Refutation of the fake claim that sunni muslim tradition ascribe tahrif of quran.

All Muslims are agreed that the Quran is what all the Companions of the Prophet firmly and solely declared to be the Quran exactly as they heard it from the Prophet . This happened during the era of the Caliph Othman Ibn Affan . In other words, the Quran is what is contained in the Mushaf that the Caliph Othman copied in the presence of the Companions of the Prophet and dispatched it everywhere in the Muslim world at that time. Othman gave an order to destroy all remaining unauthentic copies of the Book. So the Quran reached us through an authentic chain which is supported by impeccable evidence. There can be no doubt about it. In addition to this, the Quran can not be considered as authentic unless the following three conditions are met;

1 It must be reported from its original source by such a large number of people who can not be expected to agree on a lie.

2 Being in conformity in its transcription with the Othmani Mushaf.

3 Being in conformity with well-spoken Arabic language So anything that is in the Mushaf of Abdullah Ibn Masood and not included in Othman's Mushaf is not Quran like it was brought to us through the recurrence of unquestionable transmission. Here are examples of additions found in Abdullah's Mushaf: In Chapter (5:88) Abdullah read: "But whosoever can not afford (that), then he should fast for three days (consecutive)" This word “consecutive” is not found in Othman's Mushaf. He also removed "Him who created" in the verse (92:3). Abdullah read "By the night as it envelops and by the day as it appears in brightness and by the male and female". But the authentic and only true Mushaf of Othman includes the expression: "By the night as it envelops and by the day as it appears in brightness and by the creation of male and female". Abdullah's Mushaf is different from the true Mushaf for one of the following two reasons:

1- Abdullah sometimes added an explanatory word or expression to say what he understood from the verse. In this case he did not add that because he thought it was from the Quran, but rather he wanted to clarify the meaning.

2- Abdullah might not have memorized the last presentation of the Quran so he might have unknowingly kept in his Mushaf what was abrogated in that last presentation. The transcription of the Quran was committed by Othman to Zaid Ibn Thaabit who recited from memory the last presentation of the Quran to the Prophet just before the Prophet's death. Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood did not memorize this last presentation. On the other hand, it is true that Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood did not include the Faatihah in his Mushaf as stated by authentic sources such as Al Qurtubi. Abdullah was once asked on why he did not include it in his Mushaf, and he replied that he was confident that all Muslims knew it by heart. As for your question aboutUbay's way of reading the Quran, we would like to inform you that you are misinformed as there is no way of recitation attributed to Ubay Ibn Kaab. However, there are some words that he is said to have read in a way different from the commonly known way. So, his case is similar to that of Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood.

Finally, you should know, dear brother, that the qualified investigators in this field unanimously agree that both Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood and Ubay Ibn Ka'ab reverted to the Othmani Mushaf. The most sound evidence for this is that most recurring transmissions of the Quran's recitation were related from these two eminent Scholars. 3.Did ibn masud said al muwwadhatayn was not part of quran,no he didnt.:-سألت رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم فقال لي قيل لي قل فقلت قال فنحن نقول كما قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم

‘Ali ibn ‘Abdullah narrated to us―Sufyan narrated to us―’Abdah ibn Abi Lubabah narrated to us from―Zirr ibn Hubaysh AND ‘Asim narrated to us from―Zirr who relates:

I asked Ubay ibn Ka’b saying, “O Abu al Mundhir! Your brother Ibn Mas’ud says this and that.”

Ubay explained, “I asked Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam so he told me say, and accordingly I said. So we state as Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam stated.”

 

This is ambiguous, i.e. this and that.

 

The viewpoint of Hafiz Ibn Hajar:

 

Hafiz states in al Fath:

 

و قد تأول القاضي أبو بكر الباقلاني في كتاب الانتصار و تبعه عياض و غيره ما حكى عن ابن مسعود فقال لم ينكر ابن مسعود كونهما من القرآن و إنما أنكر إثباتهما في المصحف فإنه كان يرى أن لا يكتب في المصحف شيئا إلا إن كان النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم أذن في كتابه فيه و كأنه لم يبلغه الإذن في ذلك قال فهذا تأويل منه و ليس جحدا لكونهما قرآنا و هو تأويل حسن إلا أن الرواية الصحيحة الصريحة التي ذكرتها تدفع ذلك حيث جاء فيها و يقول أنهما ليستا من كتاب الله نعم يمكن حمل لفظ كتاب الله على المصحف فيتمشى التأويل المذكور

Qadi Abu Bakr al Baqillani in Kitab al Intisar interprets what has been reported from Ibn Mas’ud. ‘Iyad and others agreed with him. He explains, “Ibn Mas’ud did not reject them being part of the Qur’an. He only rejected their establishment in the mushaf. His view was that nothing should be written in the mushaf except what Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam gave permission to write therein. As if the permission in this regard did not reach him.”

This is his interpretation which shows that he did not reject them being part of the Qur’an. It is a good interpretation except that the sahih explicit narration which I mentioned conflicts it, i.e. the part that explains that he would say, “They are not from the Book of Allah.” Yes, it is possible for the phrase Book of Allah to refer to the mushaf then the above interpretation will be consistent.[6]

 

It has already appeared that the narration comes from the chain of Abu Ishaq al Subay’i and al A’mash and both of them are mudallis and their narrations have come with ‘an (from). Had it come without ‘an, it would have been accepted. The ‘an’anah of a mudallis is a defect in the hadith, making it cumbersome to authenticate its sanad; forget it overpowering the mutawatir qira’ah from Sayyidina ‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ud radiya Llahu ‘anhu which includes al Mu’awwadhatayn