(Despite his personal attacks it contains) M.S.M. Saifullah from Cambridge University has posted to the newsgroup soc.religion.islam a valuable piece of investiagation into the authenticity of the suras al-Nurain and al-Wilaya which sometimes are claimed to be suras that can be found in some Shia editions of the Qur'an. (My response to Mr. Saifullah is appended.)
[Some weeks after I have put this web page in place I was made aware of a scholarly review on the Western Orientalist views on the issue of the Shia Qur'an which also has a chapter on these two suras. This is a very valuable resource. ... Years later: Tisdall's article in The Moslem World of July 1913 is now also available online: Shi'ah Additions To The Koran.]
Now to Mr. Saifullah's article.
From Metallica <msms2@cus.cam.ac.uk> Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam Subject: Surah Nurayn and Surah Walaya of Shiite Qur'an? Date: Sat Sep 27 13:57:26 EDT 1997 Organization: University of Cambridge, England Message-Id: <60jhe6$9pv@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu> Assalamu-alaikum wa rahamtullahi wa barakatuhu: It has been claimed by Jochen Katz in his website that some Shi'ite's have two more chapters in their Qur'an called Surah an-Nurayn and Surah al-Walaya. They can be viewed at: http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Miracle/nurain.html http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Miracle/wilaya.html Regarding the Surah al-Walaya, Jochen says: "Source: The Sura was taken from the book "ALThWRh AL'YARANYh FY MYzAN AL'sLAM" (The Iranian revolution in the balance of Islam), published in Egypt. This is a Sunni book attacking the Shia. The author claims he has taken it from the Shia Qur'an. Only problem is that the Sunni author didn't realize that he was digging his own grave with publishing this sura." My methodology for this problem is very simple. Go back to the Shi'a sources and check what they say and then check out what the orientalists say about the two surahs which are quoted above. THE SHI'ITE SOURCES: The figure Ja'far al-Sadiq (d. 148/765), a great grandson of al-Husayn (RA), is described in the Shi'ite tradition as a charismatic character and quietest of the Imaams. The Shi'ites regard him as the founder of Shi'ite Law, which is based , to a great extent , upon decisions supposed to have been transmitted from him. In the section "The Belief Concerning The Extent (Mablagh) Of The Qur'an" Ja'far al-Sadiq says: "Says the Shaykh Abu Ja'far: Our belief is that the Qur'an, which Allah revealed to his Prophet Muhammad is (the same as) the one between the two boards (daffatayn). And it is that which is in the hands of the people, and is not greater extent than that. The number of suras as generally accepted is one hundred and fourteen." [[1], pp. 77] and again: "And he who asserts that we say it is greater in extent than this (the present text) is a liar" [[1], pp. 77] This would have been a proof good enough to stop here and dismiss what Jochen is claiming about the "Qur'an" which Shi'ites have. But let us go further and expose the deceptive methodology. In another Shi'ite book talking about the two Surahs mentions above, it says: "A small minority of Shi'is have attempted to get much larger passages (and even the whole suras) accepted as being missing portions of the Qur'an but without success." [[2], pp. 173] And quoting the history of the Shi'ite belief regarding the Qur'an the author says: "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." [[2], pp. 81] Now we have said enough about the Shi'ite sources. Let me now discuss the view of the orientalists. SURAH AL-WALAYA AND AN-NURAYN: ORIENTALISTS' VIEW: The Surah an-Nurain was published in Dabistan-i Madhahib. In 1842 and 1843 it was review in the references [3] and [4]. The passages of Sura al-Walayah and Sura an-Nurain were discovered in a manuscript of Qur'an in Bankipore, India, in June 1912. The translation of the Sura was published by St. Clare Tisdall in the journal "The Moslem World" in 1913. The manuscript is said to be some 200-300 years old, at least. On Sura al-Walayah and Sura an-Nurain, St. Clare Tisdall writes: "The reader (of the original Arabic especially) is irresistibly led to the conclusion that the whole of these additions, - with the possible exception of sura al-Nurain, - are forgeries. The style is imitated from the Koran, but not always very successfully. There are some grammatical errors, unless these are due to the transcriber. Occasionally the meaning which the context shews to be that in which a word is used is later than the time to which the Koran belongs. The verses are largely, however, centos of Koranic passages taken from their context. The amount of repetition shews the writer's determination to prove what he wished to prove at all costs." [[5], pp. 229] And talking about the nature of these two surahs, St. Clare Tisdall says: "We notice also that some, - or, perhaps, only one person, - among the Shi'ites decided to forge the passages which we are considering. Doubtless he thought the end justified the means. He certainly must have determined to insert these forgeries in the Koran and to get his own sect to adopt them. But, although it was so greatly to their apparent interest to accept these additional passages, yet the Shi'ites did not do so. The forger found it impossible to introduce a single such altered verse into the Koran. This, we may again say in passing , is highly to the credit of the Shi'ah community in general. Although they think that they are staking their eternal happiness on the truth of their contention that 'Ali and his family are the true and Divinely commissioned inheritors of Mohammad's spiritual rights, so far as these could be handed down to others, yet they have never permitted a single one of these forgeries to become incorporated into their copies of the Koran." [[5], pp. 229-230] And he went on to say: "So, far as we know, the manuscript which we are now concerned with is the only one in existence which, together with the genuine Surahs of the Koran, also contains these Alterations and Additions. To get them generally accepted, even by Shi'ites, proved impossible. The attempt to Sunnites to adopt them was probably never made, for its hopelessness must have been evident even to the forger himself." [[5], pp. 230] Further criticisms were added by Joseph Eliash concerning the text from Bankipore and Dabistan-i- Madhahib. He says: "Concerning the Bankipore text, its only connetion with the Imami Shi'a is the claim that the manuscript was brought from the Nawwab in Lucknow which was a centre of Imami learning in India. This alone does not constitute it into an authoritative Qur'an for the Imami Shi'a." [[6], pp. 19] "As to the Dabistan-i- Madhahib, it is significant to note that the author does not identify himself with the Shi'a. He discusses twelve different religions practised in his time in India and devotes just a few pages to the Shi'a which he entitles "Statements about the second sect of Muslims who are known as Shi'a" and prefaces his remarks by phrases such as "the author of this book relates what he learned from Mulla Muhammad Ma'sum, Muhammad Mu'min and Mulla Ibrahim, who in the year of 1053 (AD 1643) were in Lahoreand from others" and the like. He precedes the 'Surah al-Nurayn" by the following statement: "Some of them (the Shi'a) say the 'Uthman burnt the copies of the Qur'an and excluded (rejected) some of the surahs which were on the dignity of 'Ali and his excellence, on of the surahs is this." The Dabistan-i-Madahib was critically edited and translated into english in the year 1843, the editors are not certain of the identity of the author. The give the date of the death of the supposed author, Muhsin Fani, as probably 1081/1670, and state that he was "of the philosophic sect of Sufis", "a native of Kachmir, a learned man and respectable poet, a scholar of Mulla Yakub, Sufi of Kachmir", but make no mention whatsoever that he was Shi'a authority. Hence Dabistan cannot be referred to as an Imami Shi'a source and nor can its author be called Imami-Shi'i."[[6], pp. 19-20] In the words of Professor Grunebaum: "The only two Shi'ite surahs which have come to light are obvious forgeries; the other omissions that would have been dictated mostly by dogmatic considerations foreign to the 'Uthmanic period can not be substantiated, and the Shi'ites themselves have never been able to agree on the alleged distortion of the sacred text of their adversaries." [[7] pp. 80] and [[8], pp. 282] In the article "The Speaking Qur'an and The Silent Qur'an: A Study of The Principles and Development of Imami Shi'i Tafsir" by Mahmoud Ayoub, we read: "Hence Muslims. and especially Shi'i Muslims, have insisted that God revealed to Muhammad both the Qur'an and its exegesis. The sacred text of the Qur'an, or what is contained 'between the two covers', is what Muhammad taught the generality of faithful." [[9]. pp. 178] Now what we know for sure is that Surah al-Walaya and Surah an-Nurayn are forgeries by a small Shi'ite Group in India. This has been endorsed by the Shi'ites [2] as well as the orientalists [6]. Now we turn towards Jochen. Most of old timers on SRI know the history of Jochen's deceptive ways. He has deceived muslims and non-muslims who frequent this newsgroup on many occasions. And in the situation now he is trying to deceive us by using the surahs which were proven as forgeries in the beginning of this century. His past excursions in Hafs and Warsh 'texts', changing of the Qur'an by al-Hajjaj (I am not yet finished with it!!) , Dhul-Qarnain and Pseudo Callisthenes etc. were shown be the misquotes. And it did not take me much of the time to fizzle the thunder out of Newton and Jochen, alhamdulillah. The Qur'an says: "Truth stands clearly from falsehood" and we muslims should stand by it. Jochen's aim is to convert Muslims to Christianity. But look at the ways he is adopting. Indulging in forged documents, misquoting books!! And by these he is putting up the case against muslims. Alhamdulillah, as a muslim I am proud to say that I do not have to resort to deception and lies to spread Islam. I have met Jochen in London (UK) a week ago and we had a nice chat. He seems to be a nice and thoughtful person. But I do not go by the impressions. They can be quite deceptive too. REFERENCES: [1] I'tiqadatu'l Imamiyyah (The Beliefs of Imamiyyah): Abu Ja'far Muhammad ibn 'Ali ibn al-Husayn ibn Babwayh al Qummi. English translation: A Shi'ite Creed: 1982 (Revised) Asaf A A Fyzee, World Organization of Islamic Services, Tehran, Iran. [2] An Introduction to Shi'i Islam: The History and Doctrines of Twelver Shi'ism: 1985, Moojan Momen, George Ronald, Oxford ISBN 085398-201-5 [3] Chapitre inconnu du Coran, Garcin de Tassy, 1842, Journal Asiatique, Volume XIII, pp. 431-39. [4] Observations sur Chapitre inconnu du Coran, Mirza Kazembeg, 1843, Journal Asiatique, Volume XIV, pp. 371-429. [5] Shi'ah Additions To The Koran: 1913, W. St. Clair Tisdall, The Moslem World, Volume III. [6] The Shi'ite Qur'an: A Reconsideration of Goldziher's Interpretation: Joseph Eliash, 1969, Arabica Revue D'etudes Arabes, Volume XVI, E J Brill, Leiden. [7] Islam: Essays in the Nature and Growth of a Cultural Tradition, G E von Grunebaum, 1961, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., London. [8] Note For The Study Of A Shi'i Qur'an: B Todd Lawson, 1991, Journal of Semitic Studies, pp. 279-295. [9] Approaches to the History of the Interpretation of the Qur'an: Andrew Rippin (Ed.), 1988, Clarendon Press, Oxford. and Allah knows best.
Had Mr. Saifullah only reported the above research without his attacks on my personal integrity, I could have displayed the above without further comment. As it is, this needed some response which was posted to the newsgroup as well.
From: Jochen Katz <jkatz@math.gatech.edu> Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 15:35:14 -0400 (EDT) To: soc-religion-islam@telerama.lm.com, sri@ariel.vip.best.com Subject: Re: Surah Nurayn and Surah Walaya of Shiite Qur'an? In article <60jhe6$9pv@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, Metallica <msms2@cus.cam.ac.uk> writes: } It has been claimed by Jochen Katz in his website that some Shi'ite's } have two more chapters in their Qur'an called Surah an-Nurayn and Surah } al-Walaya. They can be viewed at: } } http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Miracle/nurain.html } } http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Miracle/wilaya.html It is always helpful to pay careful attention what is actually said and what not. Nowhere do I say that some Shi'ites have two more chapters in their Qur'an. I challenge you, Saifullah to bring evidence or to apologize for lying about me. I would like to be nicer to you, but since you have no problem of accusing me in public before thousands of readers, I am going to use some clear words here. You don't leave me much of a choice when finishing your article with: } Most of old timers on SRI know the history of Jochen's deceptive ways. He } has deceived muslims and non-muslims who frequent this newsgroup on many } occasions. Like when? Just now you try to accuse me of things that are not true. You are allowed to call me names, but I would be censored for calling you a liar. So, I won't. Actually, I don't think that you are deliberately deceiving people about me, but you have brought yourself somehow into a mode of being suspicious of everything that you now see things that are not even there. So, I ask that you either show me where on my pages I make the claim you have stated above, or apologize. And I ask you that you prove where I have been deliberately deceptive before. I thought our personal meeting could inspire a bit more of respect and would help not to assume bad motives in the other person, but you seem to be set in your ways. That is rather sad. } And in the situation now he is trying to deceive us by using } the surahs which were proven as forgeries in the beginning of this } century. What is your definition of deception? I have never seen the references that you quoted. "trying to deceive" means for me that I know something to be wrong but nevertheless try to convince you of it as true, i.e. want to make you believe something that is false. This is not and has never been my goal. Nearly everything I have learned about Islam and these issues I have learned during discussion with Muslims in real life and on the net and a very few books. Nearly none of them "scientific". Don't forget that I am studying at Georgia Tech, which is an Engineering school and we have hardly any books or magazines on religion in our library. None of the ones you quote are accessible to me. I thank you for the work you did and bringing this to my attention, but I have never heard of this before and to accuse me of trying to deceive you is purely malicious on your part. } The Qur'an says: "Truth stands clearly from falsehood" and } we muslims should stand by it. At least one thing we can agree on. If not much else. Yet, different things seem to be clear to different people. But I hope the area of agreement will increase. } Jochen's aim is to convert Muslims to Christianity. But look at the ways } he is adopting. Indulging in forged documents, misquoting books!! I do? When? Where? And you are misquoting me. You in this very posting claim things about me which are not true in order to slur my character. Why do you do that? } And by } these he is putting up the case against muslims. Alhamdulillah, as a } muslim I am proud to say that I do not have to resort to deception and } lies to spread Islam. Should I laugh? What is it that you are doing just now with this posting? } I have met Jochen in London (UK) a week ago and we } had a nice chat. He seems to be a nice and thoughtful person. But I do not } go by the impressions. They can be quite deceptive too. Sometimes it might be good to trust some personal impressions. But you don't even trust yourself anymore. So what can I do? Okay, let us take your claims step by step. Let me requote: } It has been claimed by Jochen Katz in his website that some Shi'ite's } have two more chapters in their Qur'an called Surah an-Nurayn and Surah } al-Walaya. I have already made clear that this is not true. But in order to prevent another misunderstanding that could be lurking behind your words as well: Even if that was claimed by some page on my site, that doesn't mean it is *I* who claim it. I have a lot of pages on my site that are not written by me and I do not necessarily agree with every detail of every page. For example, I have several debates documented on my site. Obviously I will not agree with much of the Muslim speaker in the debate, but for honesty's sake, both sides are displayed so that everybody can form his own opinion by having access to the arguments from both sides. In the same way, I do not necessarily agree with all that the Christian speaker in such a debate says. After all, it was him and not me who said it. But it is displayed as a service to the reader so that they can be informed about the arguments that are out there and form their own opinion. I have a lot of pages which are not written by me and I am not responsible for anything that I have not written myself. I would be grateful if you could bear that in mind. I am not making you responsible either for anything other Muslims are saying. Furthermore, I am no longer the owner of this site. Another team has taken over and is restructuring it [you might have seen a lot of the graphical changes over the recent weeks - nothing of it is done by me] and also adding new material. I found some new things there when I came back from Germany written by a person I had never heard of before. This article about Augustin and Ghazali was a pleasant surprise, but it was a surprise to me when I found it on "my" site. } Regarding the Surah al-Walaya, Jochen says: } } "Source: The Sura was taken from the book "ALThWRh AL'YARANYh FY MYzAN } AL'sLAM" (The Iranian revolution in the balance of Islam), published in } Egypt. This is a Sunni book attacking the Shia. The author claims he has } taken it from the Shia Qur'an. Only problem is that the Sunni author } didn't realize that he was digging his own grave with publishing this } sura." This paragraph is indeed from me [well, taking the info that my Egyptian friend gave me]. But note: It is THIS MUSLIM author, who claims that this sura is in some Shia Qur'ans. I make it very clear that this is a claim and not a fact [since I have not been able to verify it myself]. What exactly is wrong about it? All I said is exactly true. This Sunni author does claim it. Do you contest this? Let me be even clearer. I have several sections about the Qur'an on my site. Two of them are: 1. The Text of the Qur'an - http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Text/ 2. The Miracle of the Qur'an - http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Miracle/ The first is on what we know about the textual history of the Qur'an, its authenticity, its development, its preservation or corruption etc. The second is on the challenge of the Qur'an "to bring a sura like it". Both the above mentioned suras, Nurain and Wilaya, are in the latter section. I don't care if they were at some time in the Qur'an or not. I only care that those are suras which have been presented "by some people" and they do have some similarity with the Qur'an [as I am told]. That is why I put them there so that anyone who is interested can judge for himself if they do indeed meet the challenge of the Qur'an. The whole point in this section on the Miracle is, that these texts are NOT in the Qur'an, otherwise they wouldn't really be fit as a challenge. [Surat al-Jinn is a special case, the argument there is different]. Only texts from outside the Qur'an can challenge the Qur'an. So, even before we really start to look at your arguments about these two suras, we have already to recognize that your whole premise is wrong. * I never said what you claimed I said. * You didn't understand why these suras were listed on the Miracles page. Conclusion: Your case is finished before you even began. By the way, now that you directed my attention to the miracles of the Qur'an page again, I realize that I wanted to install a link to this new site with modern suras at AOL. I nearly had forgotten about adding this. } My methodology for this problem is very simple. Go back to the Shi'a } sources Which are "the" Shia sources? Obvsiously, you will bring some which agree with you and maybe(?) ignore others. This is my only quibble. Otherwise, going to the sources is very commendable and exactly what we have to do. } and check what they say and then check out what the orientalists } say about the two surahs which are quoted above. That is good and I am grateful for those quotations you provided us with. Without even having been asked, I will display your posting [and my answer] on my web site in the "Text of the Qur'an" section [which is where they belong], so that people can form their own opinion about all this. Even though you somehow missed the topic of discussion, since the issue is the eloquence of these texts and not the question whether they have been part of the Qur'an, the citations you bring are still very interesting and helpful for textual integrity discussion. So, I am genuinely grateful for the work you have done. If only you hadn't tainted it with your personal attacks on my integrity and hadn't put words into my mouth, it would have been positive through and through. } THE SHI'ITE SOURCES: ... } "And he who asserts that we say it is greater in extent than this (the } present text) is a liar" [[1], pp. 77] } } This would have been a proof good enough to stop here and dismiss what } Jochen is claiming about the "Qur'an" which Shi'ites have. But let us go } further and expose the deceptive methodology. Again your are running an ad hominem. WHERE have I claimed that Shias have another Qur'an? WHERE, could you please tell me that? If not then be so honest and apologize for this constant slander and the smear campaign you are building up here. } In another Shi'ite book talking about the two Surahs mentions above, it } says: } } "A small minority of Shi'is have attempted to get much larger passages } (and even the whole suras) accepted as being missing portions of the } Qur'an but without success." [[2], pp. 173] Ah, seemingly there ARE Shia who do rally for these to be authentic? This is actually evidence that I didn't have before. It is NOT some Western missionary who tried to fake this, but those are actual Shia Muslims who are of this conviction? YOU are the one who has now brought something much stronger than I ever claimed. YOU now have brought evidence that some Shia indeed think this is authentic, while I so far only knew for sure that some Sunni were claiming it about the Shia [which is an enemy statement and to be taken with caution obviously]. ... } Now we have said enough about the Shi'ite sources. Let me now discuss the } view of the orientalists. Okay, I can't say anything else at this time, since (as already noted) I don't have access to these and other books on these topics. So, for now, I will tentatively accept your quotations. I hope you don't mind. } SURAH AL-WALAYA AND AN-NURAYN: ORIENTALISTS' VIEW: } } The Surah an-Nurain was published in Dabistan-i Madhahib. In 1842 and } 1843 it was review in the references [3] and [4]. } } The passages of Sura al-Walayah and Sura an-Nurain were discovered in a } manuscript of Qur'an in Bankipore, India, in June 1912. This doesn't make sense. If there are already discussions/review publications about them in the early 1840ies, how can they be "discovered" in 1912? Were they discussed 70 years earlier and then quickly and completely forgotten? I hope you realize that you are a bit incoherent in your argument here. } The translation of } the Sura was published by St. Clare Tisdall in the journal "The Moslem } World" in 1913. The manuscript is said to be some 200-300 years old, at } least. So, we are at manuscript evidence for these suras at around AD 1660. Given your earlier rallying for oral transmission, this doesn't mean they were created 1660, they could just as well go back a long long time ... Just as you say that if our oldest Qur'an manuscript is from AD 790 that doesn't mean the Qur'an didn't exist in Muhammad's time, correct? [this just had to be said for teasing sake.] I have read all your quotations with great interest and will certainly make this available for people to see. It is very valuable to know. } Now what we know for sure is that Surah al-Walaya and Surah an-Nurayn are } forgeries by a small Shi'ite Group in India. This has been endorsed by the } Shi'ites [2] as well as the orientalists [6]. Be careful with your words. Now we know for sure that some Shia and some orientalists have given this judgement about these two suras. Do you want to base your whole conviction on them alone? How sure can you be about anything in life? :-) Hm, I am starting to talk like Mr. Lomax. Now that I have expressed my gratitude and appreciation for your research, let me finish by requoting the end of your posting, so that we can end this session with the clear impression of your motivation which seemingly is to discuss me and my motivations and to attack my person. } Now we turn towards Jochen. } } Most of old timers on SRI know the history of Jochen's deceptive ways. He } has deceived muslims and non-muslims who frequent this newsgroup on many } occasions. And in the situation now he is trying to deceive us by using } the surahs which were proven as forgeries in the beginning of this } century. His past excursions in Hafs and Warsh 'texts', changing of the } Qur'an by al-Hajjaj (I am not yet finished with it!!) , Dhul-Qarnain and } Pseudo Callisthenes etc. were shown be the misquotes. And it did not take } me much of the time to fizzle the thunder out of Newton and Jochen, } alhamdulillah. The Qur'an says: "Truth stands clearly from falsehood" and } we muslims should stand by it. } } Jochen's aim is to convert Muslims to Christianity. But look at the ways } he is adopting. Indulging in forged documents, misquoting books!! And by } these he is putting up the case against muslims. Alhamdulillah, as a } muslim I am proud to say that I do not have to resort to deception and } lies to spread Islam. I have met Jochen in London (UK) a week ago and we } had a nice chat. He seems to be a nice and thoughtful person. But I do not } go by the impressions. They can be quite deceptive too. ... references snipped ... } and Allah knows best. Which does not deter Saifullah to think himself in the position to judge my heart. May God show you mercy on the day of judgment. I know I need his mercy and grace. I do make grave mistakes even when the motivation has been right. Meaning well is not the same as doing well. I am well aware of this. If I realize to have made mistakes, I am most willing to mend them and apologize. But the one thing I hope is clear to most [even though not to you] is that I am sincere and have no intention to deceive anyone. I seek honesty and uprightness and that is the reason that my web site is interactive and both sides is given the opportunity to present their arguments. How many Muslim sites do you know which do this? How many Muslim countries allow let alone encourage the open discussion and inquiry into religion that is possible in the West? Thanks God for the internet. There are a lot of lies on the internet as well, but it also helps the truth go where it might not have been able to go before. And more people can now see also the other side which was withheld from them for a long time. May the truth become manifest. Jochen Katz
Should Saifullah ever apologize on the newsgroup, this will be posted here as well. If you don't find an apology, then he didn't think it to be necessary.
The Text of Qur'an
Answering Islam Home Page