ascribes the doctrine of nonalteration to the majority of jurists. Other scholars who uphold this view include the famous traditionist, al-Mawla Mui).sin al-Qasani [al‌ Kashi],٣ and the leading teacher al-Shaykh Mui).ammad Jawad al-BalaghL٤
A group of scholars has ascribed the doctrine of nonalteration to a large number of the most eminent among them. These include al-Shaykh al-Mufid, al-Shaykh al‌ BahaI, al-Qa<;a Nur Allah al-Shustari, and others as prominent. On the other hand, those who hold this view implicitly include Shiite scholars who have written about the necessity of the Imamate and have mentioned the shortcomings without dealing with the question of alteration. Had these scholars believed that alterations had been made in the Quran, this would have been more worthy of mention than the burning of [the unofficial] codices٥ and other such accounts.
In short, the common view among Shate scholars and researchers, or, rather, what is unanimously agreed upon by them, is the view that no alteration has been made to the Quran. However, a faction of Shiite traditionists and a group of Sunni scholars have held the view that alterations were made. According to al-RafiI, "A group of scholastic theologians (ahl al-kalam)••-who have no preoccupation except to engage in conjecture and allegorical interpretation (ta wfl), and to seek procedures of dispu‌ tation in every injunction and doctrine-maintain the possibility that some passages of the Quran may be missing. They attribute this to the way it was collected."٦ Al‌ Tabarsi, in his١Majma al-Bayan, ascribes this view to the I:Iashwiyya group among the Sunnis.
The reader will soon see that the view about the abrogated readings is the same as that about the alteration. Therefore, the widely held view, among Sunnis, that the recital of some verses of the Quran has been abrogated should entail a similar accep‌ tance of the view that the Quran was altered.

Abrogation and the Recital (tilowa)

The majority of Sunni scholars mention that the recital of some parts of the Quran was abrogated, and they support this view by citing the traditions that relate that these were part of the Quran during the Prophets lifetime. It is appropriate to cite some [twelve] of these traditions in order to show that maintaining the authenticity of these traditions necessitates the belief that alteration in the Quran did take place.

١. It was related by Ibn Abbas that Umar proclaimed from the pulpit:

Verily, God sent MuJ:!ammad (peace be upon him) with the truth, and revealed upon him the Book. Among those verses that God revealed is the verse about stoning (al‌ rajm), which we read, understood, and stipulated. Accordingly, the Messenger of God stoned [the fornicator], and we continued to do so after him. However, I am afraid that with the lapse of time, someone might say, "By God, we did not find the verse about stoning in the Book of God!" and, thus, be misguided into forsaking an obligation [ordained through] its revelation by God. Indeed, the stoning is certainly prescribed in the Book of God for anyone who commits adultery.... Moreover, we used to read from the Book of God the following: "Do not awaken an aversion toward your fathers, because it is disbelief for you if you awaken aversion toward your fathers," or, "In‌ deed, it is disbelief for you if you awaken aversion toward your fathers."٧