Muhammad Agha Bozorg At-Tahrani writes:

٩١٢ – الفصل الخطاب في تحريف الكتاب لشيخنا الحاج ميرزا حسين النوري الطبرستاني ابن المولى محمد تقي بن الميرزا على محمد النوري المولود في يالو من قرى نور طبرستان في ١٢٥٤ المتوفى في العشرين بعد الألف والثلاثماية، ليلة الأربعاء لثلاث بقين من جمادى الأخرى، ودفن في يومه بالايوان الثالث عن يمين الداخل من باب القبلة إلى الصحن المرتضوي أثبت فيه عدم التحريف بالزيادة والتغيير والتبديل وغيرها مما تحقق ووقع في غير القرآن ولو بكلمة واحدة، لا نعلم مكانها

“912 – Fasl-ul-Khitab Fi Tahrifi l-Kitab (The final decision concerning the falsification of the scripture) by our teacher Hajj Mirza Husain An-Nuri, At-Tabaristani, son of Mawla Muhammad Taqi, son of Mirza Ali Muhammad An-Nuri, born in Yalu, from the settlements of Nur Tabaristan, in 1254, died in 1320 on a night of Wednesday, three remaining (days) from the second Jumada and he was buried the same day in the third Iwan on the right of the interior from the door to the Qiblah to the sahn Murtadawi. He confirmed that there was no falsification by addition, distortion, substitution and other things of what he checked and what appeared in other (scriptures) than the Qur’an, not by a word, of which we do not know the place.

واختار في خصوص ما عدى آيات الاحكام وقوع تنقيص عن الجامعين، بحيث لا نعلم عين المنقوص المذخور عند أهله، بل يعلم اجمالا من الاخبار التي ذكرها في الكتاب مفصلا ثبوت النقص فقط

And he concluded that specifically, with the exception of the verses about regulations (Ahkam), there has been an incompleteness by the collectors [of the Qur’an], so we do not know exactly what is missing and guarded with its people (Imams), but we only know roughly from the traditions that he mentioned in detail in the book, that only the incompleteness has been proven.

ورد عليه الشيخ محمود الطهراني الشهير بالمعرب، برسالة سماها كشف الارتياب عن تحريف الكتاب فلما بلغ ذلك الشيخ النوري كتب رسالة فارسية مفردة في الجواب عن شبهات كشف الارتياب كما مر في ٢٢٠:١٠ وكان ذلك بعد طبع فصل الخطاب ونشره

And the scholar Mahmud At-Tahrani, who is known as Al-Mu’arrab, replied to him in a epistle which he called as Kashf-ul-Irtiyab An Tahrifi l-Kitab. Now when the scholar An-Nuri came to know about this, he composed a single Persian epistle in response to the objections of Kashf-ul-Irtiyab, as mentioned earlier in 10:220 and this happened after Fasl-ul-Khitab was printed and published.

فكان شيخنا يقول: لا ارضى عمن يطالع فصل الخطاب ويترك النظر إلى تلك الرسالة. ذكر في أول الرسالة الجوابية ما معناه: ان الاعتراض مبنى على المغالطة في لفظ التحريف، فإنه ليس مرادي من التحريف التغيير والبديل، بل خصوص الاسقاط لبعض المنزل المحفوظ عند أهله وليس مرادي من الكتاب القرآن الموجود بين الدفتين، فإنه باق على الحالة التي وضع بين الدفتين في عصر عثمان، لم يلحقه زيادة ولا نقصان، بل المراد الكتاب الإلهي المنزل

Our teacher used to say: ﴾I am displeased with him, who reads Fasl-ul-Khitab and refrains, from looking at that epistle.﴿ He mentioned at the beginning of the epistle as follows: ﴾The objection is based on a misconception that has been drawn from the term falsification, for I do not mean by the falsification (of the Scripture) the distortion and the replacement, but specifically the removal of a part of the revelation that is guarded with its people (Imams), and I do not mean by the Scripture the Qur’an, which is between the two covers of the book, for it has remained in the state in which it was written down between the two covers of the book in the time of Uthman, since nothing has been added to it nor has anything been removed from it, but I mean the Scripture which God has revealed.﴿

وسمعت عنه شفاها يقول: انى أثبت في هذا الكتاب ان هذا الموجود المجموع بين الدفتين كذلك باق على ما كان عليه في أول جمعه كذلك في عصر عثمان، ولم يطرء عليه تغيير وتبديل كما وقع على سائر الكتب السماوية، فكان حريا بان يسمى فصل الخطاب في عدم تحريف الكتاب فتسميته بهذا الاسم الذي يحمله الناس على خلاف مرادي خطأ في التسمية، لكني لم أرد ما يحملوه عليه، بل مرادي اسقاط بعض الوحي المنزل الإلهي، وان شئت قلت اسمه القول الفاصل في اسقاط بعض الوحي النازل

And I heard him say verbally: ﴾I prove in this book that this (scripture) present and collected between the two covers of the book has remained exactly as it was at the beginning of its collection, exactly as it was at the time of Uthman and it has neither been distorted nor replaced as it happened with the other heavenly scriptures. So it should rather be called Fasl-ul-Khitab Fi Adam Tahrifi l-Kitab. His naming by this name, which the people misinterpret in such a way that it contradicts what I am talking about, is an error in its naming, because I did not mean what they misinterpret, but I mean that some of the revelation that God has revealed has been removed and if you like, then say that its name is as follows: Al-Qawl-ul-Fasil Fi Isqat Ba’di l-Wahyi n-Nazil (The final word for the removal of some of the revealed revelation.﴿” [Adh-Dhari’ah, Vol. 16, page 231 – 232]

Comment:

By falsification At-Tabarsi did not mean that the Qur’an is wrong but that it is incomplete and the complete copy is kept with the Imam (a.).