Khatib Baghdadi, in his Tarikh, has narrated from Abdullah Ahmad bin
Ahmad Qasri that:1
“I and my brother came from Qasr to Baghdad and Abu Bakr – Ahmad bin
Ja’far – bin Malik Qutubi was alive, and our aim was to collect Islamic laws and
obligatory acts, so we wanted to contact Ibne Malik and learn from him. Ibne
Labban Farzi said to us: Will you not come to us; he has become old and lost his
mind and I told my son not to study under him.
He says: “So we did not go to him.”
Ibne Hajar in Lisan,2 has mentioned him and written3 that he was a teacher, but he was not religious and reliable.
And under the exegesis of the verse:
…. وَنَزَعْنَا مَا فِي صُدُورِهِمْ مِنْ غِلَّ
“And We will remove whatever of ill-feeling is in their breasts…”4
In view of Ahle Sunnat there are defunct traditions, which are stranger than
the reports of Wahidi.5
This is how he interpolates the words from their places and is there no one
that may ask the narrators of these debased statement about the malice, which is
filled in their breasts that since when it came about and where it went? And this
tradition and history informs us that that malice was engraved in their hearts after
Islam from the day of passing away of Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) those
statements and disputes, which arose at that time till they culminated in the attack
on Uthman and led to the battles of Jamal.
Is the source of all this not the fire of malice that raged in the breasts of
those malicious persons and their enmities? Is not shedding the blood of a friend
and trespassing on his sanctity and regard killing him lawful from implications of
malice and enmity? And whether in spite of all this, is it correct to say that malice
was engraved on their hearts?
And verses of this kind, which are interpolated are in excess. And if they are
gathered, a thick book would be compiled, even though we do not wish to discuss
about them, because it would be prolonging the discussion without any benefit, as not-seriousness, lightness and foolishness present in those reports is sufficient for
their invalidation.
What can I say regarding reports mentioned under the explanation of verse:
وَحَمَلْنَـٰهُ عَلَىٰ ذَاتِ أَلْوَٰحٍۢ وَدُسُرٍۢ (١٣) تَجْرِى بِأَعْيُنِنَا جَزَآءًۭ لِّمَن كَانَ كُفِرَ (١٤)
“And We bore him on that which was made of planks and nails, sailing, before Our eyes, a reward for him who was denied.”6
When Nuh (a.s.) built the Ark, Jibraeel (a.s.) brought four pegs, on which
letter ‘Ain’ was inscribed: Ain is for Abdullah, that is Abu Bakr and Ain is Umar
and Ain is Uthman and Ain is Ali. Thus, through the auspiciousness of those pegs
the Ark started moving.
Ahle Sunnat have bloody battles in interpolation of Quran, among them
being in the event of the year 317 A.H. in Baghdad between Abu Bakr Maruzi
Hanbali and another Ahle Sunnat group has dispute in the exegesis of the verse:
عَسَىٰٓ أَن يَبْعَثَكَ رَبُّكَ مَقَامًۭا مَّحْمُودًۭا (٧٩)
“Maybe your Lord will raise you to a position of great glory.”7
Hanbalis say: He keeps him with Himself on throne (Arsh) and another
group said that it implies the greater intercession; thus they fought each other for
this and were killed.8
Make what we said a criterion for calculating hundreds of useless statements
like this which tongues of exaggerators have attributed to God in excellence, and
ridiculed divine signs, and they dispute about falsehood, till they destroy truth
from among them:
وَقَدْ كَانَ فَرِيقٌۭ مِّنْهُمْ يَسْمَعُونَ كَلَـٰمَ ٱللَّهِ ثُمَّ يُحَرِّفُونَهُۥ مِنۢ بَعْدِ مَا عَقَلُوهُ وَهُمْ يَعْلَمُونَ (٧٥)
“And a party from among them indeed used to hear the Word of
Allah, then altered it after they had understood it, and they
know (this).”9