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)

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)

... 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[`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)

`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)

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)

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.)

[`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)

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)

[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)

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)

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)

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.'

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)

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)

see also next section

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)

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

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)

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)

... 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)

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)

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)

[`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)

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)

see also next section

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)

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)

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) 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)

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)

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)

`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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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) 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)

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

`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")

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

`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)

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)

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")

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)

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.

`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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

... 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)

[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)

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.]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

... 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]

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)

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)

`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)

[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)

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)

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)

"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)

'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)

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)

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)

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)

sura 9:

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

`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)

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)

`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)

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]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[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)

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)