Ikkinchidan: tasdiqlanadiki, oyat yoki oyatlar Unga nozil bo‘lganda, U (SAW) vahiy yozuvchilarini chaqirib, ularni yozdirar edi va ularni bir qancha musulmonlarga o‘qib berar edi, shunda ularning gaplarini isbotlovchi qat’iy dalil bo‘lardi. U Oldiga kelgan yoki U bilan birga namozda qatnashgan musulmonlarga ham o‘qib berar edi. Demak, Qur’oni karimni o‘qishning amaliy tomoni shundaki, u bitta kishiga emas, balki ko‘plab musulmonlarga o‘qib berilgan, shuning uchun uni eshitganlar tavotur darajasiga yetganlar. Shunday qilib, uning o‘qib berilishining haqiqati shundan iboratki, u qat’iy dalil bilan tasdiqlanadigan kishilarga o‘qib berilgan.
Uchinchidan: masala butun Qur’onni yod olish haqida emas, balki alohida oyatlarni naql qilish haqidadir. Agar Payg‘ambar (SAW) davrida butun Qur’onni yod olganlar tavotur darajasiga yetmagan deb faraz qilsak ham, bu alohida oyatlarni naql qilish tavotur bilan bo‘lmagan degani emas. Shunday ekan, butun Qur’onni yod olganlarning Payg‘ambar (SAW) davrida tavotur darajasiga yetmagani uning alohida oyatlarini yod olganlarning ham shunday bo‘lishini talab qilmaydi. Chunki har bir oyatni yod olganlar tavotur miqdoriga yetgan, bundan tashqari ular yozuv bilan qayd etilgan, va uning har bir oyati Payg‘ambar (SAW)dan mutavotir naql bilan yetib kelgan. Shunga ko‘ra, “Payg‘ambar (SAW) davrida Qur’onni yod olganlar tavotur miqdoriga yetmagan”, deyish to‘g‘ri emas.
To‘rtinchidan: Qur’onni jamlash uni Rasuldan (SAW) naql qilishdan boshqa narsadir, chunki naql qilish Rasuldan (SAW) og‘zaki eshitishdir va bu muhokama qilinayotgan masaladir. Qur’on oyatlarini bitta mushafda (kitobda) jamlashga kelsak, tadqiq qilinayotgan narsa ularning Qur’on ekanligini isbotlash emas, balki ularni boshqa oyatlarga nisbatan oldinga yoki orqaga surish, shuningdek, ularning uzunligi va qisqaligi haqida edi. Bundan tashqari, Qur'onni jamlash — yod olganlar yodlagan narsani yozib olish emas, balki Payg'ambar (SAV) huzurida yozilgan sahifalarni yig'ib, Rasululloh (SAV) buyurganidek, har bir sura ichida ketma-ket joylashtirish va ularni Qur'on hofizlarida bor narsa bilan solishtirib, bir joyga to'plashdir. Shunday ekan, jamlash masalasi naql (rivoyat qilish) masalasidan boshqadir, muhokama esa naql haqida bormoqda, shuning uchun bu yerda Qur'onni jamlash masalasini zikr qilmaslik kerak.
Mushaflar o'rtasidagi farqqa kelsak: ulardagi nima bo'lsa-yu, u ohod (yakka rivoyat bilan naql qilingan) bo'lsa, u Qur'on emas va dalil ham emas; mutavotir bo'lgan narsa esa Undandir va dalildir. Demak, masala mushafga emas, balki mushafdagi oyatlarga taalluqlidir. Agar oyat Payg'ambar (SAV) dan mutavotir naql bilan, ya'ni tavotur darajasiga yetgan bir jamoa tomonidan olingan bo'lsa, ya'ni ularning gapi qat'iy dalil bo'lsa, u Qur'ondan hisoblanadi va dalildir. Bunday bo'lmagan narsa Qur'ondan hisoblanmaydi.
Shunga ko'ra, Usmon mushafining hammasi Qur'ondir, chunki undagi barcha oyatlar mutavotir naql qilingan. Ularni naql qilganlarning gapi qat'iy dalil bo'lib sanaladi. Ibn Mas'ud mushafiga kelsak: undagi tavotur bilan naql qilingan oyatlar Qur'on hisoblanadi, yakka naql bilan kelgan oyatlar esa, masalan, "uch kun ketma-ket ro'za tutish" (degan) oyat kabi, Qur'on hisoblanmaydi va dalil ham emas.
Shu sababli, hofizlarga va sahobalarning mushaflariga qarshi qo'yilgan e'tiroz rad etiladi va tasdiqlanadiki, mutavotir naql qilingan narsa Qur'ondir, yakka naql bilan naql qilingan narsa esa Qur'ondan emas. Shuni e'tiborga olish kerakki, Qur'on Payg'ambar (SAW)dan to'g'ridan-to'g'ri ko'rish yo'li bilan, Uning nozil bo'lish vaqtida kelgan vahiydan naql qilingan va yozuv bilan hamda yodlash orqali qayd etilgan. Shuning uchun sahobalar (RA) Qur'onni Payg'ambardan rivoyat qilinadigan naql sifatida emas, balki nozil bo'lgan o'sha-o'sha narsani, ya'ni Payg'ambar (SAW) yozishni buyurgan narsani naql qilganlar. Hadisdan farqli o'laroq, u Payg'ambar (SAW) nomidan rivoyat qilingan, lekin U so'zlagan paytda yozilmagan va rivoyat qilinayotganda ham yozilmagan; u Tobe'iy at-tobe'iyn davrida yozilgan va qayd etilgan. Qur'on vahiy bilan birga nozil bo'lgan paytda yozilgan va qayd etilgan, sahobalar esa vahiy bilan nozil bo'lgan o'sha-o'sha narsani naql qilganlar. Shu sababli: sahobalar Qur'onni bizga naql sifatida yetkazganlar, deyiladi.
Secondly: it is affirmed that when the verse or verses were descended onto Him (SAW), He used to call the revelation writers to write them, and used to recite them onto a number of Muslims a decisive proof would establish for their saying, and He used to recite them onto the Muslims who used to come to Him or attend the prayers with Him, so the practicality of the recital of the Qur’aan is that It was not recited onto one, but onto a mass of Muslims, so those who used to hear It reached the extent of the tawaator, and thus, the reality of Its recital is that It used to be recited onto those which the decisive proof would establish for their saying. Thirdly: the issue is not about memorizing the whole Qur’aan, but about the transmission of the individual verses, so if we suppose that the memorizers of the whole Qur’aan did not reach the extent of the tawaator; it does not mean that the transmission of the individual verses was not by the extent of the tawaator, so the non reaching of the memorizers of the whole Qur’aan at the time of the Prophet (SAW) the extent of the tawaator does not necessitate that the memorizers of Its individual verses are like that, so the memorizers of every verse reached the number of the tawaator, in addition to registering them by writing, and everyone of Its verses was transmitted from the Prophet (SAW) by mutawaatir transmission. Accordingly, it is not valid to say that: the memorizers of the Qur’aan at the time of the Prophet (SAW) did not reach the number of the tawaator. Fourthly: gathering the Qur’aan is different to transmitting It from the Messenger (SAW), because the transmission is the hearing from the Messenger (SAW) verbally, and this is the issue under discussion. As for gathering the verses of the Qur’aan in one mushaf (book); the research was not to prove that they are Qur’aan, but for forwarding or back warding them with regard to the other verses and the research was about their length and shortness. Moreover the gathering of the Qur’aan was not writing what the memorizers memorized, but gathering the pages that were written in the presence of the Messenger (SAW) and placing them after each other in every Surah as the Messenger of Allah (SAW) commanded, and comparing them to what the Qur’aan memorizers had, and placing them in one place. So the issue of the gathering is different to the issue of the transmission and the discussion is about the transmission, and therefore, the issue of gathering the Qur’aan should not be mentioned here. As for the difference between the masaahif (books); whatever in them is of the (aahaad) individually transmitted, that is not of the Qur’aan, and it is not a proof, and whatever is mutawaatir it is from It and it is a proof. So the issue is not related to the mushaf, but it is related to the verses contained in the mushaf, so if the verse is transmitted from the Messenger (SAW) as mutawaatir transmission, i.e. received from Him by a number who reached the extent of the tawaator (frequent transmission), i.e. the decisive proof would establish for their saying, then it is considered to be from the Qur’aan and it is a proof, and what is not like that, it is not considered to be of the Qur’aan, therefore, all the mushaf of Othman is Qur’aan, because all the verses contained in It are mutawaatir transmitted. Those whom the decisive proof is established for their saying transmitted them, whereas the mushaf of Ibn Mas’oud; whatever it contains of verses transmitted by tawaator are considered to be of the Qur’aan, and whatever it contains of verses transmitted individually, like the verse: sequent three fasting so days) is not considered to be of the Qur’aan and is not a proof. Accordingly the objection standing on the Qur’aan memorizers and on the masaahif of the Sahabah is rejected, and affirmed is that the mutawaatir transmitted is the Qur’aan, and what was individually transmitted is not of the Qur’aan. And what we should draw the attention to, is that the Qur’aan was transmitted by sighting from the Messenger (SAW), from the revelation at the time of His descent with it and was registered by writing and by memorizing it. So the Sahabah (RAA) did not narrate the Qur’aan as a narration from the Messenger but transmitted It, i.e. they transmitted the selfsame that was descended, and what the Messenger (SAW) commanded to write, unlike the hadeeth; it was narrated on behalf of the Messenger (SAW) and not written when He said it, nor was it written during its narration but it was written and registered at the time of Taabi’i al- Taabi’een. The Qur’aan got written and registered at the descent of the Wahi with it, and the Sahabah transmitted the selfsame that was descent by the Wahi, and therefore it is said that: the Sahabah transmitted the Qur’aan to us as a transmission.