Talk:Mushaf of Ali

To be added to the article after para-phrasing
'''Hossein Modarressi, “Early Debates on the Integrity of the Qur'ān: A Brief Survey”. Studia Islamica (Maisonneuve & Larose), no. 77 (1993), pp. 28-30:'''

"The Imams and the Shiite scholars of the 2nd/8th century rejected the opinion that suggested the alteration of the text of the Qur'an. This point is clearly demonstrated by the fact that in the long list of their complaints against the first three caliphs there is no accusation of tampering with the text of the Qur'an. The complaint was rather that the caliphs and their followers 'preserved the text of the Scripture but distorted its message'. There was a clear attempt on the part of the Imams to defuse problems which could arise by the above-cited Sunnite reports. In some cases, for instance, they interpreted the narratives in a way that protected the integrity of the Uthmanic text. A quotation from Ali, for instance suggests that one-quarter of the Quran spoke of the House of the Prophet and another quarter of their foes. Neither of these two fractions applies to the Uthmanic text which could give rise to the suspicion that parts of Qur'an might have been omitted from that text for political reasons. A tradition form the Imams however, seeks to interpret Ali's statement differently. It suggests that any verse on virtues in the Quran refers to the House of the Prophet while verses on evil refer to their foes. Other traditions from the Imams reject the claim of earlier Sunnite reports that the names of Ali or the House of the Prophet originally appeared in various verses. These traditions suggest that Ali or the House of the Prophet were rather the occasion of revelation(sabab al-nuzul) of those verses. The Imams rejected the reading of IBn Mas'ud which in some places departed significantly from the official text. Countless statements from the Imams leave no doubt about their belief in the authenticity of the text of the Qur'an as preserved in the Uthmanic codex. They instructed their followers to follow the Qur'an as the indisputable word of God and the highest authority of religion and the touchstone for testing the truthfulness of traditions. Falsehood cannot come to it, they said, since it is the strong rope of God which was not made for any specific period of time, rather as a permanent proof and manual of truth for the whole mankind. The only point where the Imams disagreed with the Uthmanic codex was on the way that suras 93, 94, 105 and 106 were arranged in that text. The Imams, and following them the Shiite scholars up to the present maintained and always openly declared that suras 105, and 106 are a single sura as it appeared in the codex of Ubayy. Likewise they regarded the two suras 93 and 94 as two parts of a signle sura, a position also supported by such early Muslim authorities as Umar b. Abd al-Aziz and the tabi'i Tawus b. Kaysan." --Kazemita1 (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Copy-editing the article and minor corrections
I've implemented the following in the article + minor corrections:
 * "the historical existence of this codex is not certain" does not exist in the source.
 * "While some groups of Shias believed in differences..." might be omitted in view of the detailed discussion afterward.
 * "Ali Quran" in the lede doesn't exist in the source and I can't find it anywhere else too. Albertatiran (talk) 19:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)