their argument against him. In addition, the well-known scholar al-Majlisi compiled a chapter on the subject of the Commander of the Faithfuls [Alis] vindication of his rights in the matter of the caliphate.٢٨ Had there been something in the Quran inimi‌ cal to their leadership, it would certainly have been more worthy of mention in these arguments, and more deserving of calling upon all Muslims to witness, especially since the issue of the caliphate according to those [who believe in the altera ion
became an issue much earlier than the date of the Qurans collection. The fact that
the Companions did not mention anything [about the alteration], neither at the begin‌ ning of the caliphate nor after the caliphate had fallen to Ali, is the irrefutable proof that the said alteration [under the first two caliphs] did not occur.
As for the possibility that the alterations were introduced by Uthman, this is even
more far-fetched than the earlier assertion [regarding the first two caliphs]. There are several reasons that support this conclusion.
١. By the time Uthman became caliph, Islam had spread to such an extent that it was impossible for him, or even for anyone more powerful than him, to remove any‌ thing from the Quran.
٢. Had Uthmans alteration been in connection with the verses that neither dealt with the question of authority, nor, in one way or the other, adversely affected the leader‌ ship of those who preceded him, then this would have meant doing something for which there was no justification. If, on the other hand, his alterations had been in connection with something to do with the question of leadership, then this definitely did not oc‌ cur. The reason is that if the Quran had included such verses, they would have been known among the people, and the caliphate would not have passed to Uthman.
٣. Had Uthman altered the Quran, that would have served as the clearest argument for, and major justification of, his public assassination. His opponents would not have needed to argue against him on the basis of his having diverged from the practice of the two preceding caliphs in handling the public trust of the Muslims, and other such arguments.
٤. Had Uthman committed the act of alteration, it would have then been incumbent on Ali, following the death ofUthman, to restore the Quran to its original state when it was recited during the Prophets time and the time of the first two caliphs. Such an action on his part would not have drawn any criticism; on the contrary, it would have given a great help to his cause and would have served as a strong argument against those who rebelled against him [i.e., the Umayyads] under the rubric of avenging
Uthmans blood. More specifically, he could have used it to defend his orders to restitute the land grants that Uthman had distributed [from the public trust]. He had referred to this matter in one of his speeches [during the reign of Uthman], saying:

I solemnly declare that even if I were to find that it [the distributed public lands] had been used by women to get married, or in purchasing slave-girls, I would still have returned them [to the treasury]. Indeed, in doing justice, [the scope] is wide. He to whom justice is hard, injustice is even harder.٢٩

If this is how Ali acquitted himself in the matter of public lands, what would he have done in the case of the Quran had it been altered? His endorsement of the Quran that existed during his reign is evidence that there was no alteration in it.