It is surprising that a group of Sunni scholars has denied that the belief in the alteration of the Quran can be ascribed to any one of them. In fact, al-AlUsi contra‌ dicts al-Tabarsis attribution of this belief to the I:Iashwiyya [among the Sunnis], saying, "None of the Sunni scholars has held such a belief." Stranger still is that he maintains that al-Tabarsis opinion regarding the absence of alteration in the Quran had grown out of the untenability of the Shiite belief in alteration, and that that was what made al-Tabarsi seek refuge in its rejection.٢٥ This is despite the fact that, as we have already mentioned, Shiite scholars and researchers commonly recognize, or, rather, are generally in agreement, that no alteration in the sense of omission has been made in the Quran. Al-Tabarsi has cited, at length, al-Sharif al-MurtaQ.as opin‌ ion in this regard, and his most complete and convincing arguments refuting the opinion about the alteration.٢٦

Alteration and the Book of God

In view of the preceding discussion, the truth of the matter is that alteration, in the sense that has caused disputes among Muslim scholars, did not occur in the Quran at all, as the following instances of proof demonstrate.
The first of these is Gods saying, "Lo! We, even We, reveal the Reminder, and lo! We verily are its Guardian" (Q. ١٥:٩). This verse provides proof that the Quran is divinely protected against alteration, and that the unjust, corrupt hands shall never be able to play with it.
Those who maintain the belief in alteration interpret this verse in several ways. First, they say that al-dhikr (the Reminder) refers to the Prophet, for it is used in regard to him in Gods saying, "Now God has sent down to you a reminder (dhikr):
A messenger reciting to you the revelations of God" (Q. ٦٥:١٠-١١).
This suggestion is a clear error, for in both cases, dhikr refers to the Quran, as indicated by the use of the verb anzala (to send down, reveal). Had the reference been to the Prophet, then the appropriate term would have been arsala (to send), or something to that effect. Moreover, even if the above suggestion holds true for the second of the two verses, it cannot be true of the first. For the protection verse [the first of the two] is preceded by Gods saying, "And they say, ٠ you to whom the Reminder (al-dhikr) is revealed; lo! you are indeed a madman!" (Q. ١٥:٦).
There is no doubt that al-dhikr in this last verse is a reference to the Quran, and, hence, it proves that al-dhikr in the protection verse is also the Quran.
Second, they maintain that the protection of the Quran means protection from being maligned and from the invalidation of its lofty meanings and profound teachings.
This suggestion is even more manifestly erroneous. If protection against being
maligned means protection against being reviled by the unbelievers and the obsti‌ nate, then there is no doubt that this is incorrect, for those people have reviled the Quran more often than can be counted. However, if it meant that the Quran is un‌ shakable in its meanings, convincing in its reasoning, and straightforward in its ap‌ proach-and, by virtue of these aspects and others like them, is far too high in status to be affected by the slandering of the malignant and the doubts of skeptics-this would be correct. However, this would not be in the sense of protection after its reve-