Rebuttal to Answering Islam

Category: Collection of Quran

Response to “The Compilation of Quran”

As usual,most of the points are taken from unauthentic sources.

Critic:

The number of memorizers that died was 450:

“During the battle of Yamama, 450 reciters of the Qur’an were killed.” (The True Guidance –An Introduction To Qur’anic Studies, published by Light of Life, P.O. BOX 13, A-9503 Villach, Austria, part 4, p. 47– citing Ibn Kathir’s Al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya, chapter on Battle of Yamama)

Response:

Unauthentic source.

Critic:

According to another source, when these men died they took with them portions of the Qur’an that they alone had memorized:

Zuhri reports, ‘We have heard that many Qur’an passages were revealed but that those who had memorised them fell in the Yemama fighting. Those passages had not been written down, and following the deaths of those who knew them, were no longer known; nor had Abu Bakr, nor `Umar nor `Uthman as yet collected the texts of the Qur’an. (Burton: The published text ought here to be amended: for “fa lamma jama`a Abu Bakr”, I propose to read: “wa lamma yajma` Abu Bakr”, to follow: “lam yuktab”.) Those lost passages were not to be found with anyone after the deaths of those who had memorised them. This, I understand, was one of the considerations which impelled them to pursue the Qur’an during the reign of Abu Bakr, committing it to sheets for fear that there should perish in further theatres of war men who bore much of the Qur’an which they would take to the grave with them on their fall, and which, with their passing, would not be found with any other. (John Burton, The Collection of the Qur’an, pp. 126-127, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da’ud, Kitab al-Masahif’, ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 23; bold emphasis ours)

From these sources we realize that:

1. No text had been compiled during Muhammad’s time.

Response:

Collection is evident from authentic sources.

Narrated Qatada:

Anas said, “The Qur’an was collected in the lifetime of the Prophet (ﷺ) by four (men), all of whom were from the Ansar: Ubai, Mu`adh bin Jabal, Abu Zaid and Zaid bin Thabit.” I asked Anas, “Who is Abu Zaid?” He said, “One of my uncles.”(Bukhari 3810)

Critic:

[Zaid b. Thabit said:] “The Prophet died and the Qur’an had not been assembled into a single place.” (Ahmad b. Ali b. Muhammad al ’Asqalani, ibn Hajar, Fath al Bari [13 vol., Cairo 1939], vol. 9, p. 9; italic emphasis ours)

It is reported… from Ali who said: “May the mercy of Allah be upon Abu Bakr, the foremost of men to be rewarded with the collection of the manuscripts, for he was THE FIRST to collect (the text) between (two) covers”. (John Gilchrist, Jam’ Al-Qur’an – The Codification of the Qur’an Text A Comprehensive Study of the Original Collection of the Qur’an Text and the Early Surviving Qur’an Manuscripts, [MERCSA, P.O. Box 342 Mondeor, 2110 Republic of South Africa, 1989], Chapter 1. The Initial Collection of the Qur’an Text, p. 27 – citing Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p. 5; bold emphasis ours)

However, there are other narrations which contradict this since they claim that Abu Bakr wasn’t the first to collect the Qur’an

Response:

All are unauthentic sources.

Critic:

It is reported… from Ibn Buraidah who said: “The first of those to collect the Qur’an into a mushaf (codex) was Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifah”. (Ibid., citing as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur’an, p. 135; bold emphasis ours)

Response:

Unauthentic source.

Critic:

Hudaifa said, ‘The Kufans say, “the text of `Abdullah”; the Basrans say, “the text of Abu Musa”. By God! if I reach the Commander of the faithful, I WILL RECOMMEND THAT HE DROWN THESE READINGS.” (var. Masahif) `Abdullah said, ‘Do and God will drown you, but not in water!’ (Burton, pp. 146-147- citing Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da’ud, “K. al Masahif”, ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 13; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Hudhaifa figures in a second Hadith series which reports textual differences, not only between the Muslims in Iraq and Syria, but also between rival groups of Iraqi Muslims.

Response:

Unauthentic source.

Critic:

We were sitting in the mosque and `Abdullah was reciting the Qur’an when Hudaifa came in and said, ‘The reading of ibn Umm `Abd! [ie. `Abdullah] The reading of Abu Musa! By God! if I am spared to reach the Commander of the Faithful, I will recommend THAT HE IMPOSE A SINGLE QUR’AN READING!’

‘Abdullah became very angry and spoke sharply to Hudaifa who fell silent. (Burton, p. 142, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da’ud, “K. al Masahif”, ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 13; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Response:

Unauthentic source.

Critic:

‘Yazid b. Ma`awiya was in the mosque in the time of al Walid b. `Uqba, sitting in a group among them was Hudaifa. An official called out, ‘Those who follow the reading of Abu Musa, go to the corner nearest the Kinda door. Those who follow `Abdullah’s reading, go the corner nearest `Abdullah’s house.’ Their reading of Q 2.196 did not agree. One group read, ‘Perform the pilgrimage TO GOD’ The others read it ‘Perform the pilgrimage TO THE KA’BAH.’ Hudaifa became very angry, his eyes reddened and he rose, parting his qamis at the waits, although in the mosque. This was during the reign of `Uthman. Hudaifa exclaimed, ‘Will someone go the Command of the Faithful, or shall I go myself? This is what happened in the previous dispensations.’ He came over and sat down, saying, ‘God sent Muhammad who, with those who went forward, fought those who went back until God gave victory to His religion. God took Muhammad and Islam made strides. To succeed him, God chose Abu Bakr who reigned as long as God chose. God then took him and Islam made rapid strides. God appointed `Umar who sat in the midst of Islam. God then took him also. Islam spread rapidly. God next chose `Uthman. God’s oath! Islam is on the point of such expansion that soon you will replace all other religions.’ (Burton, p. 143, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da’ud, “K. al Masahif”, ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 11; bold and capital emphasis ours)

It becomes obvious from these traditions that, contrary to popular Islamic teaching, contradictions and variant readings existed between the different codices. It is interesting to note that these variances gave rise to charges of corruption and textual perversion amongst the Muslim Umma, causing Uthman to burn texts written by eye and ear witnesses of Muhammad.

Response:

Unauthentic source.

Critic:

Other traditions confirm Ibn Masud’s surpassing knowledge of the Quran and that Muhammad had even personally taught him the recitation as he had received it from Gabriel for the final time:

Hashim Ibn al-Qasim informed us; (he said): al-Mas’udi informed us on the authority of Qasim, i.e., ‘Abd al-Rahman; he said: Gabriel used to descend before the Apostle of Allah and he recited the Qur’an before him once every year [P. 4] in Ramadan, till the year when the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, died; when Gabriel made him recite the Qur’an twice. ‘Abd Allah said: I recited the Qur’an as I have it from the mouth of the Apostle of Allah that year. If I had known any one more well versed… in the Book of Allah than me and camels had borne me to him, surely I would have gone to him; but by Allah! I DO NOT KNOW ANY SUCH PERSON. (Ibn Sa’d’s Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, English translation by S. Moinul Haq, M.A., PH.D assisted by H.K. Ghazanfar M.A. [Kitab Bhavan Exporters & Importers, 1784 Kalan Mahal, Daryaganj, New Delhi- 110 002 India], Volume 2, p. 244; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Response:

Unauthentic source.

Critic:

Yahya Ibn Khulayf Ibn ‘Uqbah al-Basri informed us; (second chain) ‘Abd al-Wahhab Ibn ‘Ata informed us; he said: Ibn ‘Awn informed us on the authority of Muhammad ibn Sirin; he said: Gabriel used to recite the Qur’an before our Prophet, may Allah bless him, once every year in Ramadan. In the year in which he breathed his last he recited it twice before him. Muhammad said: I hope our style of reading … conforms to the last recitation by Gabriel. (Ibid., p. 243; bold emphasis ours)

Response:

Unauthentic source.

Critic:

Abu Mu’awiyah al-Darir informed us; (he said): al-A’mash informed us on the authority of Abu Zabyan, he on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas, he asked: Which of the two readings (of the Qur’an) do you prefer? He (Abu Zabyan) said: We replied: The reading of ‘Abd Allah. Thereupon he said: Verily the Qur’an was recited (by Gabriel) before the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, once in every Ramadan, except the year in which he breathed his last, when it was recited twice. Then ‘Abd Allah Ibn Mas’ud came to him (Prophet) and he learnt what was abrogated or altered.

Yahya Ibn ‘isaal-Ramli informed us on authority of Sufyan, he on the authority of al-A’mash, he on the authority of Abu al-Duha, he on the authority of Masruq; he said: ‘Abd Allah said: No surah was revealed but I know about what it was revealed. If I had known any one knowing more of the Book of Allah than me, and if the camels or other riding beasts had carried me there, I must have gone to him …

Wahb Ibn Jarir Ibn Hazm informed us: (he said): Shu’bah informed us on the authority of Ibrahim Ibn Muhajir, he on the authority of Ibrahim, he on the authority of ‘Abd Allah; (second chain) Abu Nua’ym al-Fadl Ibn Dukayn informed us; (he said): Abu al-Ahwas informed us on the authority of Sa’id Ibn Masruq, he on the authority of Abu al-Duha, he on the authority of ‘Abd Allah; he said: The Apostle of Allah said to me: Recite (the Qur’an) before me. Thereupon I said: How can I repeat before you and it has been revealed on you. He said: I like it. Wahb said in his version: I desire to hear it from others. He (‘Abd Allah) said: I recited the surah of al-Nisa before him, till I reached the verse: But how (will it be with them) when We bring of every people and We bring thee (O Muhammad) a witness against them. Abu Nua’ym said in his version: Thereupon he said: It is enough. Both of them said: Then I saw him that the eyes of the Prophet were filled tears,and he said: Whoever seeks pleasure in reciting the Qur’anaccording to its fresh reading he should recite after the reading of Ibn Umm ‘Abd. (Ibid., pp. 441-442; bold emphasis ours)

Response:

Unauthentic source.

Critic:

Waki ‘Ibn al-al-Jarrah informed us on the authority of Isma’il Ibn Khalid, he on the authority of Abu ‘Amr al-Shaybani; he said: Abu Musa al-Ash’ari said: Do not put questions to me as long as this learned man, that is Ibn Mas’ud, is among you. (Ibid., p. 443; bold emphasis ours)

Response:

Unauthentic source.

Critic:

Ma’an Ibn ‘Isa informed us; (he said): Mu’awiyah Ibn Salih informed us on the authority of Asad Ibn Wada’ah: Verily ‘Umar mentioned Ibn Mas’ud and said: (He is) a box full of knowledge for which I honoured the people of al-Qadisiyah. (Ibid., p. 444; bold emphasis ours)

Response:

Unauthentic source.

Critic:

When informed that Zaid’s text was to receive official status, Ibn Masud reacted indifferently:

Abdullah Ibn Masud said, “I recited from the Messenger of Allah (saw) seventy surahs which I had perfected before Zaid Ibn Thabit had embraced Islam.” (Gilchrist, Chapter 3. The Codices of Ibn Mas’ud and Ubayy Ibn Ka’b, p. 66 – citing Ibn Abi Dawud’s Kitab al-Masahif, p. 17)

Response:

Unauthentic source.

Critic:

“I acquired directly from the Messenger of Allah (saw) seventy surahs when Zaid was still a childish youth – must I now forsake what I acquired directly from the Messenger of Allah?” (Ibid., p. 15)

Response:

Unauthentic source.

Critic:

Ibn Masud during a religious sermon (khutba) declared:

“’Affan Ibn Muslim informed us; (he said): ‘Abd al-Wahid Ibn Ziyad informed us; (he said): Sulayman al-A’mash informed us on the authority of Shaqiq Ibn Salamah; he said: ‘Abd Allah Ibn Mas’ud delivered a sermon to us when the order concerning uniform reading of the Qur’an was issued, as it was indeed. He (Shaqiq) said: He mentioned ABOUT DECEIT and said: Who so deceived, will bring his deceit on the Day of Resurrection. The people have been guilty OF DECEIT IN THE READING OF THE Qur’an. I like it to read according to the recitation of him (Prophet) whom I love more than that of Zayd Ibn Thabit. By Him besides whom there is no god! I learnt more than seventy surahs from the lips of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, while Zayd Ibn Thabit was a youth, having two locks and playing with the youth. Then he said: By Him besides Whom there is no other god! If I know any one to be more conversant with the Book of Allah than me, and if the camels could carry me to him, I shall surely go to him. Then ‘Abd Allah went away. Shaqiq said: Subsequently I sat in the circles of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah and others BUT NONE contradicted his statement.” (Ibn Sa’d’s Kitab al-Tabaqat, Volume 2, p. 444; bold, capital and underline emphasis ours)

Response:

Unauthentic source.

Critic:

Here Ibn Masud accuses Muslims of introducing deceit or deception into the reading of the Quran! Ibn Masud even warned his followers against copying and reciting Zaid’s version of the Quran:

(19). 3104.Az-Zuhri narrated from Anas who said: “Hudhaifah bin Al-Yaman came to ‘Uthman, at the time when the people of Ash-Sham and the people of Al-‘Iraq were waging war to conquer Arminiyah and Adharbijan. Hudhaifah saw their (the people of Ash-Sham and Al-‘Iraq) different forms of recitation of the Qur’an. So he said to ‘Uthman: ‘O Commander of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book as the Jews and Christians did before them.’ So he (‘Uthman) sent a message to Hafsah (saying): ‘Send us the manuscripts so that we may copy them in the Musahif then we shall return it to you.’ So Hafsah sent the manuscripts to ‘Uthman bin ‘Affan. ‘Uthman then sent order for Zaid bin Thabit, Sa‘eed bin Al-‘As, ‘Abdur-Rahman bin Al-Harith bin Hisham, and ‘Abdullah bin Az-Zubair to copy the manuscripts in the Musahif. ‘Uthman said to the three Quraish men: In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the (recitation dialect of the) Qur’an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish for it was revealed in their tongue.’ So when they had copied the manuscripts in the Musahif, ‘Uthman sent one Mushaf from those Musahif that they had copied to every province.”

Az-Zuhri said: “Kharijah bin Zaid [bin Thabit] narrated to me that Zaid bin Thabit said: ‘I missed an Ayah of Surat Al-Ahzab that I heard the Messenger of Allah reciting: Among the believers are men who have been true to their covenant with Allah, of them, some have fulfilled their obligations, and some of them are still waiting. – so I searched for it and found it with Khuzaimah bin Thabit, or Abu Khuzaimah, so I put it in its Surah.’”

Az-Zuhri said: “They differed then with At-Tabut and At-Tabuh. The Quraish said: At-Tabut while Zaid said: At-Tabuh. Their disagreement was brought to ‘Uthman, so he said: ‘Write it as At-Tabut, for it was revealed in the tongue of the Quraish.’”

Az-Zuhri said: “Ubaidullah bin Abdullah bin Utbah informed me that Abdullah bin Mas’ud disliked Zaid bin Thabit copying the Musahif, and he said: ‘O you Muslim people! Avoid copying the Mushaf and recitation of this man. By Allah! When I accepted Islam he was but in the loins of a disbelieving man’–meaning Zaid bin Thabit–and it was regarding this that Abdullah bin Mas’ud said: ‘O people of Al-Iraq! Keep the Musahif that are with you, and conceal them. For indeed Allah said: And whoever conceals something, he shall come with what he concealed on the Day of Judgement. So meet Allah with the Musahif.’” (Sahih) (English Translation of Jami‘ At-Tirmidhi: Compiled by Imam Hafiz Abu ‘Eisa Mohammad Ibn ‘Eisa At-Tirmidhi, translated by Abu Khaliyl (USA), ahadith edited & referenced by Hafiz Abu Tahir Zubair ‘Ali Za’i, final review by Islamic Research Section Darussalam [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, First Edition: November 2007], Volume 5, From Hadith No. 2606 to 3290, 44. The Chapters On The Tafsir Of The Qur’an From The Messenger of Allah, Chapter 9., pp. 412-414; underline emphasis ours)

Response:

Taken from an Unauthentic source.

Critic:

Interestingly, the Muslim community at Iraq refused to receive Uthman’s text, preferring Ibn Masud’s instead. This led to a confrontation between Hudhaifah and Ibn Masud:

`Abdullah, Hudaifa and Abu Musa were on the roof of Abu Musa’s house. `Abdullah said, ‘I hear you say such-and-such.’ Hudaifa said, ‘Yes, I deplore folk talking about this one’s reading and that one’s reading. They are differing like non-Muslims.‘ Hudaifa continued, ‘`Abdullah b. Qais, you were sent to the Basrans as governor and teacher. THEY HAVE ADOPTED YOUR ADAB, YOUR DIALECT AND YOUR TEXT.’

To b. Mas`ud he said, ‘You were sent to the Kufans as their teacher and THEY HAVE ADOPTED YOUR ADAB, YOUR DIALECT AND YOUR READING.’

‘In that case,’ retorted b. Mas`ud, ‘I have not misled them. There is no verse in the Book of God but that I know where and in what connection it was revealed. Did I know of anyone more learned than myself on the subject I should go to him.’ (Burton, p. 147, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da’ud, “K. al Masahif”, ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 14; bold emphasis ours)

Response:

Unauthentic source.

Critic:

The matter becomes worse when we realize that Uthman’s text omitted chapters and verses that the other texts included:

According to Ibn Umar and Aisha, Muhammad’s wife, one chapter, Surah al-Ahzab [33] had 200 verses in Muhammad’s time. Yet, once Uthman was finished only 73 verses remained, eliminating nearly 140 verses. This tradition is also confirmed by Ubay b. Kabb. (True Guidance, p. 61– citing Al-Suyuti’s al-Itqanfii ulum al-Qur’an on nasikh wa mansukh and Darwaza’s al-Qur’an Al-Majid)

Response:

Unauthentic source.

Critic:

A verse on the stoning of men and women had been expunged from the Uthmanic text. It reads as follows:

“As for old men and women, stone them for the pleasure they have indulged in.” Umar al-Khattab stated, “But for people who may say that Umar adds to the Book of Allah, I would have written the verse on stoning.” (Ibid., p. 61)

Response:

Unauthentic source.

Critic:

Aisha mentioned an additional clause in her reading of the Quran which is not part of the Muslim scripture we now possess:

(29) 2982.Abu Yunus, the freed slave of Aishah, said: “Aisha ordered me to write a Mushaf for her, and she said: ‘When you get to this Ayah then tell me: Guard strictly (the five obligatory) prayers, and the middle Salat [1].’ So when I reached it, I told her and she dictated to me: ‘Guard strictly (the five obligatory) prayers, and the middle Salat, and Salat Al-Asr. And stand before Allah with obedience.’ She said: ‘I heard that from the Messenger of Allah.’” (Sahih)

[1] Al-Baqarah 2:238. (Jami‘ At-Tirmidhi, Volume 5, Chapter 2. Regarding Surat Al-Baqarah, pp. 302-303)

Response:

The another hadees confirms it that it was for elaboration.

Abdullah bin Mas’ud narrated that :
Allah’s Messenger said: “Salatul-Wusta is the Asr prayer.”(Tirmizi 181)

Critic:

A tradition in Sahih Muslim indicates that there are at least two surahs which are missing:

Abu Harb b. Abu al-Aswad reported on the authority of his father that Abu Musa al-Ashan sent for the reciters of Basra. They came to him and they were three hundred in number. They recited the Qur’an and he said: You are the best among the inhabitants of Basra, for you are the reciters among them. So continue to recite it. (But bear in mind) that your reciting for a long time may not harden your hearts as were hardened the hearts of those before you. We used to recite a surah, which resembled in length and severity to (surah) Bara`at. I have, however, forgotten it with the exception of this which I remember out of it: ‘If there were two valleys full of riches, for the son of Adam, he would long for a third valley and nothing would fill the stomach of the son of Adam but dust.’ And we used to recite a surah which resembled one of the surahs of Musabbihat, and I have forgotten it, but remember (this much) out of it: ‘O people who believe, why do you say that which you do not practice’ and ‘that is recorded in your necks as a witness (against you) and you would be asked about it on the Day of Resurrection.’ (Book 005, Number 2286)

Response:

The Companion Abu Musa r.a. had himself mentioned twice about his forgetfulness.

Critic:

Confirmation of the legitimacy of the verse on the son of Adam comes from Anas b. Malik:

Anas reported Allah’s messenger as saying: If the son of Adam were to possess two valleys of riches, he would long for the third one, and the stomach of the son of Adam is not filled but with dust. And Allah returns to him to repent. (Sahih Muslim, Book 005, Number 2282)

Anas goes on to say, “I heard the messenger of Allah as saying this, but I do not know whether this thing was revealed to him or not, but he said so.”(Sahih Muslim, Book 005, Number 2283; cf. 2284, 2285)

Response:

So Anas r.a. was not sure himself.

Critic:

Yet according to al-Aswad it was revealed as part of a surah which no longer exists.

Response:

He r.a. had mentioned twice about his forgetfulness too.

According to Hamida bint Abi Yunus:

“When my father was eighty years of age, he recited the following verse from the codex of Aisha: ‘Verily, Allah and His angels pray for the Prophet. O ye who believe, pray for him and earnestly desire peace for him and for those who pray in the front rows.’”

She adds:

“This verse had been there before the codices underwent change at the hands of Uthman.” (True Guidance, pp. 61-62 – citing al-Suyut’s al-Itqan on nasikh wa mansukh [abrogating and the abrogated])

Response:

Unauthentic source.

Critic:

According to Hudhaifa, Muslims read “only a quarter of Sura al-Tawba (9) i.e., meaning a great number of its verses are missing (Ibid., p. 64; citing al-Mustadrak).

Response:

Unauthentic source.

Critic:

Ubayy b. Kab included two extra surahs, al-Hafd (the Haste) and al-Khal (the Separation) that were not included in the Uthmanic text. These surahs were also included in the texts of Ibn Abbas and Abu Musa (Gilchrist, Chapter 3. The Codices of Ibn Mas’ud and Ubayy Ibn Ka’b, pp. 74-75; citing al-Suyuti’s al-Itqan, pp. 152-153).

Response:

Unauthentic source.

Critic:

Ibn Masud refused to include surahs 1, 113 and 114, stating that these chapters were revealed as prayers and incantations to ward off evil. This fact is confirmed by al-Razi, al-Tabari and Ibn Hajar (True Guidance, p. 58 – citing Ibn Hajar, al-Tabari, al-Suyuti’s Itqan, chapter on compilation). As Gilchrist notes:

“Imam Fakhruddin said that the reports in some of the ancient books that Ibn Mas’ud denied that Suratul-Fatiha and the Mu’awwithatayni [surahs 113-114] are part of the Qur’an are embarrassing in their implications… But the Qadi Abu Bakr said ‘It is not soundly reported from him that they are not part of the Qur’an and there is no record of such a statement from him. He omitted them from his manuscript as he did not approve of their being written. This does not mean he denied they were part of the Qur’an. In his view the Sunnah was that nothing should be inscribed in the text (mushaf) unless so commanded by the Prophet (saw)… and he had not heard that it had been so commanded’. (As-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur’an, p.186).

Response:

Unauthentic source.

Critic:

“… Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani however, in his commentary on the Sahih of al-Bukhari (his famous Fath al-Baari), accepted these reports as sound, quoting authorities who stated that Ibn Mas’ud would not include the two ‘charm’ surahs in his manuscript as Muhammad had, to his knowledge, only commanded that they be used as incantations against evil forces. He regarded the isnad (the chain of transmitters) for this record as totally sound and attempted to harmonise the conflicting records instead, suggesting that Ibn Mas’ud accepted the Fatiha and ‘charm’ surahs as genuinely revealed but was reluctant to inscribe them in his written text.” (Gilchrist, Chapter 3. The Codices of Ibn Mas’ud and Ubayy ibn Ka’b, p. 68; bold emphasis and comments within brackets ours)

Response:

Unauthentic source.

Critic:

According to al-Hajjaj, “a sura as long as al-Tawba was revealed, and then it was lifted up,” i.e., lost. (Ibid., pp. 62-63 – citing Bukhari, Riqaq 10; Zuhd 27; al-Tirmidi, al-Darimi Riqaq 62; and Ahmad Bin Hanbal, 111, 122, 176; iv. 368; v. 117; vi. 55)

Aisha relates that, “Ten verses were revealed concerning a foster relationship. These were annulled and replaced by another five verses.” Yet both the abrogated and abrogating verses are nowhere to be found. She also stated: “The verses of stoning and fostering were revealed, and the sheet of paper on which they were written was under my pillow. But then the Prophet died. Overwhelmed with grief, a beast came in and ate the sheet of paper.” (Ibid., p. 112- citing Muslim Hudud 15 and also No.3421; Ibn Maja Hudud 9; italic emphasis ours)

This process of burning eyewitness writings on the part of Uthman did not go well with Muslims in general as they declared that he had “obliterated the Book of Allah” because “The Qur’an was in many books, and you have now discredited them all but one.” (Gilchrist, Chapter 2. The Uthmanic Recension of the Qur’an, pp. 51, 58 – citing Abi Dawud Kitab al-Masahif, p.36, and al-Tabari, Bk.1, chpt. 6, 2952)

Response:

Number of Unauthentic sources.

Regarding the verses of fostering and stoning,these were solitary claims which could be ignored in the presence of numerous written records and numerous people who had memorized Quran who did not mention it.

Critic:

The late great Egyptian Professor Dr. Taha Hussein summarizes the atrocity of Uthman’s actions:

The Prophet Muhammad said: “The Koran was revealed in seven dialects, all of them are right and perfect.” When Uthman banned whichever he banned from the Koran, and burned whichever he burned, he banned passages Allah has revealed and burned parts of the Koran which were given to the Muslims by the Messenger of Allah. He appointed a small group of Sahaba (close friends of Muhammad) to rewrite the Koran and left out those who heard the Prophet and memorized what he said. This is why Ibn Massoud was angry, because he was one of the best men who memorized the Koran. He said that he took from the mouth of the Prophet seventy suras of the Koran while Zaid Ibn Sabit was yet a young lad. When Ibn Massoud objected to the burning of the other codices of the Koran, Uthman took him out of the mosque with violence, and struck him to the ground, and broke one of his ribs. (Hussein, A-Fitnato Al-Kobra [The Great Sedition], pp. 160-161, 181-182; italic emphasis ours)

Response:

Unauthentic source.

Critic:

As does Islamic scholar Alphonse Mingana:

“Finally, if we understand correctly the following verse of Suratul-Hijr (xv. 90-91): ‘As we sent down upon (punished) the dividers (of the Scripture?) who broke up the Koran into parts,’ we are tempted to state that even when the Prophet was alive,some changes were noticed in the recital of certain verses of his sacred book. There is nothing very surprising in this fact, since Muhammad could not read or write, and was at the mercy of friends for the writing of his revelations, or, more frequently, of some mercenary amanuenses.” (Mingana, “Three Ancient Korans”, The Origins of the Koran – Classic Essays on Islam’s Holy Book, ed. by Ibn Warraq [Prometheus Books, Amherst NY, 1998], p. 84; bold emphasis ours)

Response:

Unauthentic source.

Critic:

Mingana records the Muslim reaction to Uthman b. Affan’s burning and wholesale destruction of primary, competing Quranic codices:

“The book, drawn up by this method, continued to be authoritative and the standard text till 29-30 A.H. under the caliphate of ‘Uthman. At this time the wonderful faithfulness of Arab memory was defective, and according to a general weakness of human nature, the Believers have been heard reciting the verses of the Koran in a different way. This fact was due specially, it is said, to the hundreds of dialects used in Arabia. Zaid was again asked to put an end to these variations which had begun to scandalize the votaries of the Prophet. That indefatigable compiler, assisted by three men from the tribe of Quraish, started to do what he had already done more than fifteen years before. The previous copies made from the first one written under Abu Bakr were all destroyed by special order of the caliph: the revelation sent down from heaven was one, and the book containing this revelation must be one. The critic remarks that the only guarantee of the authenticity of the Koran is the testimony of Zaid; and for this reason, a scholar who doubts whether a given word has been really used by Muhammad, or whether it has been only employed by Zaid on his own authority, or on the meagre testimony of some Arab reciters, does not transgress the strict laws of high criticism. If the memory of the followers of the Prophet has been found defective from the year 15 to 30 A.H. when Islam was proclaimed over all Arabia, why may it not have been defective from 612 to 632 C.E. when the Prophet was often obliged to defend his own life against terrible aggressors? And if the first recension of Zaid contained always the actual words of Muhammad, why was this compiler not content with re-establishing it in its entirety, and why was the want of a new recension felt by ‘Uthman? How can it be that in the short space of fifteen years such wonderful variants could have crept into the few copies preceding the reign of the third caliph that he found himself bound to destroy all those he could find? If ‘Uthman was certainly inspired only by religious purposes, why did his enemies call him ‘THE TEARER OF THE BOOKS’ and why did they fasten on him the following stigma: ‘He found the Korans many and left one; HE TORE UP THE BOOK’?…” (Ibn Warraq, p. 84-85; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Response:

Unauthentic source.

Critic:

Mingana, in his article The Transmission of the Koran, cites Muslim historian al-Tabari:

“… ‘Ali b. Abi Talib, and ‘Uthman b. Affan wrote the Revelation to the Prophet; but in their absence it was Ubai b. Ka’b and Zaid b. Thabit who wrote it.’ He informs us, too, that the people said to ‘Uthman: ‘The Koran was in many books, and thou discreditedst them all but one’; and after the Prophet’s death, ‘People gave him as successor Abu Bakr, who in turn was succeeded by ‘Umar; and both of them acted according to the Book and the Sunnah of the Apostle of God- and praise be to God the Lord of the worlds; then people elected ‘Uthman b. ‘Affan WHO… TORE UP THE BOOK.’” (Ibn Warraq, p. 102; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Response:

Unauthentic source.

Critic:

In the same article Mingana sources another ancient writer regarding the compilation of the Quran. The author, a Christian apologist named Abd al-Masih al-Kindi, wrote an apology titled The Apology of Al-Kindi at the Court of al-Mamun circa A.D. 830, approximately forty years before al-Bukhari compiled his hadith collection. Al-Kindi mentions the Muslim reaction to the conflicting readings that existed amongst the different Quranic codices that circulated shortly after Muhammad’s death:

“… Then the people fell to variance in their reading; some read according to the version of ‘Ali, which they follow to the present day; some read according to the collection of which we have made mention; one party read according to the text of ibn Mas’ud, and another according to that of Ubai ibn Ka’b. When ‘Uthman came to power, and people everywhere differed in their reading, ‘Ali sought grounds of accusation against him. One man would read verse one way, and another man another way; and there was change and interpolation, some copies having more and some less. When this was represented to ‘Uthman, and the danger urged of division, strife, and apostasy, he thereupon caused to be collected together all the leaves and scraps that he could, together with the copy that was written out at the first. But they did not interfere with that which was in the hands of ‘Ali, or of those who followed his reading. Ubai was dead by this time, as for Ibn Mas’ud, they demanded his exemplar, but he refused to give it up. Then they commanded Zaid ibn Thabit, and with him ‘Abdallah ibn ‘Abbas, to revise and correct the text, eliminating all that was corrupt; they were instructed, when they differed on any reading, word, or name, or to follow the dialect of the Quraish.

“When the recension was completed, four exemplars were written out in large text; one was sent to Mecca, and another to Medina; the third was dispatched to Syria, and is to this day at Malatya; the fourth was deposited in Kufa. People say that this last copy is still extant at Kufa, but this is not case, for it was lost in the insurrection of Mukhtar (A.H. 67). The copy of Mecca remained there till the city was stormed by Abu Sarayah (A.H. 200); he did not carry it away; but it is supposed to have been burned in the conflagration. The Medina exemplar was lost in the reign of terror, that is, in the days of Yazid b. Mu’awiah (A.H. 60-64).

“After what we have related above, ‘Uthman called in all the former leaves and copies, and destroyed them, threatening those held any portion back; and so only some scattered remains, concealed here and there, survived. Ibn Mas’ud, however, retained his exemplar in his own hands, and it was inherited by his posterity, as it is this day; and likewise the collection of ‘Ali has descended in his family.

“Then followed the business of Hajjaj b. Yusuf, who gathered together every single copy he could lay hold of, and caused to be omitted from the text a great many passages. Among these, they say, were verses revealed concerning the House of the Umayyah with names of certain persons, and concerning the House of ‘Abbas also with names. Six copies of the text thus revised were distributed to Egypt, Syria, Medina, Mecca, Kufa, and Basra. After that he called in and destroyed all the preceding copies, even as ‘Uthman had done before him. The enmity subsisting between ‘Ali and Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman is well known; how each of these entered in the text whatever favored his own claims, and left out what was otherwise. How, then, can we distinguish between the genuine and the counterfeit? And what about the losses caused by Hajjaj? The kind of faith that this tyrant held in other matters is well-known; how can we make an arbiter as to the Book of God a man who never ceased play into the hands of the Umayyads whenever he found opportunity?” (Ibn Warraq, pp. 108-109; bold emphasis ours)

Response:

Unauthentic source.

Critic:

Mingana concludes:

“Then al-Kindi, addressing his Muslim friend, says: ‘All that I have said is drawn from your own authorities, and no single argument has been advanced but what is based on evidence accepted by yourselves; in proof thereof, we have the Kur’an itself, which is a confused heap, with neither system nor order.’” (Ibn Warraq, pp. 109-110; bold emphasis ours)

Response:

Unauthentic source.

Critic:

The problem does not end just yet. The traditions record that the governor of Medina, Marwan, confiscated Zaid’s text, which had been in Hafsah’s possession until her death, and proceeded to destroy it. In Kitab Al-Masahif, Ibn Abi Dawud quotes Salim bin Abdullah as saying:

“When Hafsah died and we returned from her funeral, Marwan sent with firm intention to Abdullah Ben Omar (Hafsah’s brother) that he must send him those pages, and Abdullah Ben Omar sent them to him, and Marwan ordered it and they were TORN UP and he said. I did this because whatever was in it was surely written and preserved in the (official) volume and I was afraid that after a time people will be suspicious of this copy or they will say there is something in it that wasn’t written.” (Dr. William F. Campbell, The Qur’an and the Bible in the Light of History & Science [Middle East Resources 1992, ISBN 1-881085-00-7], SECTION THREE. The Bible and the Qur’an: Effects of Criticism and Similarities in Their Development, III. Historical Development of the Qur’an and the Gospel Compared, B. The Final Collection of the Qur’an and the Gospel, p. 120; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Response:

Unauthentic source.

Critic:

We must ask who gave Marwan the authority to dare destroy an official, original copy of the Book of Allah, a copy written under the authority of Abu Bakr Siddiq, Muhammad’s personal friend and father-in-law? Further, if there was nothing missing in the transmission of the text then why was he afraid that the people would be suspicious of it?

On top of this great atrocity, the Qur’an underwent further revisions under Iraq’s governor al-Hajjaj Ibn Yusuf (A.D. 660-714). Abi Dawud notes:

“Altogether al-Hajjaj Ibn Yusuf made eleven modifications in the reading of the Uthmanic text… In al-Baqarah (Surah 2:259) it originally read Lam yatasannah waandhur, but it was altered to lam yatasannah… In al-Maj. (sura 5:48) it read shari ya’aten wa minhaajan but it was altered to shir ‘atawwa minhaajan.” (Gilchrist, Chapter 5. Sab’at-I-Ahruf in the Hadith Literature, p.109 – citing Ibn Dawud’s Kitab al-Masahif, p.117)

Response:

Unauthentic source.

Critic:

It appears that Muslims felt free in adding and subtracting from the Qur’an as they saw fit, irrespective of whether it was God’s word or not. This fact is made clearer by Arthur Jeffrey’s conclusion on Hajjaj’s revisions. According to Arthur Jeffrey:

“That the practice of pointing came generally accepted and consistently carried through the whole of the Codex is said to be due to activity of the famous official al-Hajjaj b. Yusif, who was perhaps the most remarkable figure in Islam during the Caliphate of ‘Abd al-Malik. When we come to examine the accounts of the activity of al-Hajjaj in this matter, however, we discover to our surprise that the evidence points strongly to the fact that his work was not confined to fixing more precisely the text of the Qur`an by a set of points showing how it was to be read, but he seems to have made an entirely new revision of the Qur`an, having copies of this new text sent to the great metropolitan centers, and ordering the destruction of earlier copies in existence there, much as Uthman had done earlier.” (The Qur’an as Scripture [New York: Books for Libraries, 1980], p.99; italic emphasis ours)

Response:

Unauthentic source.

Critic:

Another issue which the Muslims had to deal with was variant readings. When the Qur’an was originally written, there were no vowel marks or diacritical points to differentiate the meanings of words. To help illustrate the kind of problems this style of writing can create in a text, we will write a sentence without vowels:

h gv hm bd

This sentence could be read in several possible ways depending on the context. For instance, it might mean “he gave him a bid” if he were a contractor, or “he gave him a bud” if he were in a florist’s shop, or “he gave him a bed” if in a furniture store. This textual style gave rise to thousands of variants between the codices which were available at that time.

Response:

It could never be a problem if the next sentences are further elaborating the bud.If the fragrance or flower is also discussed,then there would be no confusion regarding bud.If the bedsheet or sleep is discussed then the bed is confirm.

It is not the matter of single sentence.

Critic:

Other variant readings stem from clauses that were either added or omitted from the text. A comparison of the texts of Uthman and Ibn Masud will illustrate this point:

S. 2:275 in Uthman’s copy begins with Allathiina yaq kuluunar – ribaa laa yaquumuuna – “those who devour usury will not stand.” Ibn Masud’s codex began in the same fashion but added “yawmal qiyamati,” The Day of Resurrection – i.e., “those who devour usury will not stand on the Day of Resurrection.”

S. 5:91 in Uthman’s text reads Fusiyaamu thaalaythati ayyammin – “Fast for three days.” Ibn Masud included after the last word the adjective mutataabi’aatin, meaning “successive days.”

S. 6:153 begins Wa anna haatha siraatii – “Verily this is my path.” Yet Ibn Masud’s version reads Wa haatha siraatu rabbakum – “This is the path of your Lord.”

S. 33:6, in regard to Muhammad’s wives, states, Wa azwaajuhu ummahaatuhuu – “and his wives are their (the believers’) mothers.” Yet Ibn Masud adds Wa huwa abuu laahum – “and he (Muhammad) is their father.” (Gilchrist, Chapter 3. The Codices of Ibn Mas’ud and Ubayy Ibn Ka’b, pp. 69-70 – citing Arthur Jeffrey Materials; Abi Dawud’s Kitab al-Masahif)

Response:

Unauthentic source.

Critic:

It should be noted that in the four preceding examples, Ubayy b. Kab, Ibn Abbas and Ibn Abi Dawud were in agreement with Ibn Masud’s reading. In fact, the clause in S. 33:6 is multiply attested according to the late Muslim scholar and translator Muhammad Asad,

Thus, connecting with the preceding mention of voluntary, elective relationships (as con­trasted with those by blood), this verse points to the highest manifestation of an elective, spiritual relationship: that of the God-inspired Prophet and the person who freely chooses to follow him. The Prophet himself is reported to have said: “None of you has real faith unless I am dearer unto him than his father, and his child, and all mankind” (Bukhari and Muslim, on the authority of Anas, with several almost identical versions in other compilations). The Companions invariably regarded the Prophet as the spiritual father of his community. Some of them – e.g., Ibn Masud (as quoted by Zamakhshari) or Ubayy ibn Kab, Ibn Abbas and Muawiyah (as quoted by Ibn Kathir) – hardly ever recited the above verse without adding, by way of explanation, “seeing that he is [as] a father to them”; and many of the tabi’in – including Mujahid, Qatadah, lkrimah and Al-Hasan (cf. Tabari and Ibn Kathir) – did the same: hence my interpolation, between brackets, of this phrase. (However, see also verse 40 of this surah and the corresponding note.) As regards the status of the Prophet’s wives as the “mothers of the believers”, this arises primarily from the fact of their having shared the life of God’s Apostle in its most intimate aspect. Consequently, they could not remarry after his death (see verse 53 below), since all the believers were, spiritually, their “children”. (Source; bold emphasis ours)

This explains why he inserted this into his own translation, albeit within brackets:

The Prophet has a higher claim on the believers than [they have on] their own selves, [seeing that he is as a father to them] and his wives are their mothers:

The fact is that this passage is multiply attested further mitigates against Uthman’s (per)version being the most accurate and authentic.

Other places where Ibn Masud’s reading found support with the other reciters include:

S. 3:127, the standard version read Wa saari’uu (“be quick”), whereas both Ibn Masud and Ubayy’s readings were Wa saabiquu (“be ahead”)

Ibn Masud and Ubayy both read Yusrifullaahu – “averted by Allah” – in replacement of Uthman’s Yusraf – “averted.” (S. 6:16) (Gilchrist, Chapter 3, p. 71 – citing Maki’s Kitab al-Kasf and Arthur Jeffrey’s Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Qur’an)

Response:

Unauthentic source.

Critic:

To present a brief summary of our findings we noted that:

  1. The Qur’an was not compiled perfectly.
  2. Much of the Qur’an’s contents are missing.
  3. More than one Qur’an was in circulation.
  4. Primary eyewitness codices were burned.
  5. On the authority of one man an official text of the Qur’an was approved.
  6. Even this official codex was eventually destroyed and eleven revisions were made of it.
  7. Thousands of variants existed between these competing texts as documented by Arthur Jeffrey’s book, which in turn cites Abi Dawud’s own work.

Response:

All of your claims are based upon your personal assumptions derived from unauthentic sources.

Some of the authentic sources mention only solitary claims which carry the weightage of less than 0.01%,so they could be ignored.

Critic:

This insured the proper enunciation and preservation of the contents of the Qur’an. This logic is fallacious for two reasons:

  1. The claim that memorization preserved the Qur’an is false due to the fact that a great number of the reciters (hafiz) were slain at the battle of al-Yamama, taking those parts of the Qur’an that they alone had memorized to the grave with them, never to be recited again.
  2. It was these same reciters i.e., Ibn Masud, Ubayy etc., who were writing down codices from memory which led to contradictions, additions, omissions and to thousands of variant readings among the competing texts. This demonstrates the faulty memories of the reciters.

Response:

Death of many of the reciters does not mean the death of all of the reciters.

Regarding some of the differences in two copies,believe me these were the 2 copies among thousands of other records.On the contrary,it is all about the differences of some points in only 2 copies among the thousands of other unanimously matching sources.

Critic:

Interestingly, we are told that even Muhammad himself forgot certain verses:

‘The Messenger of God heard a man recite by night and said, “May God have mercy on that man! He has just reminded me of a verse so-and-so and I had forgotten from sura such-and-such.”‘ (Burton, p. 129, Bukhari, “K. Fad’il al Qur’an”, bab nisyan al Qur’an)

The Prophet recited the Qur’an and omitted an aya. When he had finished the prayer, he asked, ‘Is Ubayy in the mosque?’ ‘Here I am, Messenger of God.’

‘Then why didn’t you prompt me?’

‘I thought the aya had been withdrawn.’

‘It hasn’t been withdrawn, I forgot it.’ (Ibid., pp. 65-66, `Abdul Rahman al Tha`alibi, “al Jawahir al Hisan fi tafsir al Qur’an”, 2 vols., Algiers, 1905, vol. 1, p. 95)

Response:

Regarding the hadees from Sahih Bukhari,note it yourself that the verse was reminded,it could be forgotten but it did NOT.

Regarding all other sources,all are unauthentic.

Critic:

On the contrary, the evidence points to much more than simple dialectal variation, but to gross omissions of entire surahs, verses and lengths of chapters. Those who expound this theory are basing it upon purely wishful thinking with no solid evidence to back up such assertions.

In fact, the seven ahruf compound the problem for the Muslims. The following Muslim response is an indication why:

Secondly, what is meant by styles (ahruf, sing. harf)?

The BEST of the scholarly OPINIONS concerning what is meant is that there are seven ways of reciting the Qur’aan, where the wording may differ but the meaning is the same; if there is a different meaning then it is by way of variations on a theme, not opposing and contradiction.

Response:

It is all about ahruf,which means the letters,not even the words or kalaam.

Critic:

Thirdly…

Some of the scholars said that what was meant by ahruf was the dialects of the Arabs, but this is FAR-FETCHED, because of the hadeeth of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab who said: “I heard Hishaam ibn Hakeem reciting Soorat al-Furqaan in a manner different from that in which I used to recite it and the way in which the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) taught me to recite it. I was about to argue with him whilst he was praying, but I waited until he finished his prayer, and then I tied his garment around his neck and seized him by it and brought him to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and said, ‘O Messenger of Allaah, I heard this man reciting Soorat-al-Furqaan in a way different to the way you taught it to me.’ The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to him, ‘Recite it,’ and he recited it as I had heard him recite it. The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, ‘It was revealed like this.’ Then he said to me, ‘Recite it,’ so I recited it and he said, ‘It was revealed like this.’ This Qur’aan has been revealed in seven different ways, so recite it in the way that is easiest for you.’”

It is known that Hishaam was Asadi Qurashi (i.e., from the clan of Bani Asad in Quraysh) and ‘Umar was ‘Adawi Qurashi (i.e., from the clan of Bani ‘Adiyy in Quraysh). Both of them were from Quraysh and Quraysh had only one dialect. If the difference in ahruf (styles) had been a difference in dialects, why would two men of Quraysh have been different?

Response:

No reference at all.

Ahruf means Letters.

Difference of Ahruf means the difference in some letters.

The word lahjah means dialect so dialect is not the proper translation.It is letters.

 Critic:

Fourthly:

It seems that the seven styles were revealed with different wordings, as indicated by the hadeeth of ‘Umar, because ‘Umar’s objection was to the style, not the meaning. The differences between these styles are not the matter of contradiction and opposition, rather they are synonymous, as Ibn Mas’ood said: “It is like one of you saying halumma, aqbil or ta’aal (all different ways of saying ‘Come here’).”

Fifthly:

With regard to the seven recitations (al-qiraa’aat al-saba’), this number is not based on the Qur’aan and Sunnah, rather it is the ijtihaad of Ibn Mujaahid (may Allaah have mercy on him)….

Sixthly:

When ‘Uthmaan made copies of the Qur’aan, he did so according to one style (harf), but he omitted the dots and vowel points so that some other styles could also be accommodated.

Seventhly:

Your saying that Mujaahid’s different recitations meant the seven styles (ahruf) is not correct, as was said by Shaykh al-Islam ibn Taymiyyah. (Majmoo’ah al-Fatawa, vol. 13, p. 210) …

Islam Q&A (www.islam-qa.com) (Question #5142: The revelation of the Qur’aan in seven styles (ahruf, sing. harf); bold and capital emphasis ours)

Response:

First of all,this is not an authentic source.Only Quran and Six authentic books of Ahadees are the most authentic sources.Nothing else could compare them

Secondly,the critic has deliberately missed the last point which mentions:

Eighthly:

The seven readers or reciters were:

1-     Naafi’ al-Madani

2-     Ibn Katheer al-Makki

3-     ‘Aasim al-Kufi

4-     Hamzah al-Zayaat al-Kufi

5-     Al-Kisaa’i al-Kufi

6-     Abu ‘Amr ibn al-‘Ala’ al-Basri

7-     ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Aamir al-Shaami

The ones who have the strongest isnaad in recitation are Naafi’ and ‘Aasim.

The most eloquent are Abu ‘Amr and al-Kisaa’i.

Warsh and Qaaloon narrated from Naafi’.

Hafs and Shu’bah narrated from ‘Aasim.

And Allaah knows best.

Critic:

In light of the preceding considerations, we have no other choice but to conclude that memorization failed to preserve the Qur’an. This is perhaps why Muslims were forced to admit that the Qur’an is an incomplete record:

`Abdullah b. `Umar reportedly said, ‘Let none of you say, “I have got the whole of the Qur’an.” How does he know what all of it is? MUCH OF THE QUR’AN HAS GONE [d h b]. Let him say instead, I HAVE GOT WHAT HAS SURVIVED.”‘ (Burton. p. 117, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, “al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur’an”, Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 25)

Some of us met to exchange hadith reports. One fellow said, ‘Enough of this! Refer to the Book of God.’ Imran b. Husain said, ‘You’re a fool! Do you find in the Book of God the prayers explained in detail? Or the Fast? The Qur’an refers to them in general terms only. It is the Sunna which supplies the detailed explanation.’ (Ibid., p. 21, al Hamdani, “I`tibar”, pp. 24-5)

No madhab permits unbeliever-believer inheritance; slave-free man inheritance; homicide-victim inheritance. All madahib accept the testimony of two male witnesses in homicide cases. These and many other agreed principles and procedures are unmentioned in the Qur’an. (Ibid., p. 23)

Response:

All are unauthentic sources.

Conclusion:

Note the weightage of the Unauthentic sources used to drive false allegations against Quran.

Advertisements

Textual Integrity : The Claim of Muhammad’s (s.a.w.w.) Perfect Memory

First of all where is the verse or hadees mentioning that the memory of Prophet Muhammad s.a.w.w. is absolutely perfect and that He could never and ever forget?

Not at all.There is no such claim.

The fact is simply that Allah owns the responsibility for the protection of Holy Quran,it was not assigned to Prophet Muhammad s.a.w.w. and He (s.a.w.w.) was frequently eased about it by revelations.

So,the claim is rather bigger i.e Allah would protect the Quran,Allah would guard it from corruption.
We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it(15:9)
Surely on Us (devolves) the collecting of it and the reciting of it.(75:17)

Now see the following verses

We shall make you to recite (the Quran), so you (O Muhammad (Peace be upon him)) shall not forget (it), Except what Allah, may will, He knows what is apparent and what is hidden. .(87:6-7)

Note it:

  • It is not mentioned that Prophet Muhammad s.a.w.w. would certainly forget.(Naoozubillah)
  • It is not mentioned that Prophet Muhammad s.a.w..w has imperfect memory.(Naoozubillah)
  • It is not mentioned that prophet Muhammad s.a.w.w. has given perfect memory.(Naoozubillah)

It is all about easing Him,it is simply to ease Prophet Muhammad s.a.w.w.

These verses are not claiming anything but they aim at easing Prophet Muhammad s.a.w.w. with the responsibility of the protection of Quran,totally and absolutely resting with Allah alone.

Now see the ahadees.These clarify the fact that Allah protected the verses from being forgotten.

Narrated Aisha: The Prophet heard a man reciting the Qur’an in the mosque and said, “May Allah bestow His Mercy on him, as he has reminded me of such-and-such Verses of such a Surah.” (Bukhari)

Now the following ahadees,these are not about Prophet Muhammad s.a.w.w. but if anyone uses his common sense,these are the advise for such people who use to say I have forgotten.

Narrated Abdullah: The Prophet said, “Why does anyone of the people say, ‘I (the person himself) have forgotten such-and-such Verses (of the Qur’an)?’ He, in fact, is caused (by Allah) to forget.” (Bukhari)

Ibn Mas’ud reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Wretched is the man who says: I (the person himself) forgot such and such a sura, or I forget such and such a verse, but he has been made to forget. (Muslim)

Textual Integrity: Leaves from the 2 ancient MSS

Actually it is an unauthentic source.

“Lewis, Agnes Smith, Apocrypha syriaca; the Protevangelium Jacobi and Transitus Mariae, with texts from the Septuagint, the Corân, the Peshitta, and from a Syriac hymm in a Syro-Arabic palimpsest of the fifth and other centuries; ed. and tr. by Agnes Smith Lewis. With an appendix of Palestinian Syriac texts from the Taylor-Schechter collection, London, C.J. Clay and sons, 1902.”

Textual integrity: Variant readings in Quran and Bible.

Actually Muhammad Hameedullah is not an authentic reference.

Textual Integrity : The early surviving Quran scripts

All are unauthentic sources except the reference for a verse mentioned within the long discussion.

Textual Integrity: From the Hadiths part 5.2

5.1.1 The missing Bismillah

ibn `Abbas asked `Uthman what possessed him to place surat al Anfal, one of the mathani, with Bara’a, one of the mi’in, join them with no bismillah between them and place them among the seven lengthy suras. `Uthman replied that often the Prophet received quite long revelations. He would call for one of the scribes and say, ‘Put these verses in the sura in which so-and-so occurs.’ Anfal was among the first of the Medina revelations and Bara’a among the last. Since its contents resembled those of Anfal, `Uthman took it to belong with it, for the Prophet had died without explaining that it was part of it. (p. 164, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, “al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur’an”, Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 60)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

Malik had a shorter explanation for the absence of this bismillah. The beginning of Bara’a fell out and its bismillah fell out with it. (p. 164-165, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, “al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur’an”, Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 65)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

5.1.2 The Stoning Verse on penalty for adulterers/adulteress

… the majority of the madahib are unanimously of the view that in certain circumstances, the penalty for adultery is death by stoning. Now, we know that this penalty is not only nowhere mentioned in our texts of the Qur’an, it is totally incompatible with the penalty that is mentioned: al zaniyatu wa al zani fajlidu kulla wahidin minhuma mi’ata jaldatin (The adulteress and the adulterer, flog each one of them one hundred strokes) (Q 24.2). (p. 72)

Response:It is not incompatible,rather the death penalty is for the married person and flogging for the unmarried one.

5.1.2.1 Source is the sunna (also believed inspired)

The ‘basic form’ of the report [of `Ubada] runs as follows:

The Prophet said, ‘Take it from me! God has now appointed a way for women: the virgin with the virgin, one hundred strokes and a year’s banishment; the non-virgin with the non-virgin, one hundred strokes and stoning.’ (p. 74, Safi`i, “Risalah”, p. 20)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

The descent of inspiration [wahy] was troublesome to the Prophet. His face would go ashen in colour. One day inspiration came down upon him and he showed the usual signs of distress. When he recovered, he said, ‘Take it from me! God has now appointed a way for women: the non-virgin with the non-virgin and the virgin with the virgin. The non-virgin, one hundred strokes and death by stoning, the virgin, one hundred strokes and banishment for a year.’ (p. 74, Ahmad b. al Husain al Baihaqi, “al Sunan al Kubra”, 10 vols., Haiderabad, 1925-38/1344-57, vol. 8, p. 210)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

We could tell when the inspiration descended upon the Prophet. When the words, ‘or until God appoint a way’, were revealed, and the inspiration ascended, the Prophet said, ‘Take heed! God has now appointed the way: the virgin with the virgin, one hundred strokes and banishment for a year; the non-virgin with the non-virgin, one hundred strokes and death by stoning.’ (pp. 74-75, Sulaiman b. Da’ud al Tayalisi, “Sunan”, Haiderabad, 1904/1321, p. 79)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

It is related that when a woman guilty of adultery was brought before `Ali, he flogged her and then had her stoned. Someone protested: ‘but you have inflicted two penalties!’ `Ali replied, ‘I stoned her in accordance with the Sunna of the Prophet and flogged her in accordance with the Book of God.’ (p. 75, Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, “Fath al Bari”, 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 12, p. 103)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

[`Umar said: ] Do not complain about stoning. It is a just claim and I am minded to write it in the mushaf. I fear that with the passage of time some will say, ‘We do not find stoning in the Book of God’, and on that pretext they will neglect a divine ruling which God revealed. Stoning is a just claim against the married person who fornicates, when there is adduced valid proof, or pregnancy ensues, or a confession is offered. (p. 77, Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, “Fath al Bari”, 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 12, p. 119)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

5.1.2.2 Verse was in Book of God and recited

`Ali reported that the stoning verse had been revealed but those who bore it together with other verses in their memories perished in the Yemama. (p. 121, Burhan al Din al Baji, “Jawab”, MS Dar al Kutub, Taimur “majami`”, no. 207, f. 14)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

ibn `Abbas reports a sermon by `Umar in the course of which he said, ‘Men! stoning is a penalty laid down by God. Do not neglect it. It is in the Book of God and the Sunna of your Prophet. The Messenger of God stoned; Abu Bakr stoned, and I have stoned.’ (p. 75, Sulaiman b. Da’ud al Tayalisi, “Sunan”, Haiderabad, 1904/1321, p. 6)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

Malik reports ibn `Abbas as declaring, ‘I heard `Umar b. al Khattab say, “Stoning in the Book of God is a just claim against the non-virgin, man or woman, who fornicates, when valid proof is adduced, or pregnancy ensues, or self-condemnation is volunteered.”‘ (p. 75, Malik b. Anas, “al Muwatta'”, K. al Hudud.)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

[`Umar] announced from the Prophet’s pulpit, God sent Muhammad with the truth and revealed to him the Book. Part of what God revealed was the stoning verse. We used to recite it and we memorised it. The Prophet stoned and we have stoned after him. I fear that with the passage of time some will say, ‘We do not find stoning in the Book of God’, and will therefore neglect a divine injunction which God revealed. Stoning is a just claim…. (p. 77-78, Ahmad b. al Husain al Baihaqi, “al Sunan al Kubra”, 10 vols., Haiderabad, 1925-38/1344-57, vol. 8, p. 210)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

In a variant version `Umar fears that with the passage of time some will say, ‘We do not find the stoning verse in the Book of God.’ (p. 78)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

[Umar said:] Allah sent Muhammad with the Truth and revealed the holy book to him, and among what Allah revealed, was the verse of Rajam (the stoning of married persons, male and female, who commit adultery) and we did recite this verse and understood and memorized it. Allah’s Apostle did carry out the punishment of stoning and so did we after him. I am afraid that after a long time has passed, somebody will say “By Allah’s Book”, we do not find the Verse of Rajam in Allah’s Book, and thus they will go astray by leaving an obligation which Allah has revealed. (Sahih Bukhari, vol. 8, p. 539)

Response:No other companion r.a. had objected similarly,so it clearly implies that the verses were not included in Quran by Prophet Muhammad s.a.w.w. or they were removed later on.

In the Mabsut, Sarakhsi reports,

`Umar said from the pulpit, ‘… and part of what was revealed in the Qur’an read, “the saikh and the saikha, when they fornicate, stone them outright”. Some will repudiate this, and but that men would say, “`Umar has added to the Book of God,” I will write it on the margin of the mushaf.’ (p. 78-79, al Sarakhsi, “Mabsut”, 30 vols., Cairo, 1324, vol. 9, p. 36)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

Malik reports also the celebrated hadith of the hired hand:

Two men brought a case before the Prophet. One of them said, ‘Messenger of God, judge between us in accordance with the Book of God.’The other, who was more familiar with litigation, said, ‘Yes, Messenger of God, judge between us in accordance with the Book of God and let me speak first. My son served as a hired hand under this man, but he fornicated with his employer’s wife. The man, informing me that my son had incurred the stoning penalty, I ransomed him from that penalty with 100 sheep and a slavegirl I had. Subsequently I enquired of the learned who informed me that the stoning penalty lay on the man’s wife.’

The Messenger of God said, ‘By Him in Whose hand is my soul! I will judge between you in accordance with the Book of God. Your cattle and slave girl are to be restored to you.’ (Malik b. Anas, “al Muwatta'”, K. al Hudud)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

At this point, the direct speech ends, but the hadith continues, ‘He awarded the son 100 strokes and banished him for a year. He ordered Unais al Aslami to go to the employer’s wife, and in the event that she confess, imposed the stoning penalty. She confessed, and Unais stoned her.’There are strong grounds for considering this continuation foreign and irrelevant to the hadith. ibn Hajar, for example, comments,

The Book of God might refer to the verdict of God. It has also been held that it refers to the Qur’an. ibn Daqiq al `Id suggested that the first explanation was preferable since neither stoning nor banishment is mentioned in the Qur’an, part from the general injunction to obey the Prophet’s commands. One might also consider the possibility that the reference is to God’s words, ‘or until God appoint a way’. The Prophet showed that the way was the flogging and banishment of the virgin, and stoning the non-virgin. A further possibility, it may be, is that the Book of God is a reference to a verse whose wording has been withdrawn, that is, the stoning verse, although the verse also fails to mention banishment. Finally, the reference may be to the Qur’an prohibition of wasting another’s property without legal title to it. The man had taken possession of the other’s cattle and slavegirl, but the Prophet insisted that they be returned. (p. 76-77, Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, “Fath al Bari”, 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 12, p. 115)

The last suggestion may imply that the hadith at one time terminated with the words ‘Your cattle and slavegirl are to be restored to you.’

Response:Unauthentic Source.

The aunt of Abu Usama b. Sahl told him that the Prophet had instructed them in the reciting of the stoning verse. (p. 82, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, “al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur’an”, Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 25)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

God sent Muhammad and sent down the Scripture to him. Part of what he sent down was the passage on stoning, we read it, and we heeded it. The apostle stoned and we stoned them after him. I fear that in time to come men will say that they find no mention of stoning in God’s book and thereby go astray in neglecting an ordinance which God has sent down. Verily stoning in the book of God is a penalty laid on married men and women who commit adultery. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p. 684)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

see also next section

5.1.2.3 The actual words of the stoning verse

Malik reports that when `Umar returned from the pilgrimage, he addressed the people of Medina,Men! the Sunna has been established, the obligatory duties imposed and you have been left in no uncertainty. Beware lest you neglect the stoning verse on account of those who say, ‘We do not find two penalties in the Book of God.’ The Prophet stoned, and we have stoned. By Him Who holds my soul in His Hand! but that men would say, ‘`Umar has added to the Book of God’, I would write it in with my hand, ‘The saikh and the saikha, when they fornicate, stone them outright.’ (Malik b. Anas, “al Muwatta'”, K. al Hudud, cf. “Fath”, vol. 12, p. 119)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

The version that occurs in the Hulya reads, ‘I would write at the end of the Qur’an.’ (p. 78)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

Abu Ma`sar has,

But that men would say, ‘`Umar has written what is not the Book of God’, I would write it in, for we used to recite it, ‘The saikh and the saikha, when they fornicate, stone them outright, as an exemplary punishment from God. God is mighty, wise.’ (p 78)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

ibn Hajar compares two versions of the `Umar hadith, one related by `Ali b. `Abdullah, teacher of Bukhari, and to other related by Bukhari himself. In `Ali’s version, we find

`Umar declared, ‘I fear that with the passage of time some will say, “We do not find stoning in the Book of God”, and will neglect a divine injunction revealed by God. Stoning is a just claim against the non-virgin fornicator when valid proof is brought, or pregnancy occurs, or confession is made. We used to recite it, “the saikh and the saikha, when they fornicate, stone them outright.” The Messenger of God stoned and we have stoned.’

Bukhari’s version stops at confession is made’, and ibn Hajar suggests that Buhkari deliberately ignored the remainder of the hadith.

Nasa’i stated that he knew of no transmitter who included the words of the ‘verse’ in his hadith, apart from Sufyan who here transmits the report as from Zuhri to `Ali b. Abdullah. Nasa’i took Sufyan’s version to be erroneous, as numerous transmitters relate the hadith from Zuhri without this addition.But ibn Hajar reminds that the report is transmitted by Malik and by others in this form which he judges to be ‘correct’. (p. 79, Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, “Fath al Bari”, 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 12, p. 119)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

… but Noldeke observed that the terms saikha and battata are alien to the vocabulary of the Qur’an. (p. 79, GdQ2, vol. 1, p. 251, n. 3)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

An improved version had, ‘as an exemplary punishment from God and His apostle.’ (Sulaiman b. Da’ud al Tayalisi, “Sunan”, Haiderabad, 1904/1321, p. 540)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

5.1.2.4 Not added to the mushaf but in margins

We have a report from `Umar that he said,

‘The Messenger of God stoned, Abu Bakr stoned and I have stoned. I am not prepared to add to the Book of God, otherwise I would write it into the mushaf, for I fear that there will come some people who, not finding it, will not accept it.’ (Ahmad b. al Husain al Baihaqi, “al Sunan al Kubra”, 10 vols., Haiderabad, 1925-38/1344-57, vol. 8, p. 213)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

[`Umar summoned] a group of the Muhajirs and the Ansar and inscribe[d] their testimony on the margin of the mushaf: ‘The testimony of `Umar and of NN that the Messenger of God stoned adulterers.’ (K. al Mabani”, in A. Jeffery, “Two Muqaddimahs”, Cairo, 1954, p. 78)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

Sarakhsi reports, `Umar said from the pulpit, ‘… and part of what was revealed in Qur’an read, “the saikh and the saikha, when they fornicate, stone them outright”. Some will repudiate this, and but that men would say, “`Umar has added to the Book of God,” I will write it on the margin of the mushaf.’ (p. 78-79, al Sarakhsi, “Mabsut”, 30 vols., Cairo, 1324, vol. 9, p. 36)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

see also next section

5.1.2.5 Where it used to be in the Qur’an

Ubayy asked Zirr b. Hubais, ‘How many verses do you recite in surat al Ahzab?’ Zirr replied, ‘Seventy-three verses.’ Ubayy asked if that was all. ‘I have seen it,’ he said, ‘when it was the same length as Baqara. It contained the words “The saikh and the saikha, when they fornicate, stone them outright, as an exemplary punishment from God. God is might, wise.”‘ (p. 78-79, Ahmad b. al Husain al Baihaqi, “al Sunan al Kubra”, 10 vols., Haiderabad, 1925-38/1344-57, vol. 8, pp. 210-11)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

Ubayy said, ‘It used to equal the length surat al Baqara and we used to recite in Ahzab the stoning verse.’ Zirr asked, ‘What is the stoning verse?’ Ubayy recited, ‘If the saikh and the saikha fornicate, stone them outright as an exemplary punishment from God. God is might, wise.’ (p. 80, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, “al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur’an”, Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 25)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

Ahzab was identified as the sura originally containing the stoning verse, and, in addition to Ubayy and Abu Musa, `A’isa reports that Ahzab used to be recited, in the lifetime of the Prophet, as having 200 verses, but when `Uthman wrote out the mushafs, all they could find was its present length. (Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, “al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur’an”, Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 25)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

A variant of this hadith speaks of writing out the mushaf with, however, no mention of date or attribution. ibn al Anbari concluded from `A’isa’s report that God withdrew from the sura everything in excess of its present length, and Mekki reminds us that withdrawal is one of the modes of naskh. (p. 84, Burhan al Din al Baji, “Jawab”, MS Dar al Kutub, Taimur “majami`”, no. 207, f. 10) Ahzab has only seventy-three verses in today’s mushaf. (p. 84)

Response:Discussion based on views from Unauthentic Source.

5.1.2.6 Reasons it was not in the mushaf

Zaid b. Thabit and Sa`id b. al `As were writing out the mushaf. When they came to this verse, Zaid said, ‘I heard the Prophet say, “the saikh and the saikha.”‘ `Umar stated, ‘When it was revealed, I went to the Messenger of God and said to him, “Shall I write it?” but he seemed to disapprove.’ `Umar added, ‘Don’t you see that the mature, if unwed, would only be flogged in the event of fornication, yet the youth, if wed, would be stoned?’ (p. 80, Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, “Fath al Bari”, 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 12, p. 119; Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, “al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur’an”, Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 26)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

Marwan b. al Hakam asked Zaid why he would not write the verse in the mushaf. Zaid replied, Don’t you see that the youth if married is stoned? We raised this question with `Umar and he said, ‘I’ll see to it.’ He went to the Prophet and asked his permission to record the verse. The Prophet said he could not permit that. (p. 81-82, Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, “Fath al Bari”, 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 12, p. 131; Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, “al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur’an”, Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 26-7)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

`A’isa explains how the wording came to be omitted from the mushaf:

The stoning verse and another verse were revealed and recorded on a sheet (sahifa) which was placed for safe-keeping under her bedding. When the Prophet fell ill and the household were preoccupied with nursing him, a domestic animal got in from the yard and gobbled up the sheet. (p. 86, Burhan al Din al Baji, “Jawab”, MS Dar al Kutub, Taimur “majami`”, no. 207, f. 15)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

Safi`i … knew and used the hadith about the stoning verse that had once figured in the Qur’an before the collection of the texts into the mushaf. (p. 86, Ikhtiflaf al Hadith, margin of Umm, vol. 7, p. 251)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

5.1.2.7 Reconciliation of hadith reports

The source conflict is acknowledged by ibn Hajar, who comments that the reason for the withdrawal of the stoning verse was that the Fiqh was at variance with the apparently general wording of the verse. (p. 81, Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, “Fath al Bari”, 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 12, p. 131; Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, “al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur’an”, Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 26-7)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

This observation may perhaps also explain why Malik, who does not present the text of the `Ubada report, nevertheless glosses the term saikh and saikha as thayyib and tayyiba (sc. non-virgin), reducing thereby the meaning of the stoning verse to coincide with the meaning of the `Ubada hadith. (p. 81)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

Further, ibn Hajar concluded that the reason for the withdrawal of the wording of the verse was conflict of opinion among the Companions. He reports that `Umar addressed the people saying,

Do not complain about stoning. It is a just claim and I was minded to write it into the mushaf, so I consulted Ubayy. But he said, ‘Didn’t you come to me once before, when I was asking the Prophet for permission to recite the verse? You shoved me in the chest with the words, “Are you asking him to permit the recitation of the stoning verse when the people are randy as donkeys?”‘ (p. 81, Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, “Fath al Bari”, 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 12, p. 131; Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, “al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur’an”, Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 26-7)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

Safi`i took the view that the source of the stoning penalty had been the Sunna of the Prophet. Other scholars fell into several classes. (Abu Ja`far Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Isma`il al Saffar, al Nahhas, “K. al nasikh wa al mansukh fi al Qur’an al Karim”, Cairo?, pub. Zaki Mubarak, n.d., pp. 6-7)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

We know of those who, finding no reference to the stoning penalty in the Qur’an simply rejected it. They insisted on acknowledging only the Qur’an’s flogging penalty. (Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, “Fath al Bari”, 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 12, introduction to K. al Muharabin)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

In the ‘hired hand’ hadith, the Prophet said, ‘I shall judge in accordance with the Book of God.’ He therefore inflicted the stoning penalty, of which there is no mention in the Book of God. He must have meant, therefore, by the expression the Book of God, the hukm, the verdict of God, revealed in the manner stated. (p. 103, “K. al Mabani”, in A. Jeffery, “Two Muqaddimahs”, Cairo, 1954, p. 81)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

ibn Zafar in the Yanbu` considered that this case ought not be included in the list of ayas withdrawn in respect of their wording alone. It was the subject of khabar al wahid which gives no basis for statements as to the text of the Qur’an. In an undisguised reference to the parallel quarrels as to the wording of Q 2.106, and its interpretation, he argues that, in any event, stoning is not an instance of naskh. It is an example of raf` or of nasa’ – deliberate omission from the mushaf. The rulings of verses of this kind can be known from sources other than the original texts. (Burton: The term used, munsa’/mansa’, derives from reading Q 2.106 as: aw nansa’.)

Suyuti rejects Zarkasi’s convenient solution. Stoning cannot be considered from the angel of khabar al wahid. `Umar had received his Qur’an text directly from the Prophet. His own solution is merely apologetic: the reason for the withdrawal of this wording is the divine solicitude for the welfare of the Muslims. Non-recording of the verse means non-dissemination of the ruling. Where committed, the offense is best left undisclosed (a detail which has some measure of support in a source as distant in time as Malik, K. al Hudud).

Response:Unauthentic Source.

Zurqani improves even on Suyuti’s banality by adding that the Qur’an, the Word of God, is inimitable in, among other respects, its brevity — hence the omission of this verse! (Muhammad `Abdul `Azim al Zurqani, “Manahil al `Irfan fi `ulum al Qur’an”, 2 vols., Halabi, Cairo, 1954, vol. 2, pp. 115-16)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

Besides, he argues, such things are unseemly, not merely to perform, but even to mentioned in so holy a book. (Muhammad `Abdul `Azim al Zurqani, “Manahil al `Irfan fi `ulum al Qur’an, 2 vols., Halabi, Cairo, 1954, vol. 2, pp. 115-16)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

5.1.3 The ibn Adam verses

5.1.3.1 Recited before `Uthman’s collection

Ubayy reports, ‘The Messenger of God said to me, “God has commanded me to instruct you in the reciting of the Qur’an.” He then recited: “Did not those who rejected the Prophet among the people of the Book and the associators…” The verse continued, “Did ibn Adam possess a wadi of property”, or, “Were ibn Adam to ask for a wadi of property and he received it, it would asked for a second, and if he received that, he would demand a third wadi. Only dust will fill the maw of ibn Adam, but God relents to him who repents. The very faith in God’s eyes is the Hanifiya, not Judaism nor Christianity. Whoso does good, it will never be denied him.” (p. 82-83, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, “al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur’an”, Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 25)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

ibn `Abbas said, ‘Did ibn Adam possess two wadis of pelf, he would desire a third. Only dust will fill the maw of ibn Adam, but God relents to him who repents.’ `Umar asked, ‘What is this?’ ibn `Abbas replied that Ubayy had instructed him to recite this. `Umar took ibn `Abbas to confront Ubayy. `Umar said, ‘We don’t say that.’ Ubayy insisted that the Prophet instructed him. `Umar asked him, ‘Shall I write it into the mushaf, in that case?’Ubayy said, ‘Yes.’ This was before the copying of the `Uthman mushafs on the basis of which the practice now rests. (p. 83, Burhan al Din al Baji, “Jawab”, MS Dar al Kutub, Taimur “majami`”, no. 207, f. 17)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

Abu Musa al An`sari reports, ‘There was revealed a sura the like of Baqara, but it was later withdrawn.’ He recalled of it, ‘God will assist this polity with peoples who have no share in the Hereafter. Did ibn Adam posses two wadis of property, he would crave a third. Nothing will fill the maw of ibn Adam but dust, but God will relent to him who repents.’ (p. 83, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, “al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur’an”, Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 25)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

Abu Waqid al Laithi reports, ‘When inspiration came upon the Prophet, we would go to him and he would instruct us in what had been revealed. I went to him once and he said, “God says, ‘We sent down wealth for the upkeep of prayer and alms-giving. Were ibn Adam to possess a wadi he would desire another like it, which, if he had, he would desire yet another. Nothing will fill the maw of ibn Adam but dust, but God relents to him who repents.'”‘ (p. 83, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, “al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur’an”, Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 25)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

5.1.3.2 Where it used to be in the Qur’an

Buraid claims to have heard the Prophet recite ibn Adam at prayer. The aya was in surat Yusuf. (p. 83, Burhan al Din al Baji, “Jawab”, MS Dar al Kutub, Taimur “majami`”, no. 207, f. 18)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

Abu Musa said, ‘We used to recite surat al Ahzab, likening it for length and severity with Bara’a. But I have been caused to forget it, except that I recall the ibn Adam verse. (p. 83-84, Abu al Fadl Sihab al Din Mahmud b. `Abdullah al Alusi, “Ruh al Ma`ani”, 6 vols., idarat al taba`a al muniraya, Cairo, n.d., vol. 1, p. 315)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

5.1.3.3 Uncertainty

Anas was unable to say whether ibn Adam was a Qur’an verse or not. He reports from Ubayy, ‘We supposed that ibn Adam was a Qur’an verse until surat al takathur was revealed.’ (p. 84, Sulaiman b. Da’ud al Tayalisi, “Sunan”, Haiderabad, 1904/1321, no. 1983) This report reduces ibn Adam from ever having been a Qur’an verse, to being merely a tafsir of Takathur. (p. 84, Bukhari, K. al Tafsir, ad Q 2.106)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

5.1.4 The Suckling Verse

5.1.4.1 Recited before `Uthman’s collection

Narrated Aisha:
It had been revealed in the Qur’an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings and Allah’s Apostle (peace_be_upon_him) died and it was before that time (found) in the Qur’an (and recited by the Muslims). (Sahih Muslim, book 8, no. 3421)

Response:It was a single claim for the vast Muslim empire.

`A’isa reported, ‘In what was revealed, ten attested sucklings were required to established the ban. The ten were later replaced by five. The Prophet died and the five were still being recited in the Qur’an.’ She used to say, ‘The Qur’an was revealed with ten attested sucklings setting up the bar. These later became five.’ No man ever called upon her who had not completed a course of five sucklings.`Abdullah b. al Zubair reports, ‘The Prophet said, “Not one and not two sucklings constitute the bar, nor one nor two sucks.”‘ `Urwa reports that the Prophet commanded the wife of Abu Hudaifa to nurse Salim five times to set up the bar. She did so and always considered Salim a son.

Salim b. `Abdullah reports that `A’isa sent him away and refused to see him. He was being suckled by her sister Umm Kulthum who had fallen ill after suckling him only three times. Salim said, `I could never visit `A’isa, since I have not completed the course of ten.’ … Safi`i adopted the rule of five sucklings as coming from the Prophet on the strength of the `A’isa report that the five were Qur’anic and constituted the ban. (Abu `Abdullah Muhammad b. Idris al Safi`i, al Mutaalibi, K. Jima` al `ilm, in “Umm”, 7 vols., Bulaq 1324, vol 5, pp. 23-4, and pp. 87-88, Mekki, “bab aqsam al naskh”)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

Hafsa sent `Asim b. `Abdullah b. Sa`d to her sister Fatima to be nursed ten times. This was to enable him to visit her. (p. 88, Abu `Abdullah Muhammad b. Idris al Safi`i, al Mutaalibi, K. Jima` al `ilm, in “Umm”, 7 vols., Bulaq 1324, vol 7, p. 208)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

ibn Qutaiba (A.H. 276) … addresses himself to the comparison between that hadith as reported by Muhammad b. Ishaq and the ‘sounder’ version from Malik.In the opinion of the Hadith specialists, Malik was by far the more reliable transmitter. He reported from `Abdullah b. abi Bakr from `Amra from `A’isa that she said,

Among what had been revealed in the Qur’an was the provision that ten attested sucklings set a bar to marriage. The ten were subsequently replaced by the rule that five attested sucklings set up the bar. The Prophet died and the five were still being recited as part of the Qur’an. (p 95, Abu Muhammad `Abdullah b. Muslim, ibn Qutaiba, “K. ta’wil mukhtalif al Hadith”, Cairo, 1966/1386, pp. 310-15)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

5.1.4.2 Effects on Fiqh

Among the fuqaha’ who adapted their Fiqh to this report were Safi`i and Ishaq (b. Rahawaih), both of whom made five the minimum line of demarcation between what does and what does not establish a bar to marriage. (p. 95)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

5.1.4.3 Interpretations

Suyuti intervened to suggest one of the two interpretations of `A’isa’s report:

  1. the Prophet’s death approached and these words were still being recited as part of the revelation;
  2. the Prophet died and it was some time before all the people came to hear of the abrogation of the verse.(p. 97, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, “al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur’an”, Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 22)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

5.1.5 Other missing verses

[Hudaifa’s remarked] ‘They don’t recite a quarter of al Bara’a today.’ (p. 130)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

Zuhri reports, ‘We have heard that many Qur’an passages were revealed but that those who had memorised them fell in the Yemama fighting. Those passages had not been written down, and following the deaths of those who knew them, were no longer known; nor had Abu Bakr, nor `Umar nor `Uthman as yet collected the texts of the Qur’an. (Burton: The published text ought here to be amended: for “fa lamma jama`a Abu Bakr”, I propose to read: “wa lamma yajma` Abu Bakr”, to follow: “lam yuktab”.) Those lost passages were not to be found with anyone after the deaths of those who had memorised them. This, I understand, was one of the considerations which impelled them to pursue the Qur’an during the reign of Abu Bakr, committing it to sheets for fear that there should perish in further theatres of war men who bore much of the Qur’an which they would take to the grave with them on their fall, and which, with their passing, would not be found with any other. (pp. 126-127, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da’ud, “K. al Masahif”, ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 23)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

Anas is reported in the two Sahih’s as declaring:

‘There was revealed concerning those slain at Bi’r Ma`una a Qur’an verse which we recited until it was withdrawn: “Inform our tribe on our behalf that we have met with our Lord. He has been well pleased with us and has satisfied our desires.”‘ (pp. 48-49, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, “al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur’an”, Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 26)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

Anas ibn Malik said:

We used to read a verse of the Qur’an revealed in their connection, but later the verse was cancelled. It was: “convey to our people on our behalf the information that we have met our Lord, and He is pleased with us, and has made us pleased.” (Sahih Bukhari, vol. 5, p. 288)

Response:Again,a single claim without any other supporting direct evidence.

`Abdullah b. Mas`ud reported that the Prophet had taught him to recite a particular Qur’an verse which he learned by heart and copied out in his personal mushaf. When night came, and `Abdullah rose to pray, he desired to recite that aya but could not recall a syllable. ‘In the morning he consulted his mushaf, only to find the page blank! He mentioned this to the Prophet who told him that that verse had been withdrawn that very night. (p. 133, 199)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

For Q 2.106 at least a dozen suggested reading have been recorded — ample evidence of the extent, and hence of the significance, of the dispute as to the meaning. What was eventually settled as the joint exegesis of Q 87 and Q2 (the interpretation of each of these verses operating upon that of the other) was that there was indeed verses once revealed to Muhammad as part of the ‘total Qur’an revelation’ which, however, have been omitted from the collected texts of the Qur’an, the mushaf. That had by no means occurred from Muhammad’s having merely forgotten them. Q 87 refers to God’s will and Q 2 uses the root n.s.y. in the causative. God had caused Muhammad to forget in conformity with the mysterious divine intention as to the final contents of the Book of God. (p. 48)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

He instances the report from Abu Musa as to the sura like Bara’a which was revealed, but later withdrawn. Abu Musa recalled something of it, but Mekki resolutely refuses to go into further detail. The Qur’an text cannot be established on the basis of reports. The many examples of this category he would therefore prefer to pass over in silence. God alone knows the truth of the matter. (p. 85, Mekki, “bab aqsam al naskh”)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

The extreme Sh`ia, the Rafidis, alleged that the impious rulers had expunged from the mushaf some 500 verses including those which most unambiguously marked out `Ali as the appointed successor to the Prophet…. The rebels against `Uthman, justifying their revolt, enumerated amongst their grievances their resentment at his ‘having expunged the mushafs.’ (Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da’ud, “K. al Masahif”, ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 36)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

5.2 Some variant verses

5.2.1 The hajj ritual, tawaf

Farra’ (A.H. 207) reports: ‘Some Muslims read Q 2.158: “There shall be no blame on him if he do not perform the tawaf.”‘ (p. 31, Safi`i, “Risalah”, p. 17) He comments that this reading can be explained in one of two ways:

  1. That the negative is linguistically inoperative. cf. Q 7.12: ‘ma mana’ak an la tasjuda’, which of course means an tasjuda.
  2. Alternatively, the tawaf may be entirely optional. But the first explanation is the basis of the practice.

Response:Unauthentic Source.

`Ata’ regarded the tawaf as entirely optional. This view, Tabari explains, was explicitly derived from the variant reading of Q 2.158 transmitted in the mushaf of `Abdullah b. Mas`ud. The same is reported from Anas, ibn `Abbas and Mujahid. (p. 31, Abu Ja`far Muhammad b. Jarir al Tabari, “Jam` al Bayan `an ta’wil ay al Qur’an”, ed. Sakir, 15 vols. to date, Cairo, 1954-, vol. 3, p. 320)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

5.2.2 The penalty for breach of oaths

5.2.2.1 The variant

Q. 589 regulates the penalties for breach of oaths. Among these is a three day’s fast and the Hanafis argue that the fast should be consecutive. `Abdullah is said to read, ‘a fast of three [consecutive] days.’ (p. 34, Abu Hamid Muhammad b. Muhammad al Gazali, “K. al Mustasfa”, 2 vols., Bulaq, 1322, vol. 1, p. 102)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

The same variant reading was attributed to Ubayy … [and also talks about mut`a marriages] (p. 35)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

On the basis of a variant consonantal reading of Q 2.106 … Safi`i interpreted the verse to mean: ‘Whatsoever verse We replace and whatsoever revelation We postpone to a later time, We shall bring another like it, or better than it in the meantime.’ This reading, nansa’, like the reading adopted by the majority, nunsi, represents equally the flight from a reading of the script which provoked serious theological compunction for the Muslims, that is, nansa (we forget). God does not forget! (p. 63, Safi`i, “Risalah”, p. 17)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

5.2.2.2 Various views

Sarakhsi (AH 490), a Hanafi, argued,

The fast in expiation of a breach of oath is consecutive on the basis of `Abdullah’s reading which was in circulation as late as the time of Abu Hanifa, but did not turn out to be mutawatir, the sole criterion for inclusion in the mushaf. No one can question `Abdullah’s veracity, nor his memory. We can but conclude that the word ‘consecutive’ was part of the original wording of the Qur’an and has been preserved in `Abdullah’s reading. The word was apparently withdrawn in the lifetime of the Prophet. The Muslims were caused to forget it, with the exception of `Abdullah who was honoured with its preservation, in order to preserve the ruling. The isolate sunna-hadith may establish a practice; the isolate Qur’an-hadith can do no less. (p. 35, Abu Bakr Muhammad b. Ahmad al Sarakhsi, “Usul”, 2 vols., Haiderabad, 1372, vol 2, p. 81)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

Sarakhsi argued that God had caused the other Companions to forget his reading, but permitted `Abdullah to transmit it so that the ruling might be preserved. (p. 172)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

Safi`i argued that, as the Qur’an did not stipulate that it should be consecutive, the Muslim was free to decide whether to fast on consecutive of separate days. The Q 5.89 fast should be read on the analogy of the substitute fast imposed for breach for Ramadhan. The Qur’an merely says ‘a similar number of days.’ (Q 2.183) (p. 34, Abu `Abdullah Muhammad b. Idris al Safi`i, al Mutaalibi, K. Jima` al `ilm, in “Umm”, 7 vols., Bulaq 1324, vol 7, p. 60)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

Gazali argues,

The fast in expiation for a breach of one’s oath need not be consecutive, even if `Abdullah did read, ‘three [consecutive] days’. This reading is not universally acknowledged to be the Qur’an text. Perhaps `Abdullah adduce this reading in order to elucidate what he took to be a justifiable exegesis. Or, perhaps he may have attracted to Q 5.89, by analogy, the word ‘consecutive’, which does occur in Q 58.4. Abu Hanifa, conceding that the reading is not Qur’anic, accepted it, but as a Hadith. The practice, however, should be based exclusively on what is explicitly attributed to the Prophet. (p. 35, Gazali, vol. 1, p. 102)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

… He further adduced `Abdullah’s reading in arguing that the fast in expiation of the breach of an oath is consecutive. We do not accept this view because that reading has been repealed. (p. 37, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, “al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur’an”, Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 82)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

5.2.3 On mut`a marriages

[Ubayy] was credited with reading Q 4.24, a verse charged with significance for the Muslim law on marriage, in a variant version: fa ma stamta`tum bihi minhunna [ila ajalin musamman] (p. 35, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da’ud, “K. al Masahif”, ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 53)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

We argued that it was irrelevant to the revealed status of the Qur’an document whether one read: aswabu, aqwamu or ahya’u (Q 73.6); saiha or zaqya (Q 36.29).On the other hand, it was of the highest significance for the history of the development of the Islamic Law and to the attendant school polemic whether one read fa ma stamta`tum bihi minhunna (Q 4.24) with or without the attempted interpolation ila ajalin musamman. (p. 178, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da’ud, “K. al Masahif”, ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 53)

[Note: Burton believes that variant readings are interpolations.]

Response:Unauthentic Source.

5.2.4 On Wudu

Two opposing doctrines — the invalidation of the ritual purity [wudu] and the contrary doctrine — could both be referred to the Qur’an, according as the contending fuquha read: lamastum / laamastum or the permissibility of sexual intercourse with the menstruating woman at the expiry of her period but before she has cleansed herself, and the contrary doctrine, according as they read either yathurna or yattahirna.There is an interesting discussion on verses yielding two-fold readings. Abu al Laith reported two views: 1. God had uttered them both; 2. God had uttered only one, but permitted the verse to be read in two possible ways. Samarqandi’s own view was that if each of the two readings was susceptible of a distinct interpretation and legal application, God had uttered both. In such instances, the two readings were the equivalent of two distinct revelations. If the two readings yielded a single meaning, God had uttered only one reading, but permitted the other, owing to the differences between the dialect of the peninsula Arabs. (Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, “al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur’an”, Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 82)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

Q 5.6, the verse imposing the wudu yielded a two-fold reading, the distinction this time residing in the vowelling. ‘The verse was revealed to sanction two distinct legal doctrines:

arjulakum – enjoined the washing of the feet
arjulikum – permitted the wiping of the feet’
(p. 36-37)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

5.2.5 Other variants

The Muslims were fully alive to the import of variant readings:

‘The differences in the readings indicate the differences in the legal rulings.’ (p. 36, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, “al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur’an”, Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 82)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

Anas recited: hiya asaddu wat’an wa aswabu qilan. Some one pointed out that the ‘correct’ reading was aqwamu; aqwamu, he retorted, aswabu, ahya’u — they’re all the same. (p. 34, Abu Ja`far Muhammad b. Jarir al Tabari, “Tafsir”, vol. 1, p. 54)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

Another case in point is `Abdullah’s reading of Q 5.38: faqta’u aimanahum (for aidiyahum). (p. 38, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, “al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur’an”, Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 82)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

… and our madhab adduce as evidence of the legitimacy of basing a ruling on a variant reading the practice of cutting off the right hand of the thief on the ground of `Abdullah’s reading, also adduced by Abu Hanifa. (p. 37, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, “al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur’an”, Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 82)[Note: Q 5:38 says only say cut off hands]

Response:Unauthentic Source of the discussion.

It is reported of Ubayy that he read: kullama ada’a lahum masaw fihi [marru fihi sa`aw fihi] and from `Abdullah that he read lilladina amanu anziruna [amhiluna akhhiruna] (p. 39, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, “al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur’an”, Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 47)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

Related to the reading just attributed to Ubayy, is the statement that the transmission of the reading, famdu ila dikr allah, showed that the meaning of the Qur’an fas`aw is ‘go!’ rather than ‘run!’ or ‘hurry!’. (p. 39, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, “al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur’an”, Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 82)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

`A’isa’s reading, which she shared with Hafsa: wa al salat al wusta salat al’asr (p. 37, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, “al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur’an”, Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 82)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

[Q 2.106: ma nansakh min ayatin aw nunsi ha na’ti bi khairin min ha aw mithli ha.] Sa`d b. abi Waqqas recited Q 2.106: aw tansa ha. His reading was challenged, on the ground that Sa`id b. al Musayyab read: aw tunsa ha. Sa`d countered with a reference to two further verses, Q 87.6-7: sa nuqri’uk fa la tansa [illa ma sa’a allah] and Q 18.24 udkur rabbaka ida nasita. Sa`d, a Meccan, in addition, challenged the isnad of the reading of Sa`id, a Medinese. (p. 64, Abu Ja`far Muhammad b. Jarir al Tabari, “Tafsir”, vol. 2, p. 535)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

Q 4.101 apparently indicates that travelers may abbreviate the ritual prayer if threatened with attack. That the restriction is absolute, in the sense that the prayer might be cut short only if the Muslims had reason to fear attack, was a view attributed by some of the fuqaha’ to `A’isa. `Ali is the authority for the contrary view that the ritual prayer may be shortened by travelers. Appealing to asbab al nuzul, `Ali claimed that the first half of the verse had been revealed to the Prophet in reply to a question put to him on the subject. The answer, as revealed, read ‘No blame is incurred if, when traveling, you shorten the prayer.’ Only a year later, on the occasion of a fresh revelation, was the context extended to include the reference to fear of attack. The addition, however, bears only upon the second half of the verse. (p. 150, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, “al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur’an”, Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 90-1)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

According to Ubayy b. Kab, one of the secretaries of Muhammad, the verse reads: “O children of Israel, I am God’s messenger to you, and I announce to you a prophet whose community will be the last community and by which God will put the seal on the prophets and messengers.” where “Ahmad” is not mentioned. (Abdul Haqq)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

“Among things which have reached me about what Jesus of Mary stated in the Gospel which he received from God for the followers of the Gospel, in applying a term to describe the apostle of God, is the following. It is extracted from what John the apostle set down for them when he wrote the Gospel for them from the Testamant of Jesus son of Mary: “He that hateth me hateth the Lord. And if I had not done in their presence works which none other before me did, they had not sin: but from now they are puffed up with pride and think that they will overcome me and also the Lord. But the word that is in the Law must be fulfilled, ‘They hateh me without a cause’ [ie. without reason]. But when the Comforter has come whom God will send to you from the Lord’s presence, and the spirit of truth which will have gone forth from the Lord’s presence he [shall bear] witness of me and ye also, because ye have been with me from the beginning. I have spoken unto you about this that you should not be in doubt.” The Munahhemna [God bless and preserve him] in Syriac is Muhammad, in Greek his is the Paraclete. (Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, tr. Guillaume, pp. 103, 104)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

‘Yazid b. Ma`awiya was in the mosque in the time of al Walid b. `Uqba, sitting in a group among them was Hudaifa. An official called out, ‘Those who follow the reading of Abu Musa, go to the corner nearest the Kinda door. Those who follow `Abdullah’s reading, go the corner nearest `Abdullah’s house.’ Their reading of Q 2.196 did not agree. One group read, ‘Perform the pilgrimage to God.’ The others read it ‘Perform the pilgrimage to the Ka`ba.’ Hudaifa became very angry, his eyes reddened and he rose, parting his qamis at the waits, although in the mosque. This was during the reign of `Uthman. Hudaifa exclaimed, ‘Will someone go the Command of the Faithful, or shall I go myself? This is what happened in the previous dispensations.’ He came over and sat down, saying, ‘God sent Muhammad who, with those who went forward, fought those who went back until God gave victory to His religion. God took Muhammad and Islam made strides. To succeed him, God chose Abu Bakr who reigned as long as God chose. God then took him and Islam made rapid strides. God appointed `Umar who sat in the midst of Islam. God then took him also. Islam spread rapidly. God next chose `Uthman. God’s oath! Islam is on the point of such expansion that soon you will replace all other religions.’ (p. 143, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da’ud, “K. al Masahif”, ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 11)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

Sura 33:6 “The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves, and his wives are their mothers…””… in some Qiraats, like that of Ubai ibn Kab, occur also the word “and he is a father to them….” (A. Yusuf Ali, “The Holy Quran”, 1975, note 3674)

Sura 5:63

“Shall I tell you of an evil worse than that, for retribution with God? He who God cursed him, and was angry with him, and made some of them into monkeys and pigs, and worshiped (the idol) al-taghut.”Jeffery has found record of 19 alternate readings; seven attributed to Ibn Mas`ud, four to Ubai b. Ka`b, six to Ibn Abbas, and one each to `Ubaid b. `Umair and Anas b. Malik…. Here are the readings attributed to Ibn Mas`ud.

wa man `abadu al-taghuta,
wa `abadata al-taghuti,
wa `ubada al-taghutu,
wa `abuda al-taghutu,
wa `ubuda al-taghuti,
wa `ubidati al-taghutu,
ubbada al-taghuta
(translation by William Campbell, “The Quran and the Bible in the Light of History and Science”, Section Three, III.C)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

sura 3:19:

`Abdullah has “The way of the Hanifs” instead of “Behold, the [true] religion (din) of God is Islam. (Arthur Jeffery, Materials, Leiden, 1937)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

sura 3:39:

`Abdullah has “Then Gabriel called to him, ‘O Zachariah'”, instead of the Uthmanic reading: “Then the angels called to him as he stood praying in the sactuary.” (Arthur Jeffery, Materials, Leiden, 1937)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

sura 9:

`Abdullah’s codex for sura 9 begins with the Bismilah, while the `Uthmanic text does not. (Arthur Jeffery, Materials, Leiden, 1937)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

`Abdullah’s codex contained Shi’ite readings in suras 5:67; 24:35; 26:215; 33:25,33,56; 42:23; 47:29; 56:10; 59:7; 60:3; 75:17-19. (Arthur Jeffery, Materials, pp. 40, 65, 68, Leiden, 1937)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

Goldziher has signaled a disputed vocalic reading for the very Tawba verse which Zaid is said to have reinstated: There has now come to you a prophet from amongst your own number (anfusikum); from amongst the most precious among you (anfasikum). The variant has been ascribed, not merely to Companions, but even to the Prophet himself! (p. 170, I. Goldziher, Die Richtungen de Islamischen Koranauslegung, Leiden, 1952, p. 35)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

5.3 Variant sura orders / number of suras

`Abdullah reports, ‘We differed about a sura, as to whether it consisted of thirty-five or thirty-six verses, so we went to the Prophet who was engaged in conversation with `Ali. When we told him we disagreed over the reading, his face reddened as he replied, “Those before you perished through their disagreements.” He whispered something to `Ali who said, “The Prophet commands you to recite as you were taught.”‘ (p. 149, Abu Ja`far Muhammad b. Jarir al Tabari, “Tafsir”, pp. 23-4)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

Ubai’s codex was known to contain two Suras not found in the Othmanic text — Surat al-Khal` and Surat al-afd, as well as verse on men’s greed following Sura 10:24. (William Campbell, “The Quran and the Bible in the Light of History and Science”, Section Three, III.B) [Note: surat al-Khal has three verses, and surat al-Hafd has six, Jeffery p. 180ff]

Response:Unauthentic Source.

In addition to these two men, Islamic history and Hadiths mention primary collections made by Ali Ibn Abi Talib, the Prophet’s son-in-law, whose codex was arranged in chronological order starting with Sura 96; by Ibn Abbas, whose codex is mentioned by Al-Suyuti (Itqan, 154) as including the two extra Suras of Ubai; and by Abu Musa, whose codex was used by the people of Basra. It also contained the two extra Suras of Ubai (Itqan 154) as well as the verse on the greed of men (Sahih Muslim, 1, 285-286). (William Campbell, “The Quran and the Bible in the Light of History and Science”, Section Three, III.B)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

The Qadi `Iyyad reports that in the night prayer the Prophet recited Q 4 before Q 3 and that that was the order of the two chapters in the mushaf of Ubayy. This led the Qadi to conclude that the sura order had not been fixed by the Prophet, but had been left to the discretion of the Companions. (p. 216, Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, “Fath al Bari”, 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 9, p. 32)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

Baqillani, nothing that the order of the suras is not insisted upon for the purposes of prayer, private study or public instruction, supposed that this explained the different ordering reported to have occurred in the Companion codices. (p. 216-217)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

The codex ascribed to `Abdullah is said to lack three of the suras present in our (the `Uthmanic) text. The codices ascribed to ibn `Abbas, Ubayy and Abu Musa are said to contain two suras which the `Uthmanic text lacks. (p. 220, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, “al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur’an”, Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 65)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

The Mu`tazili scholar al Nazzam is reported to have impugned `Abdullah’s memory on the ground that he had denied two suras (sic) which are part of the Book of God….This is a reference, says ibn Qutaiba, to Q 113 and Q 114 … What induced `Abdullah to refrain from recording the two suras in his mushaf was that he observed that the Prophet used the chapters as charms to invoke the divine protection upon his grandsons, al Hasan and al Husain. (pp. 220-221, Abu Muhammad `Abdullah b. Muslim, ibn Qutaiba, “K. ta’wil mukhtalif al Hadith”, Cairo, 1966/1386, pp. 31)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

A similar cause led Ubayy, on the contrary, to copy into his mushaf the two qunut prayers which he noted the Prophet recited at the ritual service. `Abdullah, taking two chapters to be prayers, thought them to be no part of the Qur’an, while Ubayy, talking two prayers to be suras, thought that they were part of the Qur’an. (p. 221)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

[Fakhr al Din al Razi observes:]

The reports transmitted in certain ancient books to the effect that ibn Mas`ud denied that the Fatiha and the two charm suras are part of the Qur’an are troublesome. If we accept that a mutawatir tradition had been achieved in the days of the Companions, then the three chapters are part of the Qur’an and `Abdullah’s denial amounts to disbelief [kufr]. If, on the other hand, we hold that tawatur had not been achieved in the days of the Companions, it follows that the Qur’an is not mutawatir. What springs most readily to mind is that the reports from `Abdullah are quite unfounded. This cuts the know of the dilemma. The Qadi Abu Bakr said, ‘It is not soundly reported from `Abdullah that these three chapters are not part of the Qur’an. Such a statement has not been reported from him. What he did was merely to erase these chapters and omit them from his text since he did not approve of their being written. This does not imply that he denied that they were part of the Qur’an. The Sunna in his view was that they should record only what the Prophet had commanded to be recorded and `Abdullah did not have information that the Prophet had himself recorded these suras or commanded that they be recorded.’al Nawawi says in his commentary on the Muhaddab, ‘The Muslims are unanimously of the opinion that the three suras are part of the Qur’an and that anyone who denies one of them is an unbeliever. What has been reported about `Abdullah is groundless and thoroughly unsound.’

ibn Hazm said in the Muhalla, ‘The thing is a lie fathered upon `Abdullah. Only the reading from `Abdullah as transmitted from `Asim from Zirr from ibn Mas`ud is authentic and in that reading, the three suras are present. (A. Jeffery, “Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur’an, Leiden, 1937, p. 21)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

But ibn Hajar in the Fath accepts the reports about `Abdullah as sound. He states that both Ahmad and ibn Hibban report that `Abdullah would not write these chapters in his mushaf. Ahmad’s son, in the supplement to the Musnad, al Tabarani and ibn Mardawaih all report from al A`mas and Abu Ishaq from `Abdul Rahman b. Yazid al Nakha`i that he said ‘`Abdullah used to erase the two charm suras from his records saying, “They are not part of the Book of God.”‘ Similar reports are related by al Bazzar and al Tabarani with the addition that, as he erased them `Abdullah said, ‘The Prophet merely commanded that they be used as charm prayers.’ `Abdullah never recited them in his ritual prayers.

al Bazzar adds, ‘None of the Companions concurred with this view of `Abdullah’s. Further, it is ascertained that the Prophet recited them at his ritual prayers.’ ibn Hajar concludes that the allegation that the whole thing is a lie fathered on `Abdullah must be dismissed. Attacks upon hadiths of unexceptionable isnad are quite unacceptable in the absence of further evidence. Since the isnads of these reports about `Abdullah are sound, they must be accepted without further ado. A means ought to be sought whereby they might be interpreted. The Qada and others took the reports to show `Abdullah’s reluctance to write these suras into the mushaf. Here is an interpretation which commends itself, excepting that the sound report states that `Abdullah said, ‘The charm prayers are not part of the Book of God.’ Now, if one construes the words, ‘Book of God’ as a reference to the mushaf, this complements the interpretation.

Some have reviewed the drift of the reports felt this harmonisation to be somewhat far-fetched. ibn al Sabbag added that `Abdullah is not quite certain as to the status of the three chapters at the time when he first made his remarks. The consensus of the Companions as to the contents of the mushaf was first reached after that time. The three suras were first declared mutawatira during `Abdullah’s lifetime. It was simply that they had not at first been mutawatira in his private opinion.

ibn Qutaiba, resuming his comment on `Abdullah’s view of the matter, refrained from expressing any opinion as to whether `Abdullah or the Companions were right or wrong. As for the reports that he had omitted the Fatiha from his mushaf on the grounds that that chapter was not part of the Qur’an God forbid!

`Abdullah took the view that the Qur’an was to be recorded and to be assembled between the two covers to preclude any doubt and to obviate any forgetting, any addition or any loss. `Abdullah could see that all these things were quite inconceivably in respect of the Fatiha, on account of its brevity and given the fact that every Muslim is required to memorise it for the purpose of prayer. (pp. 222-224, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, “al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur’an”, Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 79)

Response:Unauthentic Source.

.

Textual Integrity: On the Integrity of Quran

Topics already discussed.

The differences in spellings (only a single letters) when the context,the whole verse and everything is known as well as memorized and easily traceable,then such a difference in single letter does not carry any weighatge.

Likewise,any one claim form thousands of Muslim,has to be ignored.

Textual Integrity: The different seven versions of Quran

First of all,they are not something totally new,incorporated into the Quran.

They were allowed.

This was something asked by Prophet Muhammad s.a.w.w. and granted by Allah.The promise of preservation included this margin.

Narrated Ibn `Abbas:

Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said, “Gabriel read the Qur’an to me in one way (i.e. dialect) and I continued asking him to read it in different ways till he read it in seven different ways.”(Bukhari 3219)

 
 
 

‘Umar b. Khattab said:

I heard Hisham b. Hakim b. Hizam reciting Surah al-Furqan in a style different from that in which I used to recite it, and in which Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) had taught me to recite it. I was about to dispute with him (on this style) but I delayed till he had finished that (the recitation). Then I caught hold of his cloak and brought him to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and said: Messenger of Allah, I heard this man reciting Surah al-Furqan in a style different from the one in which you taught me to recite. Upon this the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) told (me) to leave him alone and asked him to recite. He then recited in the style in which I beard him recite it. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) then said: Thus was it sent down. He then told me to recite and I recited it, and he said: Thus was it sent down. The Qur’an was sent down in seven dialects. So recite what seems easy therefrom.(Sahih Muslim 818)
Secondly,95% of the recitation is common/same in Muslim world,while others are also allowed.
Thirdly,the meanings are not changed.
Fourthly,the whole words are not changed.A single word is not substituted by another.
Difference in a single letter or diacritical mark does not mean that the whole word is changed.
Differences in recitations also do not mean that the words are changed,or the meanings are changed.
Finally and most importantly,the chain of narrators is matawatir,it is known and authentic.
Conclusion:
 
The differences in (maximum) 38 letters from 300,000 (minimum) letters,means less than 0.01% variation,and most importantly within the margins of Preservation,with no change in actual meanings,no change in whole words and no change in actual verb.
.
Following is the table below,indicating the same recitation in 95% of Muslims.
 THE RECITOR(Source of the Qiraat)  THE TRANSMISSION(In the abbreviated name of the Transmitter)  LOCATION  % OF THE MUSLIM WORLD
 * Abu Bakr ‘Asim  HAFS  THE MUSLIM WORLD IN GENERAL   95%   
 * Nafi  Warsh  Algeria, Morocco, parts of Tunisia, West Africa and Sudan  3%
 * Second transmitter – Qalun  Libya, Tunisia and parts of Qatar  0.7%    
 * Abu ‘Amr al-Ala  * Al-Duri  Parts of Sudan and West Africa  0.3 %
 * Ibn ‘Amir  * Hisham  Parts of Yemen  1%          
 * Second transmitter – Ibn Dhakwan

Textual Integrity: The end of Quran

Each and every source is unauthentic.

Textual Integritry: The verses of Suckling

Again,

This was a single claim from the vast Muslim empire.

There was no other evidence..

No other claim..

No witnesses..

No written records..

No circumstantial evidence

It was 1 claim without any supporting evidence,from (at least) 10,000 Muslims..

I find it really reasonable to ignore it.

See the following link too.

http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2009/08/exposing-lie-of-qurans-lost-verse-about.html