Surah of Wilaya and Nurayn

The Surah of Wilaya and Nurayn are two surahs (chapters) that are supposedly claimed to be included in the Qur'an by some Shiite sects. These sects would supposedly argue that Ali had a different copy of the Quran as compared with the Third Caliph Uthman. However, these surahs are considered to be a fabrication by most of the Muslim world.

Etymology

Surat al-Nurayn (Arabic: سورة النورين‎), meaning "the Chapter of the Two Lights"

Surat al-wilaya (Arabic: سورة الولاية‎), meaning "the chapter of mastership"

Controversy

Neither Shi'a nor Sunni Muslim believe those surahs are included in the Qur'an, but some have claimed that the Shi'a do indeed believe those surahs to be an authentic part of the Qur'an and include them therein (in what has been dubbed the Shi'a Quran). However, many Shi'a dismiss this as unfounded accusations aimed at accusing Shi'as of believing in the corruption of the Qur'an. No copy of the Quran exists with the addition of these two surahs and there is no mention of them found in any of the earliest codices of the Quran and Hadith. Most scholars are of the view that these extra Surahs were intended by the Shia to use them in justifying their rejection of Caliphs appointed from Medina after Ali and the formation of their own sect separate from mainstream Islam. The author of text on the other hand is said to be have been a Parsi according to some academics. On the other hand, M. Momen states that:

With regards to the question of the text of the Qur'an, it has already been noted that the early Shi'is believed that the Qur'an has been altered and parts of it has been suppressed. The Nawbakhtis are said to have adhered to this view although it went against their usual position of agreeing with Mu'tazili thought. The compiler of the earliest, authoritative collection of Twelver Traditions, al-Kulyani, seems to have given some substance to this view in several of the Traditions that he relates. Ibn Babuya, however, takes the position that the text of the Qur'an is complete and unaltered. Al-Mufid appears to have wavered somewhat on this point during his lifetime. He seems to have accepted the fact that parts of the Qur'an had been excised by the enemies of the Imams in some of his early writings, although he refused even then to state that anything had been added. In his later writings, however, al-Mufid had reinterpreted the concept of omissions from the text of the Qur'an to mean that the text of the Qur'an is complete (although he does allow that the order needs to be changed) but that what has been omitted is the authoritative interpretation of the text by `Ali. In this manner, al-Mufid and most subsequent Shi'i writers were able to fall into line with the rest of the Islamic world in accepting the text of the Qur'an as contained in the recension of `Uthman.

Western Academics such as von Grunebaum view the text as a clear forgery, although many of them have not subscribed to the idea that the text was indeed a forgery made by a Zoroastrian and not a Shia.

See also

• Tahrif
• Misconceptions about the Shi'a
• Shiaism
• Dabestan-e Mazaheb

External links

• A Study of Misconceptions Regarding Corruption of the Qur'anic Text
• Is the Qur’an Corrupted?Shi’ites’ View