Some Examples of the Wahhabi Writer’s Crass Ignorance

The first proof, according to him:
“is established by the fact that they subscribe to the doctrine of Tahrif in the Qur’an. All the Shi’as belonging to previous generations or present generations, their Imams and various Shi’a sects are unanimous in their belief in this regard. Hence, Shias are Kafirs on the basis of Ijma’ (consensus of the Ummah).”

In another place he writes:
“The founders of Shi’a religion ever since they laid its foundation have passed through three historical phases. In the first phase, no one among the Shi’as held the belief that the Qur’an is complete and uncorrupted. However, in the second phase only four priests among the Shi’as professed out of sheer Taqiya that there has been no Tahrif in the Qur’an.

“They were (1) Abu Jaffar Sani Muhammad bin Ali bin Hussain bin Mussa bin Bayyabah Allama Sadduqh, died 381 A.H. (2) Sharif Murtaza Abdul Qasim Ali bin Hussain bin Hassanain bin Mussa Baghdadi, author of ‘ilmul Huda, died in 436 A.H. (3) Shaikh at-Taifa Abu Jaffar Muhammad bin Hussain bin Ali Toousi Mufasir, died in 460 A.H. (4) Abu Ali Tabrisi Aminuddin Fazal bin Hussain bin Tazal Mashudi, authour of Tafsir Majmah al-Bayan, died in 548 A.H.

“That is to say in the second phase from 261 A.H to 548 A.H. only four priests among the Shi’as did not believe that there has been Tahrif in the Qur’an. However, since their sayings were not based on arguments and were against the uninterrupted narrations of the Shi’a religion, the Shi’a Ulama of the second phase rejected their sayings and findings.”

In the first quotation the fool has used an expression by which he accuses our Imams of Kufr. Na’udhu billah. Let him ask Shah Waliullah and Shah ‘Abdu ‘l-’Aziz whether a person who insults the Shi’a’s Twelve Imams (a.s.) in such blasphemous way is Muslim or Kafir. Or let him ask the same qustion from his guide, Manzoor Ahmad Nu’mani. The reply will also be a litmus test for Manzoor Ahmad Nu’mani’s Islam.

Also the fool does not know that the Founder of the Shi’ism was none other than the Holy Prophet of Islam (S) as the reader has already seen in the article, “Meaning and Origin of Shi’ism” at the beginning of this booklet.

The historical phases which he mentions are his own invention, or may be it has been invented by his group. However he does not know that the “four priests” mentioned by him were the accepted heads of the Shi’a community in their times, and their writings are revered in the Shi’a world until now.

He is unable even to write their names correctly; and I’m sure he has never seen their books.

He writes:

“(l) Abu Jaffar Sani Muhammad bin Ali bin Hussain bin Mussa bin Bayyabah Allama Sadduqh”

COMMENT: His kunyah was Abu Ja’far: their is no ‘Sani’ in it. His great-great­ grand-father was Babuwayh (not Bayyabah), and he is known as ash-Shaykh as-Saduq (not Allamah Sadduqh).

“(2) Sharif Murtaza Abdul Qasim Ali bin Hussain bin Hassanain bin Mussa Baghdadi, author of ‘ilmul Huda.”

COMMENT: The phrase, “author of ‘ilmul Huda” is most amusing. ‘Alamu’l­ huda (The standard of guidance) was the title of Sharif al-Murtaza. This ignorant man thought it was his book; and even then, he could not pronounce it correctly and turned ‘Alam into ‘ilm. Then his Kunyat was Abul Qasim (not Abdul Qasim); Sharif al-Murtaza’s father was Abu Ahmad al-Husayn ibn Musa; this ignorant writer has added ‘bin Hassanaain’’ in between.

“(3) Shaikh at-Taifa Abu Jaffar Muhammad bin Hussain bin Ali Toousi Mufasir”

COMMENT: Shaykhu ‘t-Ta’ifah’s father’s name was al-Hasan (not Hussain).

“(4) Abu Ali Tabrisi Aminuddin Fazal bin Hussain bin Tazal Mashudi, authour of Tafsir Majmah al-Bayan”

COMMENT: His as well as his grandfather’s name was “Fazl” (not Fazal or Tazal) and his father was al-Hasan (not Hussain); I could not ascertain which word the ignorant writer has corrupted to “Mashudi”. The name of the Tafsir is Majma’u ‘l-Bayan, not Majmah al-Bayan.

These examples are enough to show the level of this man’s “knowledge”. Also I challenge him to write the name of the Shi’a ‘Ulama of the so-called second phase who had rejected their sayings and findings.

However, let us look at the subject in hand. I will just give some quotations from our books about this subject of Tahrif; and then see what the Sunni books say about it.

The Shi’ah Belief

First, our belief about the Qur’an may be seen from the following quotation from our Kitabu ‘l-I’tiqadat (the Book of Creed) written by Shaykh as-Saduq Abu Ja’far Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn Husayn ibn Musa Babuwayh, (the first “Priest” mentioned above):

“It is our belief that the Qur’an which Allah has revealed to His Prophet Muhammad, is the same which is between the two boards ( daffatayn ): and it is that which is in the hands of the people, and is not more than that”

Then he says:
“And he who asserts that we say that it is more than that is a liar.”

Then he gives some of the reasons for our belief that the Qur’an is not more than the text which is in the hands of the people. Those reasons are as follows:

a. The traditions which describe the thawab (reward) of each and every surah of the Qur’an:
b. The traditions which describe the thawab of the person who recites the whole Qur’an:
c. The permission to recite two surahs in one rak’ah (in nafilah):
d. The prohibition of reciting two surahs in one rak’ah in Farizah prayers.

“All these verify what we have said about the Qur’an and that its total amount is what is in the people’s hands. Likewise, what has been narrated from the Prophet forbidding the recital of the whole Qur’an in one night and that it is not allowed to finish recital of the Qur’an in less than three days, All this too confirms what we have said.”

Then pointing to Ahad ith Qudsiyah, (which were also sent by Allah but not as part of the Qur’an), he says:
“We say that so much of revelation was sent down, but not as a part of the Qur’an, that if all of it were collected, its extent would undoubtedly be equal to seventeen thousand verses. And this, for example. is like the saying of Jibra’il to the Prophet (S): ‘Verily Allah says to you, 0 Muhammad: Deal gently with my creatures in the same manner as I do’; and like his saying: ‘Beware of the hatred of people and their enmity’; and like his words, ‘Live as long as you want, but ultimately you have to die; and love whatever you like, but you have to be separated from it; and do whatever you like, for (in the end) you have to meet it’; and, ‘Glory of the believer is his prayer at night, and his honour is in refraining from hurting the people’; and like the saying of the Prophet (S) ‘Jibra’il always exhorted me to clean (my) teeth until I thought that my teeth would fall down, and he always exhorted me about the neighbour until I thought that he would soon include him in the heirs, and he always exhorted me concerning woman until I thought that she should not be given divorce, and he continued to exhort me about slave until I thought that he would soon fix a time-limit after which he should be freed’; and like the words of Jibra’il when the Prophet had finished the battle of Khandaq: ‘O Muhammad! Verily Allah orders you that you should not pray the ‘Asr prayer except in Banu Qurayzah’; and like the saying of the Prophet (S): “My Lord has ordered me to deal gently with the people as He has ordered me to pray Farizah prayers’; and like his words: ‘We, the Prophets, have been ordered to talk with people according to their understanding”..... .

He goes on quoting many such Ahadith Qudsiyah and concludes by saying:

“There are many such wordings, all of which are revelations, but they were not sent as part of the Qur’an; otherwise they would surely have been included in the Qur’an and not excluded.”1

This is from only one book. Other proofs showing that there has been no addition in or omission from the Qur’an are clearly explained in hundreds of our books of ahadith, tafseer and theology.

Now we come to what our mufassir ash-Shaykh Abu ‘Ali al-Fazl ibn al-Hasan at-Tabrisi (a.r.) has written, in the Muqaddamah of his Tafsir Majma’u ‘l-bayan:

“It is unanimously agreed that there is no addition in the Qur’an. As for omission, a group among our co-religionists (that is, the Shi’ahs) as well as the al-Hashawiyyah2 from among the Sunnis have narrated traditions to the effect that there is some alteration and omission in the Qur’an. But the correct madh-hab of our co-religionists is against it. And it is what has been supported by ‘al-Murtaza (may Allah sanctify his soul); and he has written in full detail on this subject in his Jawabu ‘l-masa’ili ‘t-Tarabalasiyat.” Then he mentions some of the points given by as-Sayyid Murtaza, in short as follows:

“That the Qur’an was narrated correctly is known as we know about the big cities, great events, important happenings as well as famous books and the narrated poems of the Arabs. The fact is that the motive to transmit and preserve the Qur’an was stronger, and care bestowed on the Qur’an deeper than that given to the above-mentioned things. The attention towards the Qur’an was unprecedented, because it is the miracle of the prophethood, the source of the knowledge of the shari’ah and the religious laws. The Muslim scholars have done their utmost for its protection and preservation, until they have grasped its every detail: its vowels, recitals, letters and verses. How could any thing be changed or omitted from it with all this sincere care and strict precision?

“Also he (may Allah sanctify his soul) has said: The knowledge of the exegesis of the Qur’an and its parts is similar to that of the whole Qur’an in correctness of its transmission. It is similar to what is known about other well­ known works, like the Book of Saybwayh and that of al-Muzni... If someone inserts an extraneous chapter in these books, it will at once be known, recognized and detected, that it is spurious...And we know that the care and control in transmission of the Qur’an was more strict and sincere than that used in transmission of the Book of Saybwayh and collections of the poets poems.

“Also he (r.a.) has said: Verily the Qur’an was in collected and compiled form during the time of the Messenger of Allah (S) in the same form as it is today. The following proofs have been given for it:

(1) The Qur’an was recited and memorized-the whole of it -in those days, so much so that the Messenger of Allah (S) had appointed a group of the companions to memorize it.

(2) It was used to be presented (from time to time) and recited before the Prophet (S).

(3) A group of the companions, like ‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ud and Ubayy ibn Ka’b and others had recited the Qur’an from the beginning to the end several times before the Prophet (S).

All these things prove clearly that it was compiled and arranged, not scattered and disarranged.

“Also he has said that those Shi’as and Hashawiyah who have gone against it, their opposition is not worthy of consideration because this view comes from some narrators of traditions who had transmitted some weak traditions which they thought were correct; and such traditions are not of such caliber that they could defeat a definitely known correct fact. (That is, the definitely known fact that the Qur’an was unaltered cannot be ignored because of such weak traditions).”3

I have quoted at some length from the books of as-Saduq (r.a.) and at-Tabrasi (r.a.), i.e. the first and the last of the four scholars mentioned by the un-known writer and the last quotation contains some proofs given by as-Sayyid Murtaza ‘Alamu’l-huda, the second “priest” mentioned in “What is Shi’aism?”.

Now read again what the said writer has said:
“However, since their sayings were not based on arguments and were against the un-interrupted narrations of the Shi’a religion, the Shi’a Ulama of the second phase rejected their sayings and findings:

You may judge whether their writings were based on arguments or not. And can he tell us who were the other “Ulama of the second phase” who rejected their findings? The fool is unaware of the status these scholars had and have in the Shi’a community.

You have seen what strong proofs they have presented, and how they have discarded the traditions of alterations transmitted by some Shi’as and the Sunnis.

And in this light I invite the readers to join me, in order that we bring about the curse of Allah on the liars.4

He also claims that:

“Allama Bahrul Uloom Farangi Mahal (sic) earlier issued Fatwa to the effect that Shi’as are Muslims but after seeing Tafsir Majmah-al-Bayan he came to know that Shi’as subscribe to the view of Tahrif in the Qur’an.

“Consequently he gave Fatwa about the Kufr of Shi’as and wrote that whoso subscribes to the view of Tahrif in the Qur’an is definitely a Kafir (disbeliever in Islam)”.

The readers have seen how Tafsir Majma’u ‘l-bayan refutes the idea of Tahrif in the Qur’an. The story written about Bahrul Uloom is apparently just a figment of his imagination. However we agree with that Sunni scholar that whoever believes in the Tahrif of the Qur’an is out of the circle of Islam -whoever he might be.

Also, this unknown writer does not know that Tafsir Majma’u ‘l-bayan was selected by the scholars of al-Azhar and printed under their supervision at Cairo.

His main drawback is his total ignorance -not only of the Shi’a sources but of his own books of traditions and Tafsir. Otherwise no Sunni who has studied his own books of traditions and Tafsir, will dare to write such trash.

I am sure he has never seen the book of Bahrul Uloom Farangi Mahal; not only has he misquoted Bahrul Uloom’s Fatwa, but also does not know the correct name of his book which he has referred to on page 29. I could have corrected his mistake (as I have done above about the names of Shi’a authors and their books). But I am leaving it as it is and challenge him to produce any book of Bahrul Uloom named Fatawah al-Rahmat, and quote that book’s actual wording.

Of course, there are traditions of Tahreef in some Shi’a books as there are in the Sunni books. But the approach of the Shi’as to such traditions differs completely from the approach of the Sunnis. First let me write something about our approach.

Shi’a View

There are four early collections of Shi’a ahadith which are together called “Four early books”- al-Kafi, Man la yahdurhu ‘l-faqih, Tahdhibu ‘l-ahkam and al-Istibsar. Although these books are held in great esteem, the Shi’as have never called them “Sihah”. Consequently, they are not fettered by any hadith written there simply because it is in one of the four books. Instead, they subject all ahad ith in all these books to strict tests, as to their asnad (narrators), and dirayah, and examine whether a given hadith conforms with the Qur’an, the accepted sayings of the Ma’sumeen and the known facts. If ahadith passes these tough tests, then it is accepted. If not, then it is re-interpreted in an acceptable way, failing which it is rejected outright.

It should be mentioned here that an overwhelming part of traditions concerning tahrif is defective and weak as far as their chains of narrators are concerned. Even then, some of these traditions may be taken to denote that there has occurred misinterpretation in some verses, giving them wrong meanings. Another group of traditions may easily be construed to mention marginal explanatory notes of the reciters.

But there still remain many traditions which cannot be explained in either way. And our scholars unhesitatingly have rejected them because they go against the Qur’an and Sunnah, and are contrary to the Ijma’ of Ummah that there has never been any addition in or omission from the Qur’an.

Late as-Sayyid Al-Khoui (r.a.) has written on the Protection of the Qur’an from Tahrif in his tafsir al-Bayan from p.213 to 278, in which he has dealt with all Sunni and Shi’a traditions on this subject. Two short quotations from Shi’a authorities given therein are as follows:

“Muhaqqiq al-Kalbasi has said: All these reports which speak of tahreef are against the Ijma’ and therefore unreliable (except to a negligible number of people).”

“The commentator of al-Wafiyah, Muhaqqiq al-Baghdadi, has clearly stated, by quoting from Muhaqqiq al-Karaki (who has written a complete tract on the subject), that: The traditions which speak of omission must either be reinterpreted or rejected. Any tradition which is contradictory to the Qur’an, the acknowledged sunnah and the Ijma’, must be discarded if it has no room for re-interpretation or justifiable explanation.”5

A tradition recorded in al-Kafi is quoted here to give an example in practice of what we mean when we speak of reinterpretation or justifiable explanation:

“Abu ‘Abdillah (peace be on him) said:
‘The Qur’an which was brought by Jibra’il (peace be on him) to Muhammad (mercy of Allah be on him and his progeny) is seventeen thousand verses.”6

The statement of ash-Shaykh as-Saduq (a.r.) in his Kitabu ‘l-I’tiqadat, about the amount of the revelation that was Hadith Qudsi, may be taken as an interpretation of this hadith.

If one is not prepared to accept this explanation because the tradition speaks about “the Qur’an’: then he has no option but to discard this hadith without hesitation, because the number is three times larger than the actual number of the verses of the Qur’an.

This un-known writer after quoting this hadith of al-Kafi, is very, much worried that:
“This means that with the Shi’as two-third of the Qur’an is not in circulation.”

Even if we accepted this tradition at its face-value, the missing verses would be much less than the number mentioned by the 2nd Khalifah ‘Umar ibn al­ Kahattab. He had said:
“The Qur’an is one million and twenty seven thousand (1,027,000) letters; whoever recites it with patience and reflection, will get for every letter a mate from the houries.”7

But reportedly there are only two hundred sixty seven thousand and fifty three letters (267,033) in the Qur’an as may be seen in many editions of the Qur’an which have given at the end the detailed number of each letter of the alphabets. ‘This means that with the Sunnis three-fourths of the Qur’an is not in circulation.’ Will the unknown writer tell us where have the remaining 759,947 letters gone?

Probably it was for this reason that the son of the 2nd Khalifah, ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar used to say: “One of you says, ‘I have got the whole Qur’an’, and what does he know what was the whole of it; Surely a great part of the Qur’an has gone; rather he should say: I have got what has come to light from it.”8

This brings us to the Sunni traditions.

Sunni Traditions

It is not possible to give details of all the surahs, verses, sentences and phrases which the Sunni traditions say were lost at the time the Qur’an was collected. A few glaring examples are as follows:

1. The 33rd Surah al-Ahzab is alleged to have contained 200 or nearly 300 verses, all of which except 73 are said to have been lost. The claim of 200 verses is attributed to Ummul Mu’mineen ‘A’ishah:
“lt has been narrated by Abu ‘Ubayd in al-Faza’il and by ibn Al-Anbari and Ibn Marduwayh from ‘A’ishah that she said: ‘The Surah al-Ahzab was recited in the days of the Prophet (S) two hundred verses, but when ‘Uthman wrote the Qur’an, he was unable to find more than what is there at present.”9

But there are only 73 verses in this surah.

Hudhayfah said that 70 verses were lost from this Surah.10 But Ubayy ibn Ka’b has said that this sura was equal to, or even bigger than, the chapter of al-Baqarah.11 Also the tabi’i, ‘Ikrimah has reportedly said the same.12

The ch. of al-Baqarah contains 286 verses. It means, that according to these Sahabah 213 or even more verses’ were lost, including the verse of stoning.

2. The ninth Surah at-Tawbah: It is alleged that 2/3rd or 3/4th of this surah has been lost. This report comes from Hudhayfah al-Yamani:
“Hudhayfah (r.a.) said: ‘That6 which you call Surah al-Tawbah, it is the Surah of Punishment; by Allah! it did not leave anyone but debased him: and you do read its one-fourth only.”13

The same Sahabi in another tradition says: “You do not read (even) its (Surah at-Tawbah’s) one-third.” That is, more than its two-thirds are gone.14

Imam Malik ibn Anas, the Imam of the Malikiyah Sunnis, was asked as to why there was no “Bismillah” in this surah. He said: “It was lost with its earlier parts, because it is confirmed that it was equal to surah al-Baqarah in length.”15

But there are only 127 verses in this surah in the Qur’an while surah al-Baqarah contains 286 verses.

I think there is no need to mention the Sunni surahs of al-Khall’ and al-Hafd , and another surah equal to surah al-Baqarah, which the Sunni books say were completely lost; former two were recorded by Ubayy ibn Ka’b in his Qur’an and by Abu Musa al-Ash’ari16 and the 3rd was forgotten by Abu Musa Al-Ash’ari.17

Hundreds of ahadith of major or minor deletions are narrated in Sunni books by many other big personalities, like the companions, ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas, ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar, ‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, ‘Abdur-Rahman ibn ‘Awf, Zayd ibn Arqam, Jabir ibn ‘Abdullah, Buraydah, Maslamah ibn Makhlad, Abu Waqid al-Laythi, Ummul-Mu’mineen Hafsah, Ummul-Mu’mineen Ummu Salimah, and the aunt of Abu Amamah ibn Sahl, in addition to the Tabi’i ‘Ikrimah.

These traditions are found in Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih M uslim, Sunan Abi Dawood, Sahih Tirmidhi, Sunan Nasai, Sunan al-Bayhaqi, Musnad of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, M uwatta’ of Imam Malik, Tarikh of Imam al-Bukhari, Fathul Bari (Sharh of Sahih Bukhari oflbn Hajar al-’Asqalani), Tafsir Ad -Durru ‘l-Manthur and Al-Itqan (Both by as-Suyuti) and Kanzu ‘l-’Ummal.Anyone eager to have a glimpse of those traditions should consult my Urdu book, Itmam-e­ Hujjat, Faizabad (India), 1986.

In short the Sunni books of “ahadith” contain a lot of such traditions. But there is a basic difference between the two sects’ respective attitudes towards such traditions. I have mentioned earlier what the Shi’a view is regarding such traditions. Now let us see what the Sunnis have to say.

Sunnis’ View

The Sunnis’ attitude towards such ahadith is influenced by their belief that the traditions of Sihah Sittah (the six correct books of traditions), and especially those found in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are all correct.

Imam Nawawi (631-676 A.H.) writes in his Sharh of Sahih Muslim:
“The fact that the Ummah has willingly accepted (these two Sahihs of al-Bukhari and Muslim) has let us know that it is wajib to act on what is written in these two, and it is unanimously agreed. People are obliged to act on a Khabar-ul- Wahid found in books other than the two when its chain of narrators is correct, and (even then) it would not create but only a strong assumption. And the same applies to the two sahihs; but these two differ from the other books in that all that is in these two is correct and there is no need to examine them; rather it is Wajib to follow them unconditionally; but as for the ahadith in other books they will not be followed until their credentials are checked and they are found to fulfill the conditions of “correct” ahadith”

This unconditional blanket acceptance of the ahadith found in these books has compelled the Sunnis to accept the theory of (Naskhut-tilawah ) abrogation of recital; that is, they believe that recital of some verses was abrogated although the law contained in some of them continues. Two well-known examples of such supposed verses are the so-called verses of stoning and of ten or five sucklings, which are found in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim and other books.

For the “verse of stoning” see:
Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 4, p. 179, 265;
Sahih Muslim, vol. 3, p. 1317;
Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Egypt: vol. 1, p. 40;
Sunan Ibn Majah, Egypt, vol . 2, p. 853;
Muwatta’ Imam Malik, vol. 2, p. 623.

For the “verse of suckling”, see:
Sahih Muslim, vol. 4, p. 167;
ad -Durru ‘l-Manthur, vol. 2, p. 135

And the hadith of Sahih Muslim explicitly says:
“Ummul Mu’mineen ‘A’isha said: ‘There was among what was revealed of the Qur’an (the verse): “Ten known sucklings create prohibition’’ (i.e. foster relationship). Then it was abrogated by “Five sucklings’, and the Messenger of Allah expired and they were among what was recited of the Quran.”18

The question arises: Who had the right to abrogate a Qur’anic verse after the Prophet’s death? Did any other Prophet come after the Holy Prophet of Islam?

That is why as-Sayyid Abul Qasim Al-khoui (r.a.) has said:
“And it is clear that the theory of “abrogation of recital” is exactly the belief in alteration in and omission from the Qur’an”19

Even more explicit is the hadith narrated by Ummu ‘l-Mu’mineen ‘A’ishah that the paper containing the verses of stoning and sucklings of elder people was under the pillow of the Prophet. When he expired and people were busy in burial arrangements, a goat entered and ate away the paper. Thus it was lost forever.20

Now this author of unknown origin should read again the names of those companions, Tabi’in and Imams who have narrated these ahadith, and the names of those muhadd ithin and mufassirin who have written these ahadith in their books, and after that pronounce the fatwa of ‘Allama Bahrul Uloom which he has quoted on p, 25 of his pamphlet that: “whoso subscribes to the view of Tahrif in the Qur’an is definitely a kafir (disbeliever in Islam).”


  • 1. Shaykh as-Saduq, Kitabu ’l-I‘tiqadat, Ch. of ‘Belief about the length of the Qur’an’.
  • 2. It has been described that Wahhabis are today’s al-Hasbawiyyah.
  • 3. Majma‘u’l-bayan, Beirut ed. Vol. I. pp. 30-31.
  • 4. Qur’an, 3:61.
  • 5. As-Sayyid Al-Khoui, Tafsir al-Bayan, Kuwait. 1399/1979. p 253.
  • 6. Al-Kulayni, Al-Kafi, 1388. Vol.2, p.463.
  • 7. As-Suyuti, Al-Itqan, Dehli ed. Vol. 1. p. 93.
  • 8. As-Suyuti, Al-Itqan, Vol. 2. p. 32; Tafsir Ad-Durru ’l-manthur, vol.2 p.298.
  • 9. Al-Itqan, Vol. 2, p. 32; Ad-Durru ’l-manthur, Vol. 5, pp. 170-180.
  • 10. Ad-Durru ’l-manthur, Vol. 5, pp.180, quoting from al-Bukhari, At-Tarikh.
  • 11. Al-Itqan, Vol. 2, p. 32.
  • 12. Ad-Durru ’l-manthur, Vol. 5, pp. 179.
  • 13. Ad-Durru ’l-manthur, Vol. 3, pp. 208; Al-Itqan, Vol. 2, p. 34.
  • 14. Ad-Durru ’l-manthur, Vol. 3, pp. 208.
  • 15. Al-Itqan, Vol. 1, p. 86.
  • 16. Al-Itqan, Vol. 1, p. 86-87.
  • 17. Ibnu’l-Athir, Jam’u ‘l-usul. Egypt, 1370 A.H., Vol. 3. p. 8.
  • 18. Sahih Muslim, vol. 4, p. 167; ad-Durru ’l-Manthur, vol. 2, P. 135.
  • 19. As-Sayyid Al-Khoui, Tafsir al-Bayan, p.224.
  • 20. Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, al-Musnad, Egypt, 1313 A.H. Vol. 6. p. 269; Sunan Ibn Majah, p. 626; Ibn Qutaybah, Ta‘wilu Mukhtalafi ‘l-ahadith, Beirut. 1409/1989. p. 372; ad-Durru ’l-Manthur, vol. 2, p. 135.