from their country, spent their wealth, separated from their women and children, and taken the stance by means of which they had brightened the face of history. Would a sane person imagine, after all this, that they would not take good care of the Quran, leaving it to be dispersed among people, so that they eventually needed two testifiers in order to establish its text? Is this not merely like imagining that additions were made to the Quran, or even like imagining that nothing has survived from the revealed Quran? Nevertheless, the uninterruptedly narrated traditions about the thaqalayn (two things of high estimation), as cited earlier, indicate the falsity of the probability. This is because the Prophets saying that "I leave among you the two things of high esti‌ mation, the Book of God and my Family" would not be correct if some of the Quran had been lost during his lifetime, for what is left after that would be a portion of the Book, not all of it. On the contrary, in the thaqalayn tradition, there is indisputable proof of the compilation of the Quran and its collection during the lifetime of the Prophet, for the term "Book" does not apply to the totality of dispersed things, nor to the text that is preserved "in the hearts" [i.e., memorized]. (We shall discuss those who collected the Quran during the Prophets time.) Even if we were to concede that the Muslims did not care to collect the Quran during the Prophets time, why did not the Prophet himself do that, considering his intense concern about the Quran? Was he unaware of the consequences of this neglect [on his part], or was he unable to col‌ lect it for lack of the means? It is obvious that all of these propositions are unfounded.
As for the possibility that the first two caliphs intentionally altered the Quran in
the verses that did not have a bearing on their leadership and the leadership of their associates, this is intrinsically far-fetched, especially in light of its serving no pur‌ pose whatsoever for them. As such, alteration did not occur under them. Moreover, how could they introduce alterations in the Quran when the question of the caliph‌ ate was actually founded on politics, although in appearance it was regarded as a matter of religious importance. Did any of those who refused to pay allegiance to the caliphs argue against them [on the issue of alteration], including those who had op‌ posed Abu Bakrs succession to the caliphate, like Sad b. Ubada and his compan‌ ions? [More important], did the Commander of the Faithful [Ali b. Abi Talib] men‌ tion this in his famous speech of al-Shiqshiqiyya (the third sermon inNahj al-Balagha) and in other statements in which he objected to those who preceded him to the ca‌ liphate? Moreover, it is not possible to claim that the Muslims had objected to them on the alteration issue, and that this has somehow remained hidden from us. Undoubt‌ edly, this claim is clearly false.
As for the possibility that alteration was intentionally introduced by the two ca‌ liphs in those verses that were inimical to their leadership, that too should be ruled out completely. Indeed, the Commander of the Faithful [Ali] and his wife, the veracious and pure [Fatima] (peace be upon both of them), and a group of their supporters, had opposed the accession of AbU Bakr and Umar to the caliphate. They contended against them on the basis of things they had heard from the Prophet, and they called on those of the Helpers (An,sar) and Emigrants (Muhlijiriln) who had witnessed these events to testify to their authenticity. They also contended against AbU Bakr by means of the Ghadir event [in which the Prophet had nominated Ali as his successor] and other such traditions. Al-Tabarsi mentions, in his book al-ll;ztijlij, that twelve persons ar‌ gued against the succession of AbU Bakr and produced textual evidence to support