In this article we examine all the problems with Qur’anic transmission, from the moment of its supposed delivery via the mouth of an angel to the point of the definitive compilation, traditionally under Uthman, thus covering a period of about 4 to 5 decades. Modern scholarship is largely of the opinion that the transmission from here to the present day, 13 centuries later, is free of major issues, and this is largely based upon ongoing studies of the manuscript evidence.
Headings
The Problem with the Angel
The main problem of the Quran is really the unwitnessed encounter with the angel itself. We deal with that encounter in detail in my article here Muhammed’s Unique “Angel” in which we see that the encounter is not typically angelic by any means. The “being” remains anonymous, unseen by any other human, has an odd manner and a seemingly deleterious effect upon Muhammed. Going further on from there, we note the ad-hoc nature of many of the verses and the manner in which they seem to appear on request, seeming at face value to be serving a personal agenda, rather than anything universal. This should lead us to question if there really was any angel at all. We quote those verses here in my article on prophetic contradictions.
The problem can be summarized thus:
No one saw the angel in the cave (at the initial encounter, nor at subsequent encounters which where supposedly at least annual at Ramadan); No one saw an angel the time Muhammed revealed verses “impromptu”; Never does Muhammed state “I heard the voice of Allah revealing such-and-such verse”.
“Ahruf”-referring to the Confusion among Muhammed’s First Hearers
This section gives a summary of what seems to be various issues of uncertainty involved at the formational stage of the Qur’an. They are witnessed to in a handful of early discussions between Muhammed and his followers give us an insight into these fascinating moments which would, quite frankly go on to change the fate of the world. There isn’t much, but this is all there is.
Summary of the points of uncertainty
I quote the narratives in full next, but first a summary of inferences from them, and we see that we can identify 10 points of uncertainty:
a. There is no reference to a written text in any of these passages, nowhere does it say “go and see what we wrote earlier” or “check in the mushaf” etc.
b. On hearing of certain discrepancies, Ubayy states that he experienced an emotional disturbance on par with being an atheist! “there occurred In my mind a sort of denial which did not occur even during the Days of Ignorance (pre-Islamic paganism) … the Messenger of Allah saw how I was affected…” (Muslim 820)
c. He (Umar) reacts violently, seemingly almost throttling Hisham al-Hakim, as he himself describes: “I was about to jump over him during his prayer, but I controlled my temper, and when he had completed his prayer, I put his upper garment around his neck and seized him by it… I dragged him to Allah’s Messenger…”. (Bukhari 4992) dragging another off by hand (Bukhari 3476).
d. Mohammed himself suffers emotional disturbance, going “pale in the face” (Mustadrak Al-Hakim 2885).
e. He (Muhammed) himself reacts violently too, striking Ubayy (Muslim 820, Musnad Ahmed 21187, also 16413) and Umar (Musnad Ahmed 17577) both upon the chest.
f. Mohammed believes the problem is serious and are of a nature that has caused war and killing among nations “Don’t differ, for the nations before you differed and perished (because of their differences).” (Bukhari 3476) or “killed those who differed before you” (Mustadrak al-Hakim 2885).
g. He has no “real” solution, simply stating: “it does not matter, as long a verse of punishment is not ended with mercy and vice versa” (Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Musnad vol.5,124, no.21187, also vol.4, 30 no.16413, repeated in 17577 ). Consider that there are numerous theological issues that deal with issues that are not directly linked to mercy or punishment at all, like the nature of God, criticism of other religions, calls to fight, the meaning of prophethood and so on. Elsewhere he simply says: “recite whichever way is easier for you” (Bukhari 4992)
h. He even goes on the threaten that his followers will not even go into Heaven without his intercession! “I have deferred the third one for the day on which the entire creation will turn to me, including even Ibrahim (peace be upon him) (for intercession).” (Muslim no.820).
i. Mohammed seemingly invents an “ahruf” concept, in order to explain away discrepancies in the text (Musnad Ahmad 21187 et al, Bukhari 4992, Muslim 420). To this day, there is no agreement among Islamic scholars of what Muhammed meant by the “ahruf”, nor what the actual variants were.
j. The discrepancies could not be merely dialectical, differences in accent and so on, because Umar, Ubayy, Hisham, all those involved in these narratives belong to the same tribe and speak the same dialect, with the same accent, or at least with accents similar enough to avoid gross misunderstandings as we see in those narrative.
The Meaning of the word “ahruf”
What can we say with regards to what exactly were the variants that plague the Quran as stated in the narratives? The following are the theories based on those same narratives and some of the manuscript evidence of variants themselves. There are several intepretations of the meaning of the ahruf and no scholarly consensus. Ibn Hibban a 9th century hadith scholar gave 40 such explanations, and Al-Suyuti listed more than 35 (Itq¯an, 1/306–335, Nasser 99, footnote). Let us examine some of the more salient explanations:
Different ways of pronouncing a word?
Critique: Ubayy and Ibn Masud are both well versed in the Qur’an, close confidantes of the Mohammed (the latter professed faith in the Meccan period itself) and ratified by the prophet himself for their knowledge of the Qur’an, as two of the four best reciters of it. Both are shocked by the differences in recitation. The doubt that is raised in Ubayy’s mind was greater than the doubt that was in his mind even at the time of jahilliya (when he did not believe in God!). Ubayy, ibn Masud were both Qurayshi, so speakers of the same dialect, and would have the same accents. So differences in pronunciation are hardly likely to be the issue where.
Could it be differences in dialects?
This is another proffered explanation for the variants. What is a “dialect”? Language is an organic and constantly evolving phenomenon, so it might surprise the reader, but it isn’t even possible to rigorously define just what the boundaries of the dialect of the language are. New languages never arise de novo, except of course if a coomunity is living in total isolation. They are formed though migration of peoples, borrowings, trade where languages change over time, and eventually sufficiently so as to become incomprehensible and even unrecognisable to speakers of the old language so that they are now themsleves a new language. A modern reader will certainly not be able to understand a large proportino of what is red to him in the Shakespearean dialect, but he will also be able to tell that it is still English. Speakers of contemporary English dialects like Scouse oand Cockney will have even less difficulty. There is a famous record of the confusion that arose in a conversation between Mary Queen of Scots who spoke in Scots, and an Engish Nobleman, but one in which both knew the other was speaking English, that’s the point I’m making here. A French speaker in different parts of France will be able to understand each other reasonaby well, but struggle a lot more to pick up the French of Quebec in Canada. However if an English speaker hears the Pigdin English spoken in Haiti, it is barely recognisable as English.
Had Umar and Hisham known they were speaking different dialects of the same language, there would have been some sign of this recognition in the narrative. This is a non-trivial point, Hisham would say something like “I’m just speaking the Arabic of such-and-such-region”, or Umar would say “why is he speaking the Arabic of such-and-such region?” or there is a third option which is that Muhammed could have clarified “its ok to speak in the Arabic of a different region”. On the contrary, the explanation that does get given by Muhammed is not related to dialects, rather to some permissible change of meaning.
Had Mohamed “received” the dialects from the angel, he would have to speak those dialects to his followers to be written down himself. He gives no indication of being able to do this. Further in the other narrative Hisham has accepted Islam on the day that Mecca had been conquered. Umar was one of the closest companions of the prophets “like a shadow to him” and it would mean that it took 20 years for him to realise that Hisham was reading it differently and although he would have attended all the congregational prayers of the prophet and yet not realised that there were different recitals. It should also be noted that this narrative takes place in Medina, and so at this time more than 2/3rds of the Quran is already revealed and he should have realised much before about the differences in dialects. The Qur’an itself says that it has been revealed in the “in thine (Mohammed’s) own tongue” which would imply the dialect of the Quraysh (surah 19:97)”.
Finally, Uthman at his Qur’anic canonisation iterates that the Quran be confined to the Qurayshi dialect and burns what is not Qurayshi, so if the ahruf is dialects, it would mean that Uthman abrogated what Allah had revealed. This would be an incredible occurence, and even more incredible that there was no contemporary record of any reaction or justification for such an occurence. This is the reason that the “dialects” explanation is a minority view, not held by most scholars, rather it is just a canard that gets used in popular preaching and apologetics. The only reason it even gets considered is because explanations are so hard to come by in this matter of the ahruf.
What does “Harf” mean anyway?
“Harf” the word itself can be shown to have a multiplicity of meanings (Al-Zarkashi vol.1, 272 describes the stance of the famous grammarian Ibn Sadan who dies in around 201 AH, of this confusion relating to the concept of harf and the fact that an accurate meaningful explanation was elusive:
- The Arabs refer to their poetic compositions as harf
- The Arabs call their eulogies as harf
- A letter of the alphabet is also called harf
- The word harf also connotes “a meaning” or “a way” as in the Qur’an (22:11)”, or a “direction”.
the two terms qira’at and harf were almost interchangeable in early works of tafsır, Qira’at and usul. (Nasser, 98)
“Ahruf” could be taken, as some scholars have, as the ways in which a single sentence in language can vary. These variations may or may not, as we will see below, constitute differences in meaning of the sentence, and this is where all the controversy centres. Qir’at on the other hand arise from various combinations of these seven employed in a single recitation of the Qur’an and so they are unlimited. The following then are the types of variations in a sentence:
-variations in the vowel sounds which neither change the meaning nor the shape of a word
-variations in vowel sounds that don’t change the shape of a word but do change the meaning
-variations in the letters of the alphabet which change the meaning without a chance in the shape of the vowel sounds
-change the shape of a word without changing its meaning
-change the shape as well as the meaning
-change in the order of the words
-variations due to the addition or deletion or replacement11 of words
-variations in nouns viz singular, plural, masculine, feminine
-variations with regard to tenses: past, indefinite and imperative
-variations in declencions (vowel sounds)
Likely explanation of ahruf
Ref: Variant Readings of the Qur’an: A Critical Study of Their Historical and Linguistic Origins by Ahmad Ali Al-Imam
Some Muslims respond, as we have seen, that they are at least certain they have preserved one of the seven ahruf. One certainly cannot prove definitely that the version a Muslim holds today is not one of the seven original. However how likely is it that a text, that was first standardized down to one version by Uthman with no seeming cognizance of even of the existence of the seven, or their preservation, then made into five copies, once again with no regard for this nuance, then made into some say up to a 100 Qira’at, again without any such consideration, then magically end up with one of the seven perfectly preserved? Do all the Qira’at represent variants of just one harf? Or do they represent permutations of all seven? We should consider that the alternative be more likely: Uthman knowingly or unknowingly simply did away with all this ahruf business in a rather radical standardization event.
What were these mysteriously termed “ahruf” in the first place? Basically ahruf is just a cover up for variations. At the heart of Islam it seems there is an issue and a definitional term which seems completely redundant.
So can anyone really know what Muhammed originally recited? One can make a real argument for the case that there never really was an “original recitation”, rather the verses were in a constant state of flux until the Uthmanic stardardization. This is the most plausible narrative: The Qur’an was simply composed on the go. That is how oral performers composed and recited their stories (the qussas). Here it would be worth familiarizing yourself with the work of Milman Parry, Albert Lord and others. They were composed in a manner that was easy both for the listeners as well as for the one composing to remember, that’s why you have all the repetition typical to the Qur’anic text. In the process some variants would have inevitably crept in to the point that neither the composer not the listener would be able to remember what the “original” version was. Hence the concept of “ahruf” was adopted to make justification for variants. How significant were the variants? Well, again no one knows, because we do not even know what they are. This is the narrative that explains the ahruf, as well as the repetitive manner of the Qur’an. In the standard narrative neither is explained.
If Muslims claim to have preserved the Qur’an, let me set a simple task to verify this:
I hand you seven A4 sheets. Write down for me, without any discussion, the seven ahruf of a single surah, say for simplicity’s sake one of the shorter ones like al-Najm.
If this cannot be done, then I’d argue that for all the complicated discussions of your scholars, you simply do not know what the ahruf are.
How can you claim perfect preservation, when you cannot claim to know this very issue at the heart of preservation that the earliest and most reliable traditions related to Quranic transmission refer to?
Something’s been lost, and you don’t know what it is.
There seems to be this imaginary theory dogmatically held that seven versions were memorized even when no one can identify what were those versions.
Muslims might try to respond to these challenges by asking their interlocutors whether they know how to define the ahruf and then referring them to lengthy discussions by their scholars on the issue. But how is onw supposed to define something for which no definition exists. Did Muhammed give a definition of ahruf. Everything in this field is speculation and guesswork, based on the materials that you do possess: the Uthmanic rasm and the (who knows how many) Qira’at. BASED on this material, the scholars must DEDUCE what the ahruf must possibly be. HOWEVER, the ahruf story pre-dates both the Uthmanic rasm as well as the Qira’at. In that period all you have is some narrations and the rest is an information black hole that must be filled with this guesswork. The guesswork could be accurate, sure. But its also possible that its not. I would say more likely not, when you put all the narrations about the origins of the Quran together.
The Problem of the Destruction of the Ahruf
Author of the Bridges translation of the Qur’an Fadel Suleman holds the firm view that all but the one ahruf have been abrogated Allah, and so completely abrogated that even the memmory of them had been ersased from the collective Muslim memory at the time. His translation lists in teh footnotes the 30% of the Qira’at, that is, present day variant readings of the QUr’an that do change the maning of the verses, and it is available online and on an app that is really handy to use. The reasoning behind this is rather simple and yet compelling: First, the Uthman narrative does not speak of the preservation of more than one version in any sense, in fact the whole point of the exercise is to reduce it all to one “in the dialect of the Quraysh”. Secondly, and equally compelling, we don’t have any other ahruf of the Qur’an passed down anyway, so what other explanation is there?
Islamic scholars are somewhat divided on the question on whether the current versions do preserve some remnants of the presence of ahruf or not, that is, are they a sort of fudge of fragments of previous complete Qur’anic versions. Some hold that the ahruf are preserved only to the extent that the consonantal text can embrace different meanings through varying the vowels and diacriticals, since the Uthmanic text is thought to have been the consonantal rasm.
The latter sounds rather ad hoc and retro-active “we have this, so this is probably what it is”, while the former explanation would be an odd and rather irregular decision from Uthman to simplify what Allah had done. Given all that is said about hwo icredible it is that the Qur’an is revealed in sever ahruf in order to make it easy for the people and so on (as we shall see in the narratives), how does someone just come along a couple of decades later and decide that’s not the way that its going to be done? So if both those options are false we are once again left with the only plausible option that something important sounding was lost from the Quran and we don’t know what it is.
The “Ahruf” Narratives
“Narrated `Umar bin Al-Khattab: I heard Hisham bin Hakim reciting Surat Al-Furqan during the lifetime of Allah’s Messenger and I listened to his recitation and noticed that he recited in several different ways which Allah’s Messenger had not taught me. I was about to jump over him during his prayer, but I controlled my temper, and when he had completed his prayer, I put his upper garment around his neck and seized him by it and said, “Who taught you this Sura which I heard you reciting?” He replied, “Allah’s Messenger taught it to me.” I said, “You have told a lie, for Allah’s Messenger has taught it to me in a different way from yours.” So I dragged him to Allah’s Messenger and said (to Allah’s Messenger), “I heard this person reciting Surat Al-Furqan in a way which you haven’t taught me!” On that Allah’s Apostle said, “Release him, (O `Umar!) Recite, O Hisham!” Then he recited in the same way as I heard him reciting. Then Allah’s Messenger said, “It was revealed in this way,” and added, “Recite, O `Umar!” I recited it as he had taught me. Allah’s Messenger then said, “It was revealed in this way. This Qur’an has been revealed to be recited in seven different ways, so recite of it whichever (way) is easier for you (or read as much of it as may be easy for you). (Bukhari 4992)
Ubayy b. Ka’b reported:I was in the mosque when a man entered and prayed and recited (the Qur’an) in a style to which I objected. Then another man entered (the mosque) and recited in a style different from that of his companion. When we had finished the prayer, we all went to Allah’s Messenger (and said to him: This man recited in a style to which I objected, and the other entered and recited in a style different from that of his companion. The Messenger of Allah asked them to recite and so they recited, and the Messenger of Allah expressed approval of their affairs (their modes of recitation). and there occurred In my mind a sort of denial which did not occur even during the Days of Ignorance. When the Messenger of Allah saw how I was affected (by a wrong idea), he struck my chest, whereupon I broke into sweating and felt as though I were looking at Allah with fear. He (the Holy Prophet) said to me: Ubayy. a message was sent to me to recite the Qur’an in one dialect, and I replied: Make (things) easy for my people. It was conveyed to me for the second time that it should be recited in two dialects. I again replied to him: Make affairs easy for my people. It was again conveyed to me for the third time to recite in seven dialects And (I was further told): You have got a seeking for every reply that I sent you, which you should seek from Me. I said: O Allah! forgive my people, forgive my people, and I have deferred the third one for the day on which the entire creation will turn to me, including even Ibrahim (peace be upon him) (for intercession).” (Muslim no.820)
“Narrated/Authority of Abdullah bin Masud: “I heard a man reciting a verse (of the Holy Quran) but I had heard the Prophet reciting it differently. So, I caught hold of the man by the hand and took him to Allah’s apostle who said, “Both of you are right.” Shu’ba, the sub-narrator said, “I think he said to them, “Don’t differ, for the nations before you differed and perished (because of their differences)“” (Bukhari 3476)
Ahmad ibn Hanbal was one of the greatest scholars of Hadith, and he compiled his “Musnad Ahmad”. This narration is indeed Sahih.
“Ubayy Ibn Ka’ab said: “I read a verse and Ibn Masud read it definitely. So I came to the Prophet and asked him:“ did you not read out this verse to me in such and such a manner clothes the Prophet said: “yes”. Ibn Masud then asked:“ did you not read out this verse to me in such an such manner?” so the Prophet said : “ yes both of you have read it correctly and befittingly ”. Then Ubayy said:“ I expressed my hesitation”. The Prophet Then struck my chest and said “O Ubayy! I have been read out The Quran and I was asked:“ do you want to read it on one harf or two ahruf?” so the Angel who was with me said that I should ask to read it on two ahruf; so I asked for two ahruf.” at this I was asked:“ do you want to read it on two ahruf or three.” the Angel who was with me said that I should ask to read it on 3 ahruf; so I asked for three until the matter reached 7 ahruf. He then said : “all these verses are enough and sufficient whether you say “God is merciful and compassionate ”, or whether you say“ God hears and knows all ”, oh whether you say“ God knows and hears all”, as long as a verse of punishment is not ended with a verse of mercy and vice versa.” (Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, vol.5,124, no.21187, also vol.4, 30 no.16413, similar to 17577 but this time striking Umar)
Abu Abdillah Al-Hakim from Nishapur was a hadith scholar from the 4th century, a student of ad-Daraqutni, and a teacher of imam al-Bayhaqi. His father who met imam Muslim was also among his first teachers. For his collection, he considered hadith which were not quoted in the two sahih books, but have the same or similar or accepted narrator chains as those in them, and also added some of his own hadith which he considered as sahih. This is to some extent described by the full title of the book “Supplement for What is Missing From al-Bukhârî and Muslim” (even the sahih books don’t exclude weak ahadith). The majority of scholars it seems do say however that he was very lenient in his qualification.
“Abdullah Ibn Masud narrated: “the Prophet had read out Suran Ha Mim to me and I went to the mosques at night and a group of people sat near me. I then asked one of them to read out the Qur’an to me and to my surprise he read out in a huruf which I did not read. So I said to him: “Who read this out to you”. He said: “Messenger of God read it out to me”. So we went over to the Messenger of God and there was a person in his presence and I said “we have differed in our reading” At this the colour of the face of God’s Messenger changed and he got disturbed when I mentioned about this difference and then he said: “it is such difference that has killed those before you”. And then he whispered in the ears of Ali, who said “the Messenger of God has directed each person to read according to what he had been taught. “so we went away and each of us was reading the Qur’an differently” (Al-Hakeem, Al-Mustadrak vol.2, 243, no.2885)
Amir ibn Shurahbil Abu Maysarah said: ” A person came over to be while I was praying and said: “May your mother lose you; I see you praying while the complete destruction of the book of God has been ordered.” I shortened my prayer and I was not one who could be stopped; I entered the house and was not stopped and I climbed (the stairs) and was not stopped and then it came to my notice that Hudayfah and ibn Mas’ud were conversing with one another and the former was saying to the latter: “hand over the mushaf to them.” He replied “By God! I will not hand over the mushaf (to them)!” He again said: “hand over the mushaf to them for they will leave no stone unturned in wanting the good of the ummah of Muhammad.” Ibn Masud responded: “By God! I will not hand over the mushaf to them; the prophet taught a little over seventy surahs to me and should I then hand over the mushaf to them. By God! I will not hand it over to them” (Mustadrak al-Hakim no.2896. Classified as Sahih by al-Hakim and al-Dhahbi)
Evidence that Muhammad Forgot Verses
Narrated Aisha: Allah’s Messenger heard a man reciting the Qur’an at night, and said, “May Allah bestow His Mercy on him, as he has reminded me of such-and-such Verses of such-and-such Suras, which I was caused to forget.” (Sahih al-Bukhari 5038, repeated Bukhari 5042 with “…which I missed” instead)
A’isha reported that the Apostle of Allah heard a person reciting the Qur’an at night. Upon this he said: May Allah show mercy to him; he has reminded me of such and such a verse which I had missed in such and such a surah. (Muslim 788a, repeated “which I had been caused to forget” in Muslim 788b)
Narrated `Aisha: The Prophet heard a man (reciting Qur’an) in the Mosque, and he said, “May Allah bestow His Mercy upon him. No doubt, he made me remember such-and such Verses of such-and-such Sura which I dropped (from my memory). Narrated Aisha: The Prophet performed the Tahajjud prayer in my house, and then he heard the voice of `Abbad who was praying in the Mosque, and said, “O `Aisha! Is this `Abbad’s voice?” I said, “Yes.” He said, “O Allah! Be merciful to `Abbad!” (Bukhari 2655)
Uthman’s Qur’anic “Redaction”
Abu Bakr, Islam’s First Caliph
Mohamed never oversees nor demands the writing of a book himself, and neither does he get his scribe Zayd bin Thabit to do it. Just two years after Mohammed’s death, Muslims begin to realise that things have begun to seemingly go horribly wrong, those who are meant to have memorised the verses of the Qur’an are being killed in battle. This is the beginning of both the panic and the compilation, which are simultaneous. Until this point, there is no concept even of a book being written. This conversation occurs only two years after Mohammed’s death between Abu Bakr, the first Caliph of Islam, and Umar, who would succeed him.
“Narrated Zaid bin Thabit: Abu Bakr As-Siddiq sent for me when the people! of Yamama had been killed (i.e., a number of the Prophet’s Companions who fought against Musailama). (I went to him) and found ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab sitting with him. Abu Bakr then said (to me), “Umar has come to me and said: “Casualties were heavy among the Qurra’ of the! Qur’an (i.e. those who knew the Quran by heart) on the day of the Battle of Yamama, and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurra’ on other battlefields, whereby a large part of the Qur’an may be lost. Therefore I suggest, you (Abu Bakr) order that the Qur’an be collected.” I said to ‘Umar, “How can you do something which Allah’s Apostle did not do?” ‘Umar said, “By Allah, that is a good project. “Umar kept on urging me to accept his proposal till Allah opened my chest for it and I began to realize the good in the idea which ‘Umar had realized.” Then Abu Bakr said (to Zayd who is narrating). ‘You are a wise young man and we do not have any suspicion about you, and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah’s Apostle...”
Zayd’s narration is a testimony to just how desperate and at best haphazard the compilation is.
“(Abu Bakr to Zayd)…So you should search for (the fragmentary scripts of) the Qur’an and collect it in one book)…”
(Zayd’s response) “…By Allah If they had ordered me to shift one of the mountains, it would not have been heavier for me than this ordering me to collect the Qur’an.
…So I started looking for the Qur’an and collecting it from (what was written on) palmed stalks, thin white stones and also from the men who knew it by heart, till I found the last Verse of Surat At-Tauba (Repentance) with Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him (At-Tauba) (9.128-129)…” (Bukhari 4986)
Uthman’s Compilation, Islam’s Second Caliph
Shift to 20 years later and it seems that variations in the Qur’anic texts are beginning to cause problems:
“During the reign of `Uthman, teachers were teaching this or that reading to their students. When the students met and disagreed about the reading, they reported the differences to their teachings. They would defend their readings, condemning the others as heretical.” [Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da’ud, K. al Masahif, the son of the famous abi Dawud himself. Admittedly some of his contemporaries have called him unreliable and a “liar”. Nevertheless it is in sync with the sahih narrations].
“Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were Waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur’an, so he said to ‘Uthman, “O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and the Christians did before.”…
…’Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, “Send us the manuscripts of the Qur’an so that we may compile the Qur’anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you.” Hafsa sent it to ‘Uthman. ‘Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, ‘Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and ‘AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. ‘Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, “In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur’an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur’an was revealed in their tongue.” They did so, and when they had written many copies, ‘Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. ‘Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur’anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt.
Zaid bin Thabit added, “A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur’an and I used to hear Allah’s Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari…” (Bukhari-Volume 6, Book 61, Number 510)
The Choice of Committee and the ibn Masud Problem
This time round, once more we have a 20 years older Zayd, and three others on the editorial board. Significant by their absence are the “famous four”, the best narrators of the Qur’an in Mohamed’s own words (only one of these, the freed-slave Salim has died). Indeed we have records of at least one of them, Ibn Masud expressing sharp dissatisfaction with the process. We can see that the concerns related to the variants in the text are not insignificant. There is also a suggestion of nepotism in this and that the three that did get the job were the sons-in-law of Uthman:
“Narrated Masruq: Abdullah bin Mas’ud was mentioned before Abdullah bin Amr who said, “That is a man I still love, as I heard the Prophet (saw) saying, “I heard the Prophet saying, “Learn the recitation of Qur’an from four persons: Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud, Salim the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa, Ubayy B. Ka’ab and Muadh bin Jabal.” (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 150).
”Narrated Abdullah (bin Mas’ud): “By Allah other than Whom none has the right to be worshipped! There is no Sura revealed in Allah’s Book but I know at what place it was revealed; and there is no verse revealed in Allah’s Book but I know about whom it was revealed. And if I know that there is somebody who knows Allah’s Book better than I, and he is at a place that camels can reach, I would go to him.”” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.488)
““How can you order me to recite the reading of Zaid, when I recited from the very mouth of the Prophet some seventy Surahs?” “Am I,” asks Abdullah, “to abandon what I acquired from the very lips of the Prophet?” (Masahif” by Ibn abi Dawood, 824-897 AD, pp. 12, 14).
Mas’ud, moved to Kufa, Iraq where he completed his own version of the Qur’an (commonly called the Kufan Codex) when he returns he runs into trouble: his version is seemingly proscribed and he is asked to give it up:
“Narrated Az-Zuhri: from Anas who said: “Hudhaifah bin Al-Yaman came to ‘Uthman…(same story here of necessity to write down the Qur’an)…’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 (…)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! I am removed from recording the transcription of the Mushaf and it is overseen by a 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 (3:161). So meet Allah with the Musahif.'” Az-Zuhri said: “It was conveyed to me that some men amongst the most virtuous of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah disliked that view of Ibn Mas’ud.” (al-Tabari, Sahih (Darussalam) 44:3104, English ref: Vol5, Bk44,Hadith 3104, Arabic ref: 47,3387)
‘Abdullah (b. Mas’ud) reported that he said to his companions to conceal their copies of the Qur’an and further said: He who conceals anything he shall have to bring that which he had concealed on the Day of Judgment, and then said: After whose mode of recitation do you command me to recite? I in fact recited before Allah’s Messenger more than seventy chapters of the Qur’an and the Companions of Allah’s Messenger know it that I have better understanding of the Book of Allah (than they do), and if I were to know that someone had better understanding than I, I would have gone to him. Shaqiq said: I sat in the company of the Companions of Muhammad (may peace be upon him) but I did not hear anyone having rejected that (that is, his recitation) or finding fault with it. (Sahih Muslim: bk. 31, no. 6022; also Sahih al-Bukhari: vol. 6, bk. 61, no. 522)
Az-Zuhri also narrated that Abdullah Ibn Mas’oud became upset because he was not chosen to copy the Qur’an. He said, “Oh you Muslims, how can I not be chosen …” Ibn Mas’oud also said, “Oh people of Iraq! ‘l2 ” (Sunan Al-Tirmithi, Dar Al-Kotob Al-ilmiyah, 2008, vol. 4, no. 3105, p. 134; also Ibn Sa’d, Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, vol. 2 p. 444)
The Missing Verses
We know of books that detail variant verses in the Qur’an. As far as I know these books compiled by early Muslims sources are now lost, only the names survive:
- “The Discrepancies between the Manuscripts of the People of al-Madinah, al-Kufah, and al-Basrah” according to al-Kisa’i.
- Book of Khalaf, “Discrepancies of the Manuscripts”.
- “Discrepancies of the People of al-Kufah, al-Basrah, and Syria concerning the Manuscripts”, by al-Farra.
- “Discrepancies between the Manuscripts” by Abu Da’ud al-Sijistani.
- Book of al-Mada’ini about the discrepancies between the manuscripts and the compiling of the Qur’an.
- “Discrepancies between the Manuscripts of Syria, al-Hijaz, and al-Iraq”, by Ibn `Amir al-Yahsubi.
- Book of Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Rahman al-Isbahani about discrepancies of the manuscripts.
(Al-Nadim, The Fihrist of al-Nadim – A Tenth Century survey of Muslim Culture, New York: Columbia University Press, 1970, p. 79)
Admissions of Incompleteness
“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. Let him say instead, “I have got what has survived.”‘ (Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. Abi Bakr al Suyuti, al-Itqan fi `ulum al-Qur’an, Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, Volume 2, p. 25, Abdullah bin Umar is the son of the second caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab)
“Said Abu ‘Ubaid: Isma’il b. Ibrahim related to us from Ayyub from Nafi‘ from Ibn ‘Umar who said – Let none of you say, “I have learned the whole of the Koran,” for how does he know what the whole of it is, when much of it has disappeared? Let him rather say, “I have learned what is extant thereof.” (Abu Ubaid’s Kitab Fadail-al-Qur’an)
Arthur Jeffrey begins his translation of Ubaid’s document with the introduction: “I was able to consult the photographs of the Berlin manuscript of Abu ‘Ubaid’s Kitab Fada’il-al-Qur’an, folios 43 and 44 of which contain a chapter on the verses which have fallen out of the Koran Abu ‘Ubaid al-Qasim b. Sallam (154—244 A.H), who studied under the famous masters of both the Kufan and the Basran schools, was the son of a Greek slave, and though born on the outskirts of the Muslim empire, became a famous teacher at Baghdad, renowned equally as a philologist, a jurist, and an authority on the Koranic sciences. By reason of his early date and the reputation he had in the eyes of later writers, his chapter on the missing verses of the Koran merits translation here…” Arthur Jeffery, The Muslim World 28 (1938): 61-65. See here https://erenow.net/common/the-origins-of-the-koran/9.php.
“Many of (the passages) of the Qur’an that were sent down were known by those who died on the day of Yamama… but they were not known (by those who) survived them, nor were they written down, nor had Abu Bakr, Umar or Uthman (by that time) collected the Qur’an, nor were they found even with (one person) after them.” (Kitab al-Masahif, p.23 compiled by `Abd Allah ibn Sulayman ibn al-Ash`ath al-Sijistani, known as Ibn Abi Dawud, the son of the major early hadith master Abu Dawud. I note that there are also narrations in Muslim history that state that this person is unreliable and have called him a “liar”. Nevertheless, I include it, because it is an early source.)
Theodor Nöldeke offered a section on “Revelations missing from the Qur’an but preserved elsewhere” in his 1860 n Nöldeke-Schwally, Geschichte des Qorâns, I, 234—59 these references are gathered together and commented upon, in which he quoted from al-Suyūṭī, al-Tirmidhī, al-Bukhārī, and Hibat Allāh. University of Aberdeen professor John Burton wrote, “It was held by the most influential commentators and by a majority of the legal scholars that the entire Qur’an was never collected.” (The Collection of the Qur’an 117, 126-27)
The Missing Verse of Stoning
At Q 24:2, the Qur’an gives an explicit punishment: “The adulteress and the adulterer, flog each of them with a hundred stripes.” Islamstackexchange gives their summary of the whole affair: “Conclusion: (1) The verse of stoning was revealed, but later it was abrogated. (2) The Hadith, which says that verse of stoning was eaten by a goat (or tame sheep), is Dai’f. (3) The ruling of that verse is not abrogated and the ruling is that adulterers should be stoned to death. Stoning the adulterer is a Sunnah and the Four Rightly Guided Khalifs practiced this Sunnah after the Death of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). (4) The verse of Stoning WAS NOT written down. Even if we agree that it was written on a piece of paper (for the sake of argument), it does not make the ABROGATED VERSE part of the Quran.” The verse of Stoning was REVEALED and it was RECITED and it was also MEMORIZED by the sahaba. It attested 8 times in Bukhari, 5 times in Tirmidhi, twice in Dawud, and once each in Muslim, Ibn Majah, Muwatta Malik, Musnad Ahmed, and Ibn Ishaq’s Sira. Most of these attest that Mohammed himself stoned persons or gave direct orders to do so in other cases and his companions continued to do so after him. Stoning for adultery is therefore to this day part of the Sunnat of Mohammed.
Narrated Ibn `Abbas: `Umar said, “I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, “We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book,” and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession.” Sufyan added, “I have memorized this narration in this way.” `Umar added, “Surely Allah’s Messenger carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him.” (Bukhari 6829)
Narrated Ash-Shaibani: I asked `Abdullah bin Abi `Aufa about the Rajam (stoning somebody to death for committing illegal sexual intercourse). He replied, “The Prophet carried out the penalty of Rajam,” I asked, “Was that before or after the revelation of Surat-an-Nur?” He replied, “I do not know.” (Bukhari 6840, repeated 6813)
Narrated Ash-Sha’bi: from ‘Ali when the latter stoned a lady to death on a Friday. ‘Ali said, “I have stoned her according to the tradition of Allah’s Apostle.” (Sahih al-Bukhari Book 82 Hadith 803)
In Bukhari 6841, 4556 and 6819, Mohammed orders the stoning of Jewish couples allegedly caught in adultery based on the teaching found in the Torah.
Muslim
“Abdullah b. ‘Abbas reported that ‘Umar b. Khattab sat on the pulpit of Allah’s Messenger and said: Verily Allah sent Muhammad with truth and He sent down the Book upon him, and the verse of stoning was included in what was sent down to him. We recited it, retained it in our memory and understood it. Allah’s Messenger awarded the punishment of stoning to death (to the married adulterer and adulteress) and, after him, we also awarded the punishment of stoning, I am afraid that with the lapse of time, the people (may forget it) and may say: We do not find the punishment of stoning in the Book of Allah, and thus go astray by abandoning this duty prescribed by Allah. Stoning is a duty laid down in Allah’s Book for married men and women who commit adultery when proof is established, or it there is pregnancy, or a confession. (Muslim 1691 also Bukhari 6830)
Tirmidhi
“Among what was revealed to him was the Ayah of stoning.” (Jami` at-Tirmidhi Book 17 Hadith 1432)
Umar bin Al-Khattab said: “The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) stoned, Abu Bakr stoned, and I stoned…” (Jami` at-Tirmidhi Book 17 Hadith 1431)
So the Messenger of Allah stoned, and we stoned after him… Indeed stoning is the retribution for the adulterer if he was married and the evidence has been established, or due to pregnancy, or confession (Jami` at-Tirmidhi Book 17 Hadith 1432)
Abdullah bin Amr narrated: “A man asked the Messenger of Allah: ‘I shaved before slaughtering.’ So he said: ‘Slaughter, and there is no harm.’ Another man asked him: ‘I performed the sacrifice before stoning.’ He said: ‘Stone, and there is no harm.'” (ami` at-Tirmidhi 916, Graded Sahih)
Dawood
“Umar b. al-Khattab gave an address saying: Allah sent Muhammad (pbuh) with truth and sent down the Books of him, and the verse of stoning was included in what He sent down to him. We read it and memorized it.” (Sunan Abu Dawood Book 40 Hadith 4404)
The Messenger of Allah had people stoned to death and we have done it also since his death…. Stoning is a duty laid down (by Allah) for married men and women who commit fornication when proof is established, or if there is pregnancy, or a confession. (Sunan Abu Dawood Book 40 Hadith 4404).
Ibn Majah
It was narrated from Ibn`Abbas that `Umar bin Khattab said: “I fear that after a long time has passed, some will say: ‘I do not find (the sentence of) stoning in the Book of Allah’ and they will go astray by abandoning one of the obligations enjoined by Allah. Rather stoning is a must if a man is married (or previously married) and proof is established, or if pregnancy results or if he admits it. I have read it (in the Quran). “And if an old man and an old woman commit adultery, stone them both.” The Messenger of Allah stoned (adulterers) and we stoned (them) after him.’” (Sunan Ibn Majah 2553 Graded Sahih)
Muwatta Malik
The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, stoned, so we have stoned. (Muwatta Imam Malik Book 41 Hadith 10)
Musnad Ahmed
It was narrated from Mujalid that ‘Amir said: Sharahah had a husband who was absent in Syria. She became pregnant and her former master brought her to `Ali bin Abi Talib and said: This one has committed zina, She admitted it, so he gave her one hundred lashes on Thursday and stoned her on Friday; he dug a hole for her to her navel, and I was present. Then he said: Stoning is a Sunnah established by the Messenger of Allah. If anyone saw her do it, the first one to throw a stone should be the one who witnessed it; he should give his testimony and follow his testimony with his stone. But she admitted it, so I will be the first one to stone her. He threw a stone at her, then the people stoned her and I was among them. By Allah, I was among those who killed her. (Musnad Ahmed 978)
Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat
“Verily stoning in the book of God is a penalty laid on married men and women who commit adultery, if proof stands or pregnancy is clear or confession is made” (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p.684).
As- Suyuti
“…Zirr ibn Hubaish reported: “Ubayy ibn Ka’b said to me, ‘What is the extent of Suratul-Ahzab?’ I said, ‘Seventy, or seventy-three verses’. He said, ‘Yet it used to be equal to Suratul-Baqarah and in it we recited the verse of stoning’. I said, ‘And what is the verse of stoning’? He replied, ‘The fornicators among the married men (ash-shaikh) and married women (ash-shaikhah), stone them as an exemplary punishment from Allah, and Allah is Mighty and Wise.”‘ (As-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur’an, p.524).
Is it Abrogated/ Lost?
In another tradition, ʿĀʾisha attempts to account for the loss of the verse by claiming it was eaten by an animal. This is understandable, most women would willingly feed such a verse to a goat. This tradition is not as reliable as the central 6 hadith, beign ranked one slot below them as “Hassan” (sound,ok):
“—It was narrated that Aishah said: “The Verse of stoning and of breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed, and the paper was with me under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep came in and ate it.” (Sunan ibn Majah 1944)
There are multiple accounts of this hadith, it is hard to know what exactly is its significance: “By He in Whose Hand my self is, had it not been that people would say that Umar ibn al-Khattab has added to the Book of Allah ta- ala, we would have written it (verse of stoning).”
(Jami` at-Tirmidhi Book 17 Hadith 1431, also same account in Sunan Abu Dawood Book 40 Hadith 4404, Musnad Aḥmad 156, Grade: Sahih, Muwatta Imam Malik Book 41 Hadith 10)
Umar seemingly asked for the permission of Prophet (pbuh) to write the verse, but the Prophet (pbuh) did not allow him to write: “Umar said, “When this was revealed, I went to the Prophet and I said: Let me write it.” Shu’bah said, “It was as if the Prophet disliked that.” (Source: Musnad Aḥmad 21086) Grade: Sahih (authentic) according to Al-Albani”
The “We Met Allah” verse
“Narrated Anas: (…) Gabriel informed the Prophet that they (i.e the martyrs) met their Lord, and He was pleased with them and made them pleased. We used to recite, Inform our people that we have met our Lord, He is pleased with us and He has made us pleased. Later on this Qur’anic Verse was cancelled. The Prophet invoked Allah for forty days to curse the murderers from the tribe of Ral, Dhakwan, Bani Lihyan and Bam Usaiya who disobeyed Allah and his Apostle.” (Bukhari 2801)
This verse was likely removed because possibly in Islamic doctrine no human being can meet Allah face to face before the day of judgement.
Ubayy’s Missing Verses
Umar in this passage justifies the omission of verses known to Ubayy, citing the principle of “abrogation”, verses being replaced by Allah himself:
“Narrated Ibn Abbas: Umar said “Ubayy was the best of us in the recitation (of the Qur’an) yet we leave some of what he recites“. Ubayy says, “I have taken it from the mouth of Allah’s Apostle and will not leave it for anything whatever”. But Allah said: None of Our revelations do we abrogate or cause to be forgotten but We substitute something better or similar (2.106). (Sahih al-Bukhari 5005).
An example of such a missing verse:
Ubayy ibn Ka’b. His version of sura 33:6 had the following extra underlined words:
“The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves, and he is a father of them and his wives are their mothers. …” (Qur’an 33:6, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an: Text, Translation, and Commentary, 4th ed., Brentwood, Md., U.S.A.: Amana Corp., 1989, footnote 3674)
Two Hundred++ More Missing Verses
Abu Musa one of the top Qur’an reciters says that the Sura 33 was as long as Al-Baqarah (Surah 2). That Surah in today’s Qur’an has 286 verses, while the Surah 33 has only 73. That’s around 200 missing verses. Further in the same passage, there is also an admission of another missing surah, “which resembled in length one of the Mussabihat surahs”. There are in the present-day Quran 5 such “mussabihat” surahs, with lengths from 11-29 verses, giving an average of 19 verse-length. Excerpts of the missing verses are given in the passage.
“…He (Abu Musa) said: (…) 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 so recite a surah which resembled one of the surahs of Musabbihat, and I have forgotten it, but remember (this much) out of it:” Oh people who believe, why do you say that which you do not practise” (lxi 2.) and” that is recorded in your necks as a witness (against you) and you would be asked about it on the Day of Resurrection” (xvii. 13).” (Muslim 1050)
Supposedly the “abrogation” of this verse is described in a different hadith: “Allah’s Messenger said, “If Adam’s son had a valley full of gold, he would like to have two valleys, for nothing fills his mouth except dust. And Allah forgives him who repents to Him.” ‘Ubayy said (referring to the hadith above), “We considered this as a saying from the Qur’an till the Surah (beginning with): “The mutual rivalry (for piling up of worldly things) diverts you’ (102:1) was revealed.”(Sahih Bukhari 6439-40)
Let us recall the verse in the Qur’an which explains what this “abrogation” is (Q 2:106): “Nothing of our revelation (even a single verse) do we abrogate or cause be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things.” So Muhammad and his followers forgot the longer version but some of the teaching is recapitulated elsewhere. What kind of a God would bring something similar? Or claims to protect his words but does not?
Narrated Az-Zuhri that he visited Anas bin Malik at Damascus and found him weeping and asked him why he was weeping. He replied, “I do not know anything which I used to know during the life-time of Allah’s Apostle except this prayer which is being lost (not offered as it should be).” Bukhari 930 (Vol1,9)
Verse about Breast-Sex with Strangers
Muhammad’s solution to the problem of a man and a woman who aren’t either close family or married meeting up socially is that the woman simply breastfeeds the man ten times. This, in his view, this makes them legally related (like a foster-mother). “Allah” later changed his “eternal” mind and reduced the number of necessary suckings from ten to only five. In the end it got left out of the Qur’an completely, quite possibly dispatched by a goat, and fittingly so. Remember only a minority of women are actively lactating, so usually this would just involve sucking on a dry teat. Sorry this is really cringe and gross:
There is a series of hadith in Sunan an-Nasa’i from 3312 to about 3322, which I haven’t printed here yet.
“Amra reported that she heard Aisha discussing fosterage which (makes marriage) unlawful; and she (Aisha) said: There was revealed in the Holy Qur’an ten clear sucklings, and then five clear (sucklings).”(Muslim 3422)
Aisha is quite clear that these verses are part of the Qur’an: “A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that it had been revealed in the Qur’an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated by five sucklings and Allah’s Apostle (saw) died and before that time it was found in the Qur’an.” (Muslim 1452a)
The teaching is very specific, one or two feeds wouldn’t be enough. It can also of course be argues that the length of time of each feed is not specified. But then they hadn’t invented watches anyway either so this is understandable.
“Allah’s Apostle said: Being suckled once or twice, or one suckling or two, do not make marriage unlawful.” (Muslim 3417)
But these verses aren’t in the Qur’an we have today. We have already seen that the a wise old goat dispatched them to the pit along with the stoning verse. Totally as an unrelated coincidence obviously, we also know that Aisha had been accused of adultery (!): “It was narrated that Aishah said: “The Verse of stoning and of breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed, and the paper was with me under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep came in and ate it.” (Sunan ibn Majah 1944)
Indeed, this was a sad day in Islamic history for men. Now for a while at least, Muhammad’s wives were on board with Allah’s views concerning breastfeeding and fosterage, for we have this passage with Muhammad’s wife Hafsa ordering her sister to breastfeed Asim before he could visit her:
“Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi that Safiyya bint Abi Ubayd told him that Hafsa, Umm al-Muminin [Mother of the Believers], sent Asim ibn Abdullah ibn Sa’d to her sister, Fatima bint Umar ibn al-Khattab, for her to suckle him ten times so that he could come in to see her. She did it, so he used to come in to see her.” (Muwatta Malik Book 30, Hadith 8 [Arabic 30,1282]. In 30:17, Malik records a narration that the verse was “recited in the Qur’an)
Eventually, however, most of Muhammad’s wives became disgruntled over the practice, and they insisted that Allah’s command to breastfeed adults didn’t apply to them:
“Sahla bint Suhayl, who was the wife of Abu Hudhayfa, and one of the tribe of Amr ibn Lu’ayy, came to the Messenger of Allah, and said, “Messenger of Allah! We think of Salim as a son and he comes in to see me when I am uncovered. We only have one room, so what do you think about the situation?” The Messenger of Allah said, “Give him five drinks of your milk and he will be mahram [illegal to marry] by it.” She then saw him as a foster-son. Aisha, Umm al-Muminin [Mother of the Believers], took that as a precedent for whatever men she wanted to be able to come to see her. She ordered her sister, Umm Kulthum bint Abi Bakr as-Siddiq and the daughters of her brother to give milk to whichever men she wanted to be able to come in to see her. The rest of the wives of the Prophet refused to let anyone come in to them by such nursing. They said, “No, by Allah! We think that what the Messenger of Allah ordered Sahla bint Suhayl to do was only by an indulgence concerning the nursing of Salim alone. No, by Allah! No-one will come in upon us by such nursing!” (Muwatta Malik Bk.30, hadith12 [Arabic ref: 30,1287])
Aisha’s lost verse on the Middle Prayer
This is titled by Muslim: “(36) Chapter: The evidence for those who say that “the middle prayer” is the `Asr prayer”. This Hadith reads:
“Abu Yunus, the freed slave of ‘A’isha said: ‘A’isha ordered me to transcribe a copy of the Qur’an for her and said: When you reach this verse:” Guard the prayers and the middle prayer” (ii. 238), inform me; so when I reached it, I informed her and she gave me dictation (like this): Guard the prayers and the middle prayer and the afternoon prayer, and stand up truly obedient to Allah. ‘A’isha said: This is how I have heard from the Messenger of Allah” (Muslim 629)
Verses that did not come from Mohammed
“O Prophet, say to thy wives and daughters and the believing women, that they draw their veils close to them; so it is likelier they will be known, and not hurt. God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.” (Q. 33:59)
And say to the believing women, that they cast down their eyes’ and guard their private parts, and reveal not their adornment save such as is outward; and let them cast their veils over their bosoms, and not reveal their adornment save to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husbands’ fathers, or their sons, or their husbands’ sons, or their brothers, or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or what their right hands own, or such men as attend them, not having sexual desire, or children who have not yet attained knowledge of women’s private parts; nor let them stamp their feet, so that their hidden ornament may be known. And turn all together to God, O you believers; that you may attain bliss.” (Q 24:31)
“O Believers! enter not into the houses of the Prophet, save by his leave (…) And when ye would ask any gift of his wives, ask it from behind a veil (min wara-i hijabin). Purer will this be for your hearts and for their hearts. And ye must not trouble the Apostle of God, nor marry his wives, after him, for ever. This would be a grave offence with God.” (Q 33:53)
Narrated ‘Aisha: The wives of the Prophet used to go to Al-Manasi, a vast open place (near Baqia at Medina) to answer the call of nature at night. ‘Umar used to say to the Prophet “Let your wives be veiled,” but Allah’s Apostle did not do so. One night Sauda bint Zam’a the wife of the Prophet went out at ‘Isha’ time and she was a tall lady. ‘Umar addressed her and said, “I have recognized you, O Sauda.” He said so, as he desired eagerly that the verses of Al-Hijab (the observing of veils by the Muslim women) may be revealed. So Allah revealed the verses of “Al-Hijab” (A complete body cover excluding the eyes). (Bukhari 146)
Narrated Anas: `Umar said, “I agreed with Allah in three things,” or said, “My Lord agreed with me in three things. I said, ‘O Allah’s Messenger! Would that you took the station of Abraham as a place of prayer.’ I also said, ‘O Allah’s Messenger! Good and bad persons visit you! Would that you ordered the Mothers of the believers to cover themselves with veils.’ So the Divine Verses of Al-Hijab (i.e. veiling of the women) were revealed. I came to know that the Prophet had blamed some of his wives so I entered upon them and said, ‘You should either stop (troubling the Prophet) or else Allah will give His Apostle better wives than you.’ When I came to one of his wives, she said to me, ‘O `Umar! Does Allah’s Messenger haven’t what he could advise his wives with, that you try to advise them?’ ” Thereupon Allah revealed:- “It may be, if he divorced you (all) his Lord will give him instead of you, wives better than you Muslims (who submit to Allah)..” (66.5) (Bukhari 4483)
A Muslim Response?
An attempt to ameliorate the problems that arise with the manner of the revelations is ac couple of hadith that state that “the angel Jibril”, “reviewed” the Qur’an with Mohammed to ensure accuracy. However even here the differences that the followers are experiencing is not addressed. This seems like another attempt to gloss over a problem through appeal to authority, and once again, unwitnessed.
“Fatimah reported: The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Gabriel would come to me to revise the Quran once every year. This year he revised with me twice. I do not think it means anything but that my term will come to an end. Verily, you will be the first of the people of my house to meet me.” So I wept and the Prophet said, “Are you not pleased with be the master of the women of Paradise or the believing women?” So I laughed at that.” (Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 3623, 3624)
“Narrated Ibn `Abbas: The Prophet was the most generous of all the people, and he used to become more generous in Ramadan when Gabriel met him. Gabriel used to meet him every night during Ramadan to revise the Qur’an with him. Allah’s Messenger then used to be more generous than the fast wind.(Bukhari 3554)
Further there are some traditions that state that there was some rigor employed during the Uthmanic compilation:
Dr. Mustafa al-A’zami compiled a list of approximately 65 companions in “who used to write down the Revelation dictated by the Prophet, at one time or the other. They are: Abu Ayyub al-Ansari, Aban ibn Sa’eed, Abu Umama, Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, Abu Sufyan, Abu Hudhaifa, Abu Salama, Abu-‘Abas, Ubayy ibn Ka’b, al-Arqam, Usaid ibn Hudair, Aws, Buraida, Basheer, Thabit ibn Qais, Ja’far ibn Abi Talib, Jahm ibn Sa’d, Juhaim, Haatib, Hudhaifa, Husain, Hanzala, Huwaitib, Khalid ibn Saeed, Khalid ibn al-Waleed, Zubair ibn al-‘Awwam, Zubair ibn Arqam, Zaid ibn Thabit, Sa’d ibn ar-Rabee, Sa’d ibn ‘Ubaada, Saeed ibn Saeed, Shurahbeel ibn Hasna, Talha, ‘Amir ibn Fuhaira, ‘Abbas, Abdullah ibn al-Arqam, Abdullah ibn Abi Bakr, Abdullah ibn Rawaha, Abdullah ibn Zaid, Abdullah ibn Sa’d, Abdullah ibn Abdullah, Abdullah ibn ‘Amr, Uthman ib ‘Affan, ‘Uqba, al-‘Alaa al-Hadrami, al-‘Alaa ibn ‘Uqba, ‘Ali ibn Abi-Talib, ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab, ‘Amr ibn al-‘Aas, Muhammad ibn Maslama, Mu’adh ibn Jabal, Mu’awiya ibn Abi-Sufyan, Ma’n ibn-‘Adi, Mu’aiqib, Mugheera, Mundhir, Muhaajir and Yazid ibn Abi-Sufyan. (Dr. Azami presents this list in “The History of the Quranic Text_ From Revelation to Compilation_ A Comparative Study with the Old and New Testaments”, but he says to go to his work his book “Kuttaab un-Nabi” (“literally: “Scribes of the Prophet) “for a detailed study”. I cannot establish the primary source for these, not having access to that book).
Some traditions speak of proof-reading- Zayd ibn Thaabit would read out to the Prophet whatever he has written to avoid scribal errors. (As-Suuli, Aadaab al Kuttaab, pg 165; Majma’ az- Zawaid, i: 152)
Ibn Hajar relates: “Abu Bakr told Umar and Zaid, “Sit at the entrance to the (Prophet’s) mosque. If anyone brings you a verse from the Book of Allah along with two witnesses, then record it” (Ibn Abi Dawud, al-Masahif, p.6- this is the son of the more famous hadith writer Dawud, however he is said to be an unreliable narrator, one of his hadith, related elsewhere in this article is detrimental to the Qur’an in terms of its effective transmission).
Ibn Hajar gives his comment on what was meant by “to witnesses”: “as if what was meant by two witnesses was memory backed up by the written word. Or, two witnesses to testify that the verse was written verbatim in the Prophet’s presence. Or, meaning that they would testify that it was one of the forms in which the Qur’an was revealed. The intention was to accept only what was written in the Prophet’s presence, not relying on the memory alone.” (Ibn Hajjar, Fathul Bari ix:14)