not Tah:ri:f say that of Naskh: .

The most evil claim is that it has the only one meaning that is the Real Meaning and that is of Tah:ri:f.

If the Engineer of Rafd: and the Engine of Rafd: both believe it it then they are the worse Heretic of all
times . Can there be a greater allegation on ‘Ima:m Bukh:a:ri or on ‘Ima:m Muslim or both that any one
of them or both of them accepted atleast one Tradition that is Explicit on Tah:ri:f.

This proves that these two persons are not only Ra:fid:is but also are hypocrites.

In their zeal to declare that ‘Ahlussunnah also have traditions of Tah:ri:f of Sacred Qur’a:n , the Engineer
‘:Ali: Mirza: and ‘Ish:a:q Jh:a:l Va:la: have made allegations of Muslim Shari:f.

This is the worst case in the history of ‘Isla:m equivalent to the claim that there is a verse in Sacred
Qur’a:n on in Holy Bukh:a:ri : about the some one becoming a Prophet after Holy Prophet.

Eighth Preliminary

Tah:ri:f and Naskh: are two different things and the former is Kufr in ‘Isla:m and the Latter is a Topic in
‘Isla:m.

Since there are only two types of Verses in Sacred Qur’a:n.

1] Gh:air Mansu:kh [Unabrogated] 2] Mansu:kh [Abrogated] .

Muh:arrif is not a type of Verse in any case.

Similarly Naskh: in SACRED QUR’:AN is accepted act /even I n ‘Isla:m and Tah:ri:f is Kufr.

It is not possible that there is a Tradition in Holy Muslim that Tah:ri:f has occurred in the Divine Sacred
Text of Qur’:an, just like it is impossible that there is a Verse in Holy Qur’a:n Itself that proves the
occurrence of Tah:ri:f.

It is very strange that Engineer ‘:Ali: Mirza: has come to this extent , and his students do not drift from
him .

The Problem of Plurality of Reading.

There are some verses which are included in Plurality of Reading . They are some time called Various
Reading. An analogue of this is also find in Bible. The problem is that this is just an apparent analogue.

While the Various Reading in the Books of Bible is due to errors of copyists, in Qur’a:n each verse which
is included in Plurality of Reading is Taught by Holy Prophet Himself.

There are three types of Plurality of Readings.

1] Mutva:tir

Page 7 of 29
Page 8 of 29

2] Mash-hu:r

3] ‘Ah:a:d

The Principle is that the Plurality of readings are allowed to be read but they are not written in the Text
of Sacred Qur’a:n.

This is in regard to the first two types.

The Third type is considered as Mansu:kh:utt-la:vah.

It is convenient that they may be called Mansu:kh:ul Kita:bah Fil M-s:a:hi-f.

Now we have all the Necessary tools , to understand the problem borrowed by the Engineer of Jhelum
which is used be the believers of Corruption in Divine Text whether they be ‘Akhba:rites or Missionaries
or Anti Islamic Objection Makers or Denouncers of Traditions of ‘Ah:a:di:th: or ‘Ish:a:q Jhalvi or else.

Ninth Preliminary

Engineer ‘:Ali: Mirza: is a constant mutating person in regard to his religious views. He began his journey
from Brailvism , From Brailvism he was converted to Deobandism , From Deobandism he became a
Twelver [Probably ‘Us:u:li:] then from hear he became a ‘Ahlul H:adi:th: . Then he founded his own sect
in the name of a sect less ‘Isla:m, but from it he once again gained tendencies of Ra:fid:ism and gained
tendencies of Lahorite Mirza:’ites.

Initially he gained sympathies from ‘Ahlul H:adi:th: youth and some Barailvi youth on the issue of
Monotheism , but letter his Rafid:ite tendencies were exposed , and even inclinations to wards Lahorites
. So he is a variate and could become any thing if not with proper announcement but even in the heart.

He was once a Student of Dr ‘Isra:r , he was also a student was ‘Ish:a:q Layallpu:ri: . It is said that that
he was actually he was a student student of ‘Ish:a:q Jha:lvi:

Ten Preliminary

There are three types of traditions which are used by Twelvers and Missionaries to shew that there is a
Tah:ri:f in the Divine Text of Sacred Qur’a:n in General. How ever these are not the only three types. One
may read the essays in the following likes which are written by Shia-Pen and Answering ‘Isla:m., if
he/she want to study these false allegations in detail.

[The Missionaries has made the objection on the tradition of Muslim before the Mirza Jhelumi.]

But Engineer of Jhelum has used only two of them. But Engineer is likely to use the third one in near or
distant future so , we shall discuss the third type as well but in nutshell .

1] The Abrogated Ayah which says that That Five Sucking of Milk is required by an infant to make
Marriage Prohibited and to generate a Relation of Human Milk.

Page 8 of 29
Page 9 of 29

The Tradition is as follow:-

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with, her) reported that it had been revealed in the Holy Qur'an that ten
clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five
sucklings and Allah's Apostle (‫ ) ﷺ‬died and it was before that time (found) in the Holy Qur'an (and
recited by the Muslims).

Tradition 3597 Holy and Noble Muslim by ‘Ima:m Muslim.


There was revealed in the Holy Qur'an ten clear sucklings, and then five clear (sucklings).

3598

(1) These points are as follow:-


1-First Point: No one amongst the Shia ulema claimed his hadith book as 100 % correct. 2-
Second Point: One cannot accuse an author of ascribing to Tahreef because he recorded such
traditions in his book 3 - Third Point: It is unjust to attribute the belief of an individual to that of
an entire same sect.
http://www.twelvershia.net/2014/01/06/response-to-who-believes-the-quran-has-been-a-
victim-of-tahreef-part-1/

2] The Tradition of Tirmidh:iwhich is about why the Bismillah is not written in the beginning of Su:rah Al
Bara’t / ‘At Taubah.

3] The refusal of Saiyiduna: ‘Ibn Mas’:ud to write the last two Surahs in the copy of Holy Qu’a:n made by
himself and his insistence not to include in Mas:ah:if [Copies of Holy Qur’a:n].

Eleventh Preliminary

Discussion on the Tradition#3597 of Noble Muslim

This shall continue for several Preliminaries from now on.

We are honoured to write this tradition once more:

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with, her) reported that it had been revealed in the Holy Qur'an that ten clear
sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings and
Allah's Apostle (‫ ) ﷺ‬died and it was before that time (found) in the Holy Qur'an (and recited by the
Muslims).

Page 9 of 29
Page 10 of 29

Tradition 3597 Holy and Noble Muslim by ‘Ima:m Muslim.

There is a single sentence which if misinterpreted makes a doubt of Tah:ri:f in the minds of ‘Ish:a:q Jhavi
and his students say Engineer ‘:Ali Mirza: of Jhelum.

The tradition says:

1]Deity first revealed that ten clear suckings by an baby is required no make the Marriage Unlawful.

2] Then this Law was Abrogated and an amendment was made. The number ten was changed to the
number five.

3] This latter law was recited/read and it was read.

The translation in the above is an interpretation , neither an interlinear translation nor a literal
translation.

So this translation of some of the clauses may be reviewed.

In the case it is :-

Allah’s Apostle died and it was before that time (found) in the Holy Qur’a:n {recited b the Muslims).

THE FOLLOWING Words are added just for explanation and are written in Red colour.

Allah’s Apostle died and it was before that time (found) in the Holy Qur’a:n {recited by the
Muslims).

A more literal translation of the sentence in the Text of Tradition 3597 Muslim is as follow:

The Apostle /Messenger of ‘ALL-H died and it was in Qur’a:n [read/recited by Muslims].

But the above is a correct interpretation of the sentence.

A translation of interpretation is not a translation of the text but the translation of the meaning taken
otherwise from the literal meaning of the text , according to the principles of interpretation and
hermeneutics.

So before proceeding further in the discussion it is required to see the ‘Arabic Text of the very sentence
and then discuss the possible literal and non-literal meanings of the senence.

Twelveth Preliminary

The ‘:Arabic Text of the clause under discussion of the H:adi:th: No#3597 is a fallow:=

Fatuvuffiya Rasu:lullahi ‘:Alaihi Va Sallama Va hiya fi:ma: Yuqra’u Minal Qur’a:n.

This means that:

Page 10 of 29
Page 11 of 29

Then Apostle of G-d died , and it was among what was recited/read in Qur’a:n.

This meaning makes some apparent problems:

1] If the clause referred was not abrogated till the moment of death of Holy Prophet then it is
impossible to be abrogated after his death. But it is absent from the Received Text of Holy Qur’a:n.

This means it is a Corruption [Tah:ri:f/ Manipulation] and not a Abrogation.

2] So to defend it by the dogma of Naskh: is impossible.

This objection is used not only by Missionaries but also by Twelvers and their followers like ‘Ish:aq Jhalvi:

And ‘:Ali: Mirza: .

There are some points of investigation and excogitation.

1] The ‘:Arabic Text of the clause is SCILENT on the issue, that whether it was Abrogated by the time of
the Death of HOLY PROPHET or Not. But according to the Necessity of ‘Isla:m and ‘Ahlussunnah, it must
have been Abrogated some time before the death of Holy Prophet.

Now the question is why it was read if it was abrogated? The answer is that those who read/recited it
did not know that it has been ABROGATED FROM THE TEXT.

2] There is no mentioning in the Text that it was read /recited in front of Holy Prophet.

First Conclusion

As this was abrogated close to the time of death of Holy Prophet some people continued to recite/read
it. They were not informed about its Abrogation from the Text of Holy Qur’a:n.

3]

a) The same verb is in Passive Form [Majhu:l].

In English it is always possible to introduce the subject in the Passive Verb.

For Example “The Book was Read” is a an Indefinite Past Passive Sentence in affirmative mood.

One may introduce and insert the Subject in English even in Passive Voice by using the preposition “BY”.

But things are not so easy in ‘:Arabic.

It is unclassical to introduce a Subject in a Passive Sentence.

Grammatically a person is bounded to skip the Subject in ‘:Arabic Passive Sentence of any tense.

So it is required to discuss the subject of the Verb Yuqra’u.

Page 11 of 29
Page 12 of 29

It is impossible that it was recited by All. Since if it was recited by all it must have been present in the
Received Text.

So it is Recited by Some.

So one can safely conclude that this sentence was Recited by Some at the time of the death of the
Apostle of G-d but not by all. So the Subject which is grammatically absent but understood is “By Some”.

There is no grammatical implication in ‘:Arabic that the Speaker of a Sentence of in Passive Voice is
either necessarily the subject or necessarily among one of the Subjects of the Passive Verb.

So it is Certainly Possible that a person who is reporting an act or an event in Passive Verb in ‘:Arabic is
just a reporter who either by personal observation or by reliable sources is just narrating an act or an
event , and is neither the grammatical Subject nor the grammatical Agent /Doer of the Act/Doing .

So , it is clear that there is no proof that the speaker of the sentence Saiyidatuna ‘:A:’ishah RD: was
among those who did recite /read the Clause under discussion.

To narrate an event in Passive Form does not imply that the speaker /narrator is also included in the
subjects or agents of the act [mentioned in Passive ‘:Arabic Verb of any Tense {Past or NON Past}].

So the Text of the Clause of Sentence doeth not include the Speaker i.e Sayiduna ‘:A:’ishah RD: in those
individuals who read/recited the clause under discussion.

b]

The Verb Yuqra’u is a M-d:a:ri’: which is a Tense in ‘:Arabic , which can correctly be stated as Non-Past
Tense. It is either in Present Tense or in Future Tense.

In ‘:Arabic it is used for Present Indefinite or Future Indefinite Tenses.[Imperfect Tenses].

But it can be used for Present Perfect Tense. This means that Past in relatively Near/Close to
Present.

There is an Example in Qur’an:-

Let the verse 75 Su:ratul H:ajj be studied in this regard.

Meaning of the verse:

Page 12 of 29
Page 13 of 29

Allah chooseth from the angels Messengers/Apostles, and (also) from mankind/men. Lo! Allah is Hearer, Seer.

The ‘:Arabic Verb YAS:TAFI: is a Mad:a:ri’: of First Person Singular. As a Mad:ari’: it means either in Present Tense or in
Future Tense [but not in both Tenses].

So the question is that as Muh:ammad PBUH is the Last and Final Prophet , hence last and final Apostle/ Messenger ,
then this verse can neither be in present tense nor in future tense.

Since it is Certain and Definite that G-d neither Choseth any man as a Messenger/Apostle after the birth Holy Prophet
nor shall chose any man as an Apostle/Massenger.

The brothers of ‘:Ali: Mirza Mah:mudites did use this verse to argue that Muh:ammad PBUP is neither the final Prophet
nor the Last Massenger/Apostle ASTHAGH:FARULLAH VA NA’:U:DH:UBILLAH.

The proper answer to this argument is that the Mada:ir:’: can be used for an Event that is relatively very close to the
present , neglecting the period of time what so ever between the Present indefinite Tense and the Event in Past
indefinite Tense.

Even the brothers of ‘:Ali: Mirza: Jhelumi: agree that there was neither any Messenger/Apostle chosen nor any Prophet
chosen at the time the verse was revealed to the Holy Prophet.

A brother of Jhelumite i.e Qadianite may argue that in this case it may be taken in future indefinite tense.

But the answer is that if an Event or Act in Past is such that it may be considered as Present neglecting the interval of
time between them then it may be considered as in Present Tense.

It is possible that Engineer of Jhelum may say that G-d is Mentioning a rule and not prophesising the advent of any ew
Apostle/Prophet in the verse , then he is just seconding our view, and he is just unaware had he is saying.

Since this Rule hath been Annulled ,be the Kh:atmun Nabu:vah and an Annulled Rule which was not annulled in the Past is

Stated with a Mad:a:r-‘: , just because it was annulled when the Holy Prophet was granted Prophethood.

So in the period between the Announcement of Prophethood by the Holy Prophet and the Revelation of this verse
proveth that there was no Prophet, no Messenger/Apostle Except Holy Prophet Himself. There was no Messenger
/Apostle Selected , at the time this verse was revealed, and not Massenger/Apostle shall be chosen ever in all futures
to come . So this means that a Rule which continued from the First Prophet to the Last Prophet and was abrogated and
annulled when the Holy Prophet Announced that He was appointed as a Prophet is a greater period of time in compare
to the period of Announcement stated above to the Revelation of the Verse 75 of Su:ratul H:ajj.

So it means that it is so close to the Present that the negligence of the relatively very short interval , maketh the
validity of Mada:ri’: in present tense.

A rough analogue is Present Perfect which is used for an act just completed. Actually it is in Past but so close to
present that it is included in Present Tense.

So it may be said that if an Act/Event/Rule etc. occurred in Past is close to Present that its interval between its
occurrence and the present can be neglected , it is possible to use Mada:ri’: for it.
Page 13 of 29
Page 14 of 29

Similarly the same is true for the Mad:a:ri’: Yuqra’u in the Tradition 3597 in Holy Muslim.

This means that it was recited in Past very close to Present along the verses of Holy and Sacred Qur’a:n, when it was
neither abrogated nor annulled from Qur’a:n.

Mirza Jhelum: is likely to argue that the difference is that in the Verse 75 of ‘Al H:ajj it is the Active Mad:a:ri’: and in the
Tradition 3597 it is in Passive Mad:a:ri’: . But such difference is purely irrelevant. It is independent of Activeness and
Passivity of a Verb but it depend only on the Tense of the Verb whether it is in Past Tense or in Mad:a:ri’: Tense in
‘:Arabic.

So Saiyiduna: ‘:A:’ishah RD: means that this verse was recited very close to the death of Holy
Prophet, probable a Month before or two or so.

c]

The Objection In/ From the Qur’a:n.[Minal Qur’a:n] may cause a problem in the minds of some people.

The word Qur’a:n is used by the Sunni Principlists [‘Us:ulis, Those Sunni Scholars who study Principles
and Definitions of terms in ‘Isla:m ] as the collection of “All revealed Unabrogated Verses in the
Traditional Order, conveyed to us by Tava:tur”. This definition doeth Exclude each and every
ABROGATED ‘A:YH [Verse /Sentence]. But the word Qur’a:n was also used in more general meaning
whether a ‘A:yah was abrogated or not. They did not exclude the Abrogated ‘A:yah from Divine Speech
[Kala:mullah]. So if Qur’a:n is stated as the Divine Speech [Kala:mullah] that was revealed to Holy
Prophet Muh:ammad [PBUH] the word Qur’a:n may be used for the all the ‘Aya:t [Verses/Revealed
Sentences, Clauses and Expressions] whether Abrogated or Not.

So in this meaning these may be consider as Verses of Qur’a:n. The question is , if a verse is Abrogated
from the Text of Holy Qur’an, then Doeth it Cease to be Kala:mullah [Divine Speech] or it Continueth to
be Kala:mullah. As it is obvious that the Revealed Text of the Abrogated Sentences, Clauses and
Expressions etc. called as ‘A:yat [Verses] are ‘Al Kala:m ‘Al Lafz:i: [Verbal Speech] Of G-d , and Spoken by
G-d they do not cease to be the Divine Speech [Kala:mullah]. The cease to be the Part of Particular
Divine Speech Qur’a:n. So Speech Of G-d outside Sacred Qur’a:n can exist. ‘Al H:adi:th: ‘Al Qusi: is a
Divine Speech out side the Text of Qur’a:n. If a H:adi:th: ‘Al Qudsi: is conveyed to us by Tava:tur then it is
Speech Of G-d beside Qur’a:n ,in Principle. So it is the case that if a Verse was Abrogated from the Text
of Kala:m of Qur’a:n , then it did not cease to be Kala:mullah yet it cease to be a Verse of Holy Qur’a:n.

Since Qur’a:n is the Kala:mullah but not all Kala:mullah is Qur’a:n.

So it may be the case that the word Qur’a:n is used not in the Strict Proper Meaning but in a lose
meaning of Kala:mullah. In this meaning An Abrogated Verse continueth to be a part of Holy Qura:n.

So the Sentence of the H:adi:th: 3597 in Muslim

Page 14 of 29
Page 15 of 29

“Fatuvuffiya Rasu:lullahi ‘:Alaihi Va Sallama Va hiya fi:ma: Yuqra’u Minal


Qur’a:n”

Must be interpreted as follow:-

Fatuvuffiya Rasu:lullahi ‘:Alaihi Va Sallama Va hiya fi:ma: Yuqra’u Minal


Kala:millah.

How ever the Term Qur’a:n in lose meaning doeth cease to be used . Now there is no doubt that Qur’a:n
is Gh:air Makhlu:q. So If ‘Al Kala:m ‘Al Lafz:i: is Gh:air Makh:lu:q then it neither ceaseth to be Gh:air
Makh:lu:q nor is Annihilated . If it is H:a:dith: then it Signifieth ‘Al Kala:m ‘An Nafsi: Of G-d Which is
Gh:air Makh:lu:q. As the Abrogated Kala:m ‘Al Lafz:i: doeth not cease to Exist and continueth to signify

‘Al Kala:m ‘Annafsi: of G-d , it continueth to be Kala:mullah i.e ‘Al Kala:m ‘Al Lafz:i: of G-d.

So An Abrogated Verse neither becometh Kala:mu Gh:airullah nor becometh Gh:airu Kala:millah
even after Abrogation.
So it continueth to be Kala:mullah .

So there is no question of Tah:ri:f in regard to this interpretation.

d]

It is well known to the beginners of the Subject of Canon of Holy Qur’a:n that that some ‘Aya:t hath
more then one readings which are either Mash-hu:r or Mutva:tir.

But they are not allowed to be written in the Text of Holy Qur’a:n but are read if the reader willeth.

So they are called Qur’a:n. So this is in regared to Memorised Qur’an rather than the Documented
Copy of Holy Qura:n or any one of the written Verse or Su:rah of Holy Qur’a:n.

A memorised Speech is a kind of speech that is in the memory of a person, rather than written
on independent pages or pages in books or in leaves of documents.

A memorized Qur’a:n is the speech of G-d that is memoried in the mind of a person say
Memoriser [H:a:fiz:].

A recitation of memorized speech of Qur’a:n is the Speech of Sacred Qur’a:n that is recited from
memory rather than reading the speech from any written Matterial [what so ever].

So the Minal Qur’a:n is not in regard to written Coplies of Verses of Qur’a:n but from Memories.

Page 15 of 29
Page 16 of 29

Such distinction may be new to a person of present period of time but the were sharp in the Past
particularly Distant Past.
This claim is proved by the fact when Qur’a:n was collected only those ‘Aya:t were written which
were:-

1] Found Written.

2]There were two written evidences with the exception of only one verse , which constiteth an
exceptional case.

So this verse was not found wriiten, otherwise it would have been included in the Canon of Qur’a:n.

So this meaneth that this verse was in the Qur’a:n that was in the Memories of persons and not in
written pages , documents etc.

Even the Katib of Vah:y did no write it. This is one of the reasons that the Mirza Jhelumi is so against
the Glorious Katibi:n [Copyists] of the Sacred Text of Sacred Qur’a:n.

At last The cat is out of the bag and the Mirza of Jhelum is exposed by the Divine Grace.

But this Enemy of ‘Isla:m is doing what the missionaries are doing.

Below some links are provided to shew that Muslims have faced this objection from Anti-Islamic
Objection Makers and has answered such objection.

https://www.call-to-monotheism.com/quranic_variant__missing_verse_on_suckling_

Note: There are more than one answers and this means that if more than one answers exist then
this means that the question is baseless and incorrect on different grounds.

Mirza’s objection has been answered and it has proved that he borrows this objection either
directly from Missionaries and Twelvers or indirectly through the medium of the Heretic Ish:a:q
Jha:lvi , who in turn borrowed it from Enemies of Qur’a:n and H:adi:th: .

Thirteenth Preliminary

There might be a question that if the verse was Abrogated and Annulled from the Text then how was it
possible that some people continued to recite it From the Qur’a:n in their Memories.

The answers are in plurality.

1] It was abrogated very close to the time of death of Holy Prophet.

2] Some might get confused that this is an Abrogation from the commandment and not from the Text.
This is seconded by the view of H:anafite Sunnites who not only considered it as Abrogated from text
but also from the Commandment [H:ukm].

Page 16 of 29
Page 17 of 29

So some made an error in determining and identifying the kind and nature of the abrogation.

They thought that it was abrogated from the commandment and not from recitation.

But either it was a perfect abrogation which is an abrogation , not only from recitation and writing but
also from commandment or it was an abrogation from the recitation and not from the commandment.

But it was misunderstood.

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ANSWERING ISLAM IS A MISSIONARY SITE WHICH CONSTANTLY ATTEPMT TO
SHEW THAT QUR’A:N IS CORRUPTED [‘ASTAGH:FARULLAH] . THE VERY SAME OBJECTION ABOUT THE
SUCKING OF MILK BY BABIES AND ITS ABSENCE FROM THE RECEIVED TEXT OF HOLY QUR’A:N ARE
FOUND ON THAT SITE. IT APPEARS THAT THE MIRZA JHELUMI HAS BORROWED THIS OBJECTION FROM
THIS SITE AS WELL OR ATLEAST CONSULTED IT.

https://answering-islam.org/Quran/Text/suckling.html

Also see

Textual Variants of the Qur'an

https://answering-islam.org/Quran/Text/index.html

Fourteenth Preliminary

The Problem of Absence of Bismillah From the Beginning of Su:rah ‘At Taubah / ‘Al Bara’-t..

The enemies of ‘Isla:m like Missionaries, ‘Akh:ba:rites, ‘Ish:a:q Jha:lvites, ‘:Ali-Mirzaites all make the
objection of Tah:ri:f of Sacred Qur’a:n on the tradition of Noble ‘Abu: Davu:d .

Before proceeding further it is necessary to discuss the Tradition in ‘Tirmidhi: and Abu Davu:d

“The Apostle of G-d used o receive Revelation of Su:rah: ,with many ‘A:yat , when they were revealed ,
He would call his S:ah:a:bah RD: put these ‘A:ya:t in Su:rah where Such and Such is mentioned ; and
when one or two ‘Aya:t were Revealed he used to say similarly.

‘Al ‘-nfa:l was one of the first Su:rah to be revealed in Madi:nah; and Bara’t [Taubah] was one of the last
part of the Qur’a:n to be revealed [there].

Its contents were similar to those of ‘-nfa:l ; so it was thought that it [Bara’at/Taubag] was part of it [ ‘Al ‘-
nfa:l].

The Messenger/Apostle of G-d was taken whether It [Bara’-t/Taubah] was part of it [‘-fa:] or not.

Page 17 of 29
Page 18 of 29

So they were written next to each other and the line of Bismillah was not written between them and it
was placed among Sb’: Tiva:l [Seven Long Su:rahs/Suvar]”.

Sunan At-Tirmidh:i:# 3086, ‘Abu:Davu:d 785 ,

Also see S:ah:i:h: ‘Ibn H:ibba:n.

This is the Tradition on which the Enemy of ‘isla:m has commented that it is a Tradition of Tah:ri:f.

Na’:udh:ubillah Va ‘Astagh:farullah.

One may give some benefit of doubts to Orientists , to whom it is difficult to understand the the
difference between Naskh: and Tah:ri:f. But this Enemy of ‘Isla:m does know that this tradition hath
nothing to do with Tah:ri:f..

First of all it must be noted that Tah:ri:f in ‘Isla:mic Termonology means that any alternation made in the
Text of Sacred Qur’a:n not Prescribed by the Holy Prophet. If the Holy Prophet Himself hath informed to
annul a sentence or a clause or an expression or a word in a sentence then it is the case of Naskh: and
not of Tah:ri:f.

Second of all, it must be noted that if a text is kept conserved at it is with out any change howsoever
small yet there is a doubt whether some text of it belong to the one of its chapters SAY Chapter α or it
belongs to the chapter β, then this does not mean that there is any Tah:ri:f done. It is just a doubt in the
received conserved Text of a Book and not a Ta:ri:f.

Third of all , there is a dispute Bismillah , whether written the Bismillah in the Beginning of each Surah is
a part of the Su:rah or it is not? But it is written not by the ‘Ijtiha:d of S:ah:abah but by the permission of
the Holy Prophet.S:ah:bah RD: cannot write it between any two consecutive Su:rah s [Pl:-Suvar] by
themselves just to separate them.

So the apparent meaning is that as the Prophet did not dictate to insert the compline line of Bismillah, it
became very difficult to decide whether the Surah Taubah/Bara’at is a complementary part of Surah
‘Anfa:l [‘-nfa:l] or it is not. So the Bismillah was not inserted by conjecture and personal opinion of any
S:ah:abi: who so ever he/she might be.

So it may be said that it is certainly not the case of Tah:ri:f.

There is another interpretation of this tradition.

Surah Taubah was considered as part of the previous surah, as a continuation of Surah Anfaal, by some
Companions of the Prophet (pbuh) or it was it doubt whether it was a part of it or not.

So it means that S:ah:a:bah did not insert it by their conjecture.

Now there is a question in this regard.

Page 18 of 29
Page 19 of 29

Was not being permitted to write Bismillah was the cause of the confusion or the confusion was the
cause of not writing Bismillah.

Although the text of the Tradition supports the second more than the first but if the second
interpretation is taken , this means that Holy Prophet just gave a general commandment to write
Bismillah between any two consecutive Su:rah, to separate one from the other, but did not commanded
to Write Bismillah for each Bismillah individually.Although he dictated the position of the Verses of
Bara’at/Taubah after the Surah ‘-nfa:l.

So as the Kibi:n of Vah:y were it doubt whether it is an independent Su:rah or it is the part of the Su:rah
‘-nfa:l the missed Bismillah.But there is no Tah:ri:f.ONE MAY SEE THE TEXT’S TRANSLATION ONCE MORE

Al-Anfal was among the first to be revealed in Medina and At-Tawbah was among the last of those
revealed of the Quran and their discussions resemble each other,

so we thought that they were part of each other.

Then the Messenger of Allah died and it was not clear to us if they were part of each other.

For this reason, we put them together without writing in the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the

Most Merciful and we included them with the seven long surahs.

This means that as the discussions were resembling one an other and Bismillah was not ordered by the
Prophet so the Copyists did not insert any thing by their opinion and regular practice.

But in any case there is not possibility of Tah:ri:f in the Received Texts and there place in the Text of
Qur’a:n by the S:ah:a:bah. Rather it is a proof that S:ah:a:bah in general and Katibi:n in particular were
so sensitive on the Issue that they did not even inserted Bismillah on the slightest doubt, so the rejected
the idea to write it , making an exception from their general and regular practice of writing Bismillah
between any two consecutive Su:rahs [Sing :-Su:rah, Pl: Su:var] by any reasoning or argumentation.

The problem that whether a Su:ra:h is part of another Su:rah or it is a Su:rah independent from it is one
thing and the Tah:ri:f is an other thing with out any implication or the former to the latter.

So it is clear that Holy Prophet did not command to Write Bismillah in the Beginning of the Su:rah
Bara’at/Taubah and this made a doubt that whether it is a part of the preceding Su:rarah or it is not.

So there are two reasons for not writing Bismillah:-

1] Bismillah is written when it is certain that the Su:rah is Certainly independent .

2] If Bismillah is not dictated then it is sufficient to doubt its certainty independence.

But as Holy Prophet did not declared it as an Independent Su:rah so it was sufficient to doubt.

But then why it was written as an independent Su:rah.

Page 19 of 29
Page 20 of 29

The doubt in the initial stages on the Su:rah Taubah/Bara’at that is the Part of Surah ‘-nfa:l ceased latter
and it became definite and certain that it is an independent Su:rah.

Then there was an ‘Ijma:’: [Consensus] that it is an Independent Su:rah, but with out Bismilla hir
Rah:ma:nir Rah:i:m in the Beginning.

What Saiyiduna: ‘:Uth:ma:n is narrating is the situation of the beginning , when some people did doubt
whether Su:rah Taubah/ Bara’at is the part of Su:rah ‘-nfa:l or not; even if Saiyiduna: ‘:Uth:man RD: is
narrating it at latter , probably after it was clarified to all including him that Bara’at/Taubah is an
Independent Su:rah.

So the conditions for writing Bismillah before the beginning of a Su:rah: or in the beginning of a Su:rah
were more then one and each one had to be satisfied.

1] To be dictated to be written by the Holy Prophet.

2] The Su:rah must be an independent Su:rah with certainty.

Some of the S:ah:abah RD: did not know both of the two conditions so they used the condition which
they did know.

Fifteenth Preliminary

Such disputes are also seen in Kufi: ‘A:yat and Gh:air Ku:fi: ‘A:ya:t.

The Kufi: ‘A:yat are represented by a Circle at the end of a ‘A:yah. Traditionally the number of the ‘A:yah
is written in the Circle.This Circle is analogous to the Full Stop in Punctuation.

But some time a figure of a hollow heart with the angle of two curves is in upward direction is written.

This means that what Kufi:s consider as one ‘A:yah is considered as two by Gh:airu Kufi:s.

Now this is not a Tah:ri:f but it is just a dispute over the received Text whether they are independent
‘A:ya:t or together constitute a greater ‘A:yah .

Soif such a dispute over Su:rahs continued to exist even today even then there is no implication to
Tah:ri:f, just like the dispute of Ku:fi: ‘A:ya:t and Gh:airu Ku:fi: ‘Aya:t does not imply Tah:ri:f , even if this
dispute still exist.

Mirza: Jhelumi: claims implications even if there is no implication and he is fond of doing this.

He either does not know what a IMPLICATION is or he is deliberately attempting to misguide others.

Sixteenth Preliminary

The last two Su:rahs of Qur’a:n , Saiyiduna: ‘Ibn Mas’:u:d RD: and Holy Bukh:a:ri

Page 20 of 29
Page 21 of 29

Although this tradition of Bukh:ari: is not presented by Mirza Jhelumi as an alleged evidence of Tah:rif in
the Qur’an to the best of the knowledge of the author of this essay , yet it is presented bMissionaries,
Twelevers and Denouncers of H:adi:th: alike.

Missionaries wants to shew that Qur’a:n is Corrupted , Twelvers want to shew that Traditions of Tah:ri:f
is common in both sects Sunnis and Twelvers and Denouncers of H:adi:th: wants to shew that the
Traditions are H:adi:th: are not reliable at all.

Book: Hadith:

Sahih al-Bukhari Book 60 Hadith 501

Narrated Zirr bin Hubaish:

I asked Ubai bin Ka'b, "O Abu AlMundhir! Your brother, Ibn Mas'ud said so-
and-so (i.e., the two Mu'awwidh-at do not belong to the Quran)." Ubai said,
"I asked Allah's Apostle about them, and he said, 'They have been revealed
to me, and I have recited them (as a part of the Quran)," So Ubai added, "So
we say as Allah's Apostle has said."

As it is a Tradition of Holy Bukh:a:ri: its Classification is S:ah:i:h: .

Mirza: Jhelumi has already made some objections on ‘Ima:m Bukh:ari:

Almost all of them are borrowed from his Teacher’Ish:a:q Layallpu:ri.

Page 21 of 29
Page 22 of 29

One of the objection was that ‘Ima:m Bukh:ari: use to hide the actual words by expressions which make
lost of proper words. That is it is alleged that ‘Ima:m Bukh:a:ri: use to cover the actual Nouns, Events,
sentences by words which made it impossible to determine and to identify the real nouns, events and
words. This is alleged to be Kitma:n ‘Al H:aqq and Tah:ri:f Fil H:adi:th: .

Mirza: Jhelumi has also accused ‘Ima:m Bukh:a:ri RH: .

In one of his alleged lectures he accused ‘Ima:m Bukh:ari: for bringing a controlled Tradition, then he
immediately commented that ‘Ah:adi:th: could not be hidden like this [‘Astagh:farullah].

So it is a strong possibility that sooner or latter this apostate shall bring the Tradition 501 of Holy
Prophet for two evil purposes.

1] To shew another alleged example of concealing and censoring the actual words and substituting
unidentifiable words in place of them.

Since The words in the Tradition are “So-And –So [See above] . This mean that the actual words or
sententes what ‘Ibn as’:u:d used to say are replaced by this pseudo words.

Since ‘Ima:m Bukh:a:ri does use the words

2] To shew an other Tradition of alleged Tah:ri:f in the the books of ‘Ahlussunnah.

It is necessary to answer the next example which is most probably chosen in future by the Apostate .

The answer to this question is very clear.

Based on the Text of Holy Bukh:ari: no accusation can be made that Saiyiduna‘Ibn Mas’:ud RD: believed
that the Last Two Su:rah of Received ‘:Uth:ma:ni:Text are not the part of Sacred Qur’a:n.

So one needs to find other books to determine and to identify the words and sentences, and so one
comes out of the book of Holy Bukh:ari: to discuss the matter.

Second it is not the case that ‘Ima:m Bukh:a:ri: censored the actual words in the supposed sentences
ascribed to Saiyiduna: ;Ibn Masu:d RD: . He wrote as he received exactly. So it was not the problem of
‘Ima:m Bukh:a:ri: but the first person in the Tradition who spoke said this words and ‘Ima:m Bukh:a:ri: is
just a Narrator , Receiver Coveyer , and Copyist who copied the tradition as it is [as it was] when he
received it .

But the Tradition od Holy Bukh:a:ri: implies that the saying of both Brothers were not as they are found
in other books of Sunni: Traditions.

What the Brother of ‘Ibn Mas’:ud said are as follow:

1] He reports that he personally asked Holy Prophet [S:’:VS] about these two Su:rahs.

2] Holy Prophet replied that these two Su:rahs were revealed to him.

Page 22 of 29
Page 23 of 29

3] It was recited.

4] Both the brother say what the Holy Prophet said to them .

This maketh it clear that the Text So-and-So does not mean that what so ever was ascribed to ‘Ibn
Mas’:ud was incorrect and is refuted by the brother of ‘Ibn Mas’:ud RD:

This is a powerful refutation of that these two brother say nothing but what Holy Prophet said to them ,
and what Holy Prophet said to them is reported in the very same tradition.

Note : One may see the following article :

No. of Surahs in the Mushaf of Ibn Masud

https://icraa.org/surahs-mushaf-ibn-masud/

Conclusion

The objection on the Sunni Traditions are not new and they were made even before the Apostate of
Layallpur began to use them. Even today one may find Twelvers works in much more detail then what
the Apostate of Jhelum has said.

1] Sunni reports about Tehreef in Quran

https://gifttosunnis.blogspot.com/2012/10/sunni-reports-about-tehreef-in-quran.html

2] IS THE HOLY QUR’AN DISTORTED?

https://amirzabidii.com/2018/12/18/is-the-holy-quran-distorted/

What Mirza Jhelumi is doing is what that Anti ‘Isla:mic Objection Makers are doing on a larger scale.

One may see how Muslims are responding to them.

See the article

How To Answer Allegations?

https://icraa.org/how-to-answer-allegations/

Page 23 of 29
Page 24 of 29

Any How Engineer Jhelumi’s Noun is among those who make objections on the Traditions of ‘Ah:a:di:th:
and Sunnism like Missionaries, Anti ‘Isla:mic Objection Makers, Denouncers of ‘Ah:a:di:th: etc.

He is not a defender of ‘Isla:m but an accuser on ‘Isla:m.

Sam Shamaun has gone one step ahead of Mirza Jhelumi. He claims that Qur’a:n acknowledges Its own
corruption [Tah:ri:f] Na’:udh:billah Va ‘astagh:farullah.

https://www.answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/corruption_testamony .html

or

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:NeJosuHZxDwJ:https://www.answering-
islam.org/authors/shamoun/corruption_testimony.html+&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=pk

DISCLAIMER.

The author of this article is not responsible for any distortion in meaning due to the typing errors and
mistakes. The Author Firmly believeth that a Objection on Sunni Traditions in regard to the conservation
and preservation of the Text of Qur’a:n are baseless, invalid and baised.

To the Followes of Mirza Jhelumi the Engineer

It has been proved that the objection on Tradition of Holy Muslim, Holy Tirmidh:i:, Holy ‘Abu Davu:d ,
and Holy Bukh:a:ri: are baseless and incorrect. It is very likely that Mirza: or his Teacher has borrow the
objections from Enemies of ‘Isla:m and Sunni: Traditions.

How many evidences do you require to be convinced that Mirza Jhelumi: is an Enemy Of ‘All-h, His
Apostle, Qur’a:n and ‘Ah:adi:th:. For Sake of ‘All-ah Subh:a:n-hu: Va Ta’:a:la: please disassociate from
this man , who is a hidden enemy of ‘Isla:m, Qur’a:n, ‘Ah:a:di:th: and Necessities of ‘Isla:m.

Please Think Again, Please Reconsider your views ,Please drift from this person , please come back to

‘Isla:m from Jhelumism and Engineerism.

PLEAASE NOTE.

Either a verse quoted in the Tradition is Mansu:kh: [Abrogated] or it is Gh:air Mansu:kh: .

If it is Mansu:kh: then ‘Ima:m Navavi Rah:matullahi ‘:Alaihi is Right and Correct and Mirza Jhelumi is
Wrong with Certainty.

If it is Gh:air Mansu:lh: then as it is an independent ‘A:yah and is not included in the Received Text of
Sacred Qur’a:n , it is Impossible and Absurd not to be in Sacred Text of the Sacred Qr’a:n,

So this means that it is not included in the Content Of Text of Holy Qur’a:n from the very beginning.

Page 24 of 29
Page 25 of 29

So it cannot be MINAL QUR’A:N. But it is said to be. This means that it Is Mansu:kh:

It is discussed that if a sentence is neither Mansu:kh: nor Ghair Mansu:kh: then then it is not a part of
the content of Text of Holy Qur’a:n. But one that is not cannot be said to be MINAL QUR’A:N.

So the only explaination is that this is Mansu:kh:.

So Mirza: Jhelumi attempted to declare a Tradition of Muslim as a Tradition of Tah:ri:f of Qur’a:n and
that is an act of Kufr.

No Muslim an accuse S:ah:i:h: Muslim and ‘Ima:m Muslim as such.One who accuses as such cannot be a
Muslim at all.

2:57 AM

31-05-2019 CE OR 05-091440 AH

‫ي‬

Consonents Of Arabic

b‫ب‬

t‫ت‬

:th ‫ث‬

j‫ج‬

h: ‫ح‬

kh: ‫خ‬

d ‫د‬

dh: ‫ذ‬

Page 25 of 29
Page 26 of 29

r‫ر‬

z‫ز‬

s‫س‬

sh ‫ش‬

s: ‫ص‬

d:‫ض‬

t‫ط‬

z: ‫ظ‬

': ‫ع‬

:gh ‫غ‬

f‫ف‬

q‫ق‬

k,c ‫ك‬

l‫ل‬

m‫م‬

n‫ن‬

h‫ه‬

v‫و‬

y‫ي‬

Vowels

Short Fath:=a as a in German,u as in But, i as in Sir, a as in Sugar

Short Kasrah = as i in

.Tin ,Bib Pin etc

Shord d:ammah

as

Page 26 of 29
Page 27 of 29

in

Put

or

oo

as

in

book

Long Vowels

Long a

a:

as

in

car

or

as

in

Page 27 of 29
Page 28 of 29

.father

Long

=i

i:

as

in

Police

or

ee

as

in

Week

Long u

u:

as

in

Rude

or

oo

as

in

cool

Page 28 of 29
Page 29 of 29

a:

as

in

Page 29 of 29

You might also like