lation, as stated in the protection verse, for the Quran, with its special characteris‌ tics, protects itself and does not need an external protector. Moreover, this is not the sense suggested by the verse, for it intends the protection of the Quran to occur after its revelation.
Third, they maintain that the verse points to the protection of the Quran in gen‌ eral and does not indicate that every single copy is protected. This is not necessarily the object of the verse. If what is intended is its protection in general, then it is suf‌ ficient for it to be preserved with the [twelfth] Hidden Imam (peace be upon him).
This suggestion is the weakest of them all. The protection of the Quran must necessarily occur among those for whom it was revealed-that is, humankind in general. As for being preserved with the Imam, this is similar to being preserved in the Preserved Tablet [al-lawb al-mal:ifilz; cf. Q. ٨٥:٢٢], or with one of the angels. This opinion is undoubtedly weak and resembles someone saying, "Iam sending you
a gift, and Iam protecting it in my possession or in the possession of one close to me."
It is indeed strange that the person who made this suggestion should say that the verse means the protection of the Quran in general and not every single copy of it. It is as if he presumes that the dhikr (Reminder) is intended for the written or the recited Quran, of which there are certainly many copies. However, it is obvious that this is not the intention here, for the written or the recited Quran does not have ex‌ ternal permanence. It is for this reason that the protection verse does not refer to this written or recited Quran; rather, the dhikr refers to the actual Quran that was re‌ vealed to the Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny), and the reference to its protection involves its immunity from being trifled with and lost, so that all people will have access to it. This resembles our saying that such and such a poem is "pre‌ served," by which we mean that it is immune from loss in such a way that access to it is impossible.
To be sure, there is yet another argument that invalidates this verse as proof against the occurrence of alteration. This is that whoever claims that the Quran has been altered will have to assume that this verse may have been altered, too, because it is one of the verses of the Quran; hence, using it as evidence would not be valid until the absence of alteration is proved. Otherwise, if we try to prove the absence of alteration through such verses, this would result in an invalid circular argument.
This argument addresses itself to those who bar the holy Family of the Prophet
from the divinely ordained caliphate and who do not follow their teachings and their actions. Such persons are unable to refute this argument. But for those who regard the Prophets family as the incontestable proof of God for His creatures, and as inti‌ mately linked with the Book of God in the obligation to adhere [to it and to them together], this argument does not affect them. The reason for this is that the reliance of the Family on the Quran for their decisions, and the fact that they confirmed their followers in its use, proves the evidential nature of the existing Quran. And if it is maintained that an alteration has occurred, then, at the most, the evidential nature of the Book will refute the claim of alteration on the strength of their confirmation of it.
The second instance of proof that alteration did not occur is Gods saying: "For
lo!, it is an unassailable Book. Falsehood cannot come at it from before it or behind it. [It is] a revelation from the Wise, the Owner of Praise" (Q. ٤١ :٤١-٤٢).