modem Quranic studies. But as I went through the synopsis provided at the begin‌ ning of each chapter, I realized that al-Khui had treated many of the critical topics connected with the collection and canonization of the text that had received little attention in the works of contemporary Muslim exegetesY
From his own autobiographical note in Mujam rijal al-/:ladfth, it is evident that the reform of the Najaf curriculum in legal studies was among al-Khuis tasks of high priority. In this program of reform, besides advocating rigorous methods and criteria in the scrutiny of the reporters of transmitted sciences, along with new methods of teaching and learning at all levels of legal studies, it was the teaching of the mostly neglected sciences related to the Quran and its interpretation that was critical for training the new generation of mujtahids. He urged his students to pay close atten‌ tion to the Quran, to its history and contextual aspects. To be sure, his interest in the Quran was founded on his search for an expansive methodology in jurisprudence. Additionally, he wanted to provide a definitive introduction to the exegesis of the Quran from the Shiite point of view, especially since the existing literature on the subject comes mainly from the Sunni point of view.
Of all the subjects that have been commonly treated in the history of the Quran
perhaps most controversial has been the question of the occurrence of alteration (ta/:lrif) in it. The controversial nature of the subject is indeed evident from the polemical tone of most of the works written by Sunni scholars of the Quran. In the disputations between the different Muslim groups, the extremist Shiites alleged that the unjust rulers had omitted or inserted things in the Quran with the object offal‌ sifying evidence of the truth about the Shiite position in the matter of the successor to the Prophet. The Sunni response made the same charge against the Shiites that they had introduced in their reading of the Quran: arbitrary alterations of the text by omitting parts of it, interpolations, or a wrong exposition of the true sense. Such charges and countercharges implied that the Prophet had left more than may be found in the Quran.٣٢ These intrafaith disputations led to the inevitable and extremely dangerous conclusion for the future authority of the scripture that there is either material missing from the Quran that ought to have been included or material added to it that ought to have been excluded. Obviously, if any Muslim admits alteration in the Quran, it vitiates its evidential status for Muslim life. Consequently, the Shiites have responded to the Sunni polemics with their own.
Accusations against the Shiites remain part of the Sunni-Shiite polemics epito‌ mized in modem times by the highly contentious book Al-Shra wa al-quran (The Shia and the Quran), which was written by Il)san Ilahi Zahir and published and cir‌ culated by Sunni authorities to discredit Shiite membership in the Muslim commu‌ nity.٣٣ The question of alteration in the history of the collection of the Quran has been shelved; because of the canonization of the text under Uthman (d. ٦٥٦), the matter is regarded by the Sunni scholars as closed. For the Shiites, who are vigor‌ ously defending their membership in the larger Muslim community, the matter of alteration is far from being closed. After all, in such polemical exchanges, the Sunni majority retains the upper hand in instituting systematic discrimination against the Shia.
For a scholar like al-Khui, then, to take up the discussion about alterations, drawing on evidence from Sunni sources, is not only intended to establish the Shiite claim to