Friday, 29 August 2014

Islamic conquests and the Jizya: Were Muslim conquests meant to forcefully convert people to Islam?

Were Muslim conquests meant to forcefully convert people to Islam?
by Ibn Anwar, BHsc (Hons)
This has to be the most typical, worn-out contentions put forward against Islam by its detractors (most often by Christian evangelists): that Islam spread across the world through the sword. This pedestrian notion contends that Muslim conquests assaulted innocent neighbouring countries and forced their denizens to accept Islam, pay a tax poll or die. Often the tax poll would not even be mentioned in the argument. They would have their audience believe Muslim military expeditions were sweeping through the world, sword in hand and giving the ultimatum, Islam or death. Nothing could be further than the truth. Even if one were to accept the basic assumption that there were military operations under the supervision of Muslim generals that had its victims compelled into Islam or die upon refusal that cannot in any way be used as an indictment against Islam for the simple fact that excercising compulsion on people to enter into Islam is antithesis to its very roots. The Qur’an clearly sets forth the criterion unambiguously that is to be observed by its adherents:
لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِي ٱلدِّينِ قَد تَّبَيَّنَ ٱلرُّشْدُ مِنَ ٱلْغَيِّ فَمَنْ يَكْفُرْ بِٱلطَّاغُوتِ وَيْؤْمِن بِٱللَّهِ فَقَدِ ٱسْتَمْسَكَ بِٱلْعُرْوَةِ ٱلْوُثْقَىٰ لاَ ٱنفِصَامَ لَهَا وَٱللَّهُ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ
“Let there be no compulsion in religion for truth stands out clear from error. Whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah has taken hold of the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks and Allah hears and knows all things.” (Surah al-Baqarah, chapter 2, verse 256)
The above verse was revealed in Medinah regarding the Ansar who were trying to force their children to accept Islam which means that the disbelievers were free to accept Islam or deny it even when the Muslims were in control of the state.
رُّبَمَا يَوَدُّ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ لَوْ كَانُواْ مُسْلِمِينَ
ذَرْهُمْ يَأْكُلُواْ وَيَتَمَتَّعُواْ وَيُلْهِهِمُ ٱلأَمَلُ فَسَوْفَ يَعْلَمُونَ
“And it will come to pass that those who are [now] bent on denying this truth will wish that they had surrendered themselves to God [in their lifetime]. Leave them alone; let them eat and enjoy themselves the while the hope [of vain delights] beguiles them: for in time they will come to know [the truth].” (Surah al-Hijr, Chapter 15, verses 2-3)
The above two verses describe those who consciously reject Islam and the response that the believers ought to display when faced with the rejecters. The command is to simply leave them alone and let them eat and enjoy their life. If they were to be killed this would be an instance of such a place where the Qur’an would have ordered such a thing.
وَلَوْ شَآءَ رَبُّكَ لآمَنَ مَن فِي ٱلأَرْضِ كُلُّهُمْ جَمِيعاً أَفَأَنتَ تُكْرِهُ ٱلنَّاسَ حَتَّىٰ يَكُونُواْ مُؤْمِنِينَ
 “Had your Lord willed, all those on earth would have believed altogether. Would you, then, compel people, so that they become believers?” (Surah Yunus, Chapter 10, verse 99)
The above verse is as clear as crystal as it rhetorically forbids compelling those who reject to accept belief.
وَقُلِ ٱلْحَقُّ مِن رَّبِّكُمْ فَمَن شَآءَ فَلْيُؤْمِن وَمَن شَآءَ فَلْيَكْفُرْ إِنَّا أَعْتَدْنَا لِلظَّالِمِينَ نَاراً أَحَاطَ بِهِمْ سُرَادِقُهَا وَإِن يَسْتَغِيثُواْ يُغَاثُواْ بِمَآءٍ كَٱلْمُهْلِ يَشْوِي ٱلْوجُوهَ بِئْسَ ٱلشَّرَابُ وَسَآءَتْ مُرْتَفَقاً
“And say: “The truth [has now come] from your Sustainer: let, then, him who wills, believe in it, and let him who wills, reject it.”
Verily, for all who sin against themselves [by rejecting Our truth] We have readied a fire whose billowing folds will encompass them from all sides; and if they beg for water, they will be given water [hot] like molten lead, which will scald their faces: how dreadful a drink, and how evil a place to rest!” (Surah al-Kahf, Chapter 18, verse 29)
The above verse unequivocally shows like all the other aforementioned verses that there is no temporal duty for a Muslim to force someone to convert to Islam. It is in fact against the clear decree of letting them believe as they wish.
There are so many other such verses that ensure the freedom of belief for those who encounter Islam and the Muslims. They can never be forced to accept Islam.
We should however, recognise that there were indeed Muslim conquests that swept throughout the world. The battles and wars that were waged to consolidate power and sovereignty was commonplace in the days of old. It should be strictly noted that most if not all of the expansionist efforts of Muslim powers were not aimed at converting its conquered denizens by force.
Answering the question ‘Was Islam spread by the sword?’ Cambridge based Islamic scholar and theologian T. J. Winter or now known as Sheikh Dr. Abdul Hakim Murad and John A. Williams of College of William and Mary write:
“In general, no. The laws of Muslim warfare forbid any forced conversions, and regard them as invalid if they occur. The political sway of Muslim rulers has sometimes been achieves through warfare, but this must be distinguished clearly from the spiritual expansion of the Islamic religion. There has never been a large-scale Muslim ‘inquisition’ or a Muslim ‘crusade’ which set out to massacre unbelievers or convert them by force, except against Arab idolators when they continually attacked the Muslims. The Qur’an insists that ‘there is no compulsion in religion’ (2:256), and Had your Lord willed, everyone on earth would have believed. Shall you then force people to become believers? (10:99)” [1]
One is reminded of the event of the opening of Mecca where the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. together with 10 000 of his followers marched unto Mecca and conquered it. Those who were vanquished were the Arab idolaters who had persecuted the Prophet s.a.w. personally and his companions for more than twenty years including a woman called Hind who killed the prophet’s beloved uncle, Hamzah in the battle of Uhud after which she tore open his body and ate a part of his liver in retribution for the death of her father in the previous battle of Badr. Did the Prophet s.a.w. exact vengeance upon these evil disbelievers? No, he did not. The Prophet s.a.w. showed great magnanimity and forgave the Arab idolaters. Oxford based scholar and theologian Sheikh Dr. Muhammad Afifi al-Akiti recalling the event writes, “there was a general amnesty [wa-mannun ‘alayhi bi takhliyati sabilihi or naha ‘an safki d-dima’] for the Jahili Arabs there.” [2]
The Muslim armies spread around the world bringing with them the assurance of tolerance and justice in the face of oppression and persecution of minorities in Christian and other non-Muslim controlled lands as Winter and Williams write:
“The purpose of Muslim rule is not to impose Islam, but to bring about freedom of worship for Muslims and for others within the established framework. While Islamic tradition recognizes the advent of over 124, 000 religious prophets inspired by God over the ages, the Qur’an recognizes the particular truth of the original revelations given by God to the Jews and Christians: Those who believe [in Islam], and those who are the Jews, and Sabeans and Christians – whoever believes in God and the Last Day, and does right – no fear shall come upon them, neither shall they grieve. (5:69)
Hence Islam’s theology of war entails a self-sacrificial effort against intolerance and oppression; Muslims see it as a form of ‘liberation theology’. The early Muslims liberated the Near East, and brought religious toleration to many Jewish and also sectarian Christian minorities which had formerly been the victims of bitter persecution either in the Byzantine Empire or the Persian dominions. Later on, history was to witness the slaughter by the Crusaders of thousands of Muslims and Jews when they captured Jerusalem in 1099, which contrasts sharply with Saladin’s recapture of the city in 1187 and the tolerance he displayed towards the Christian population, as well as his permission allowing the Jews to return.
The lack of connection between islam’s political and spiritual growth may again be highlighted in another way. In many countries – including Indonesia, which is the most populous of all Muslim states – Muslim political authority was established only after the population had embraced Islam at the hands of traders and preachers, and not as a sequel to military conquest. A further comparison could be made by recalling the intolerance and persecution of the Jews and Muslims in Catholic Spain with the tolerance Jews and Christians experienced under eight centuries of Muslim rule in Andalusia.” [3]
Had it not been for the necessary military intervention of Muslim powers Jewish and sectarian Christian minorities would have been expunged from the face of the earth through systematic oppression and persecution.
The Jews of Babylon were saved from annihilation by the Muslims as a Jewish website readily recognises:
The Jews of Babylon The oldest and most stable of Jewish communities was saved from the Christians by Muslims sweeping through the Middle East.” [4]
Scholar Madeline Pelner Cosman and Associate Professor of History Linda G. Jones write:
“The Muslim conquests of Palestine, Syria, Egypt, and North Africa saved the Jews from probable religious, if not physical, extinction.” [5]
The conquered minority communities such as the Jews were grateful towards Muslim conquerors for uprooting their Christian masters under whom they suffered immeasurable persecution and intolerance. Contemporary Jewish scholar Dr. Zion Zohar who is professor of Religious Studies at Florida International University writes:
“After a time, the government legitimized forced baptisms, creating the first cases of “anusim,” namely, Jews who were forced to profess Catholicism publicly while practicing Judaism in secret. Thus, when Muslims crossed the Straits of Gibraltar from North Africa in 711 CE and invaded the Iberian Peninsula, Jews welcomed them as liberators from Christian persecution.” [6]
An expert on the historical encounters between Muslims and Jews in Spain contemporary Jewish scholar Raymond Schiendlin who is professor of Medieval Hebrew Literature at The Jewish Theological Seminary writes:
“One of the Islamic regions that was flourishing just as Iraq was entering its decline was Spain, which the Muslims had conquered in the eighth century. This conquest saved the tiny Jewish community from a regime that had treated them with particular severity (see chapter 3). Under the benevolent rule of Islam, the Jews of the territory prospered along with the country as a whole, which quickly freed itself from the control of the empire…The economic success and the growing sense of a distinctive regional identity and pride benefited the Jews as well, some of whom became wealthy through the manufacture of textiles and through trade.” [7]
The Muslim liberators clearly gave the Jewish communities liberty and a new lease on life as Professor Schiendlin further writes :
“Most of the Jews in the world were now inhabitants of a single Islamic empire stretching from the Indus River in the east to the Atlantic Ocean in the west, including Spain. This development brought the Jews of Palestine, Egypt, and Spain nearly instant relief from the persecutions, harassment, and humiliation that they endured under hostile Christian rule. It also brought them, for the first time since the beginning of the Diaspora, into a single cultural, economic, and political system. Both these new conditions would enable them to flourish and to create  the most successful Jewish Diaspora community of premodern times.” [8]
He also recognises a fact that Muslims have long claimed:
“The Arabs did not embark on their conquest with the intention of converting the world to Islam.” [9]
If the Muslim military expeditions failed to liberate the Jews their heritage would have become nothing but a passing footnote in history. The Muslims in fact, helped save the Hebrew language from complete extinction by exposing the Jewish community to the Muslims’ own language namely, Arabic. Thus Norman Roth who is professor of Jewish History at Wisconsin University writes:
“We have already seen that the knowledge of the Arabic language, which the Jews of Muslim Spain (mostly immigrants from Iraq, Iran and other Muslim lands) brought with them as their native tongue, played a crucial role in the cultural development of the Jews and their relations with Muslims. Moses Ibn Ezra(h), for example, observed that when the Muslims conquered the Iberian peninsula from the Goths, who had prevailed over the Romans some 300 years before, the Jews “after a time” learned their language (Arabic) and investigated Arabic grammar, which aided the Jews in understanding the Hebrew language and grammar. This would seem to indicate that the Jews who remained in Spain from the Visigothic era, who obviously had not known Arabic, were taught Arabic by the Muslims even prior to the massive immigration of Arabic-speaking Jews into Spain.
In any case, what he says about the importance of Arabic in aiding in the scientific investigation of the Hebrew language and a creation of a correct and accurate Hebrew grammar by Spanish Jews is absolutely correct. I have already dealt with this elsewhere at length, and shown that the “renaissance” of the Hebrew language which thus took place was connected with the ‘Arabiyya concept (claims of the “perfection” and superiority of the Arabic language).
In the amazing advances that were made in uncovering the foundations of Hebrew grammar and lexicography, Arabic as a cognate language came to play an increasingly important role. Indeed, almost all of the works written on Hebrew language in Muslim Spain were written in Judeo-Arabic (Arabic in Hebrew letters). More than that, numerous obscure Hebrew words were explained, more often than not correctly, on the basis of an Arabic cognate.” [10]
What we learn from the above is that the revival of the Hebrew language is directly credited to the expanding empire of the Muslims which gave sufficient exposure of the Arabic language to the Jews that came under the fold of Muslim governance. If this historical episode did not take place in Islamic Spain and elsewhere much of the important Qumran discovery in 1946 would have yielded little sense as Hebrew would probably have become extinct as a language.
Popular author Jamie Frater (not to be confused with British criminal Jamie Frater) who is a non-Muslim observer describes the idea that Islam was spread by the sword as a myth. In fact, he nicely captures the reality of things in the following:
Islam was spread by the sword.
BULLSHIT! Right? Maybe not. Historian De Lacy O’Leary states, “History makes it clear, however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated.” There is no record in history that shows people being forced by sword point to convert to convert to Islam. When Islam spread through centuries, people would set up private churches and synagogues for the non-Muslims they were governing, and because of the good treatment they had received, many non-Muslims would convert. If one considers the small number of Muslims who initially spread Islam to the West, all the way from Spain and Morocco and east from India and China, one would realize that such a small group of people could not force others to be members of a religion against their will. It is also interesting to note that when the Mongols invaded and conquered large portions of the Islamic empire, instead of destroying the religion, the adopted it! [11]
Let us now turn our attention to this Jizyah business. What exactly is Jizyah? Jizyah in brief is a specific type of payment tolling non-Muslims residing in Muslim governed states, hence it is often called a ‘poll tax’. Why is there a special type of taxation upon non-Muslim citizens of a Muslim state? Is this discrimination? The candid answer to that is yes. That is indeed discrimination. Yet it is discrimination of a positive sort. That is because their Muslim counterpart is not exactly free of any kind of taxation. Rather, the Muslim resident has to pay rather more in what is known as zakah which is divided into zakah al-fitr and zakah mal. Those are the two types of payments incumbent upon a Muslim citizen. Upon the fulfillment of the Jizyah obligation the life of the preservation of the life of the non-Muslim is the responsibility of all able bodied Muslims in the land. The non-Muslims themselves are exempted from military service.
What is the amount of Jizyah that a non-Muslim citizen would ordinarily have to pay? The classic manual of Islamic jurisprudence Reliance of the Traveller states the following:
“The minimum non-Muslim poll tax is one dinar (n: 4.235 grams of gold) per person (A: per year). The maximum is whatever both sides agree upon.
It is collected with leniency and politeness, as are all debts, and is not levied on women, children, or the insane.” [12]
The above shows that the non-Muslim citizen is obliged to pay a rather meager amount per year which is more than reasonable compared to taxes that one would normally have to pay in say the United States of America. The amount can be increased but only upon the agreement of both parties! In addition, it is to be collected with politeness and leniency without coercion. What is even more astounding is that women and children are exempted as opposed to modern Christian secular laws that demand taxation of babies (their food and other services) and women.
The second caliph of Islam ‘Umar r.a. the great companion of the Prophet s.a.w. said:
أوصي الخليفة من بذمة الله وذمة رسولو (ص) : أن يوفى لهم بعهدهم, وأن يقاتل من ورائهم, وأن لا يكلفوا فوق طاقتهم.
“I advice my successor to fulfill the contract of the non-Muslim citizens who are under the protection of Allah and His Messenger s.a.w. I enjoin them to fight for them if the need arises and not to burden them with more than they can bear.” [13]
The above substantiates Reliance of the Traveller in showing leniency to non-Muslim citizens and to not burden them with things that they cannot bear. In also shows that the Muslims are obliged to defend them should the threat of war or the like arise. The non-Muslims are not themselves commanded to defend the land. The Muslims carry that specific responsibility.
Dr. Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri cites another pertinent example:
During his journey to Syria, ‘Umar saw that the tax officials were making the non-Muslim citizens stand out in the sun as their taxes were collected. Upon seeing this, he said:
دعوهم, لا تكلفوهم ما لا يطيقون, فإني سمعت رسول الله (ص) يقول : لاتعذبوا الناس, فإن الذين يعذبون الناس في الدنيا يعذبهم الله يوم القيامة.
“Spare them from this and do not burden them with more than they can bear. Indeed, I heard the Messenger of God say, “Do not torture people, for those who torture people in this life will be tortured by God on the day of Resurrection.” [14]
A former slave of ‘Umar r.a. who was freed by him named Aslam stated:
أن عمر كتب إلى أمراء الأجناد : أن لا يضربوا الجزية على النساء,ولا على الصبيان
“’Umar r.a. wrote a letter to the military commanders stating that they should not impose tax on non-Muslim women and children.” [15]
The above shows that women are children are exempted from the Jizyah as stated in Reliance of the Traveller..
فإن عمر أتي بمال كثير, قال أبو عبيد : وأحسبه من الجزية. فقال: إني لأظنكم قد أهاكتم الناس,قالوا : لا,واالله,ما أخذنا إلا عفوا صفوا. قال : بلا سوط ولا نوط ؟ قالوا : نعم. قال : الحمدلله الذي لم يجعل ذلك على يدي ولا في سلطاني
“A large amount of wealth was brought to ‘Umar, and Abu ‘Ubayd said, “I believe it was money collected from tax”. ‘Umar said, “For certain, you have destroyed the people!” They [the tax collectors] said, “No, by God! We have only taken with tenderness and ease”. ‘Umar inquired, “Was it acquired without recourse to a whip or coercion?” They replied, “Yes”. He said, “All praise is due to God, Who did not put that on my hands or during my rule”. [16]
The above narration shows that coercing non-Muslim subjects to part with their wealth through Jizyah is intolerable and unacceptable in the eyes of Islam.
إن أمير المؤمنين عمر مربشيخ من أهل الذمة يسأل على أبواب الناس, فقال : ما أنصفناك أن كنا أخذنا منك الجزية في شبيبتك, ثم ضيعناك في كبرك. فال : ثم أجرى عليه من بيت المال ما يصلحه
“The Commander of the Faithful, ‘Umar, passed by an elderly man amongst the non-Muslim citizens who was begging at people’s doors. ‘Umar said to him, “We have not been fair to you if we have taken the tax from you when you were younger but left you in helplessness in your old age”. After that, ‘Umar issued instructions for the man to receive enough money from the public treasury that would take care of his needs’. [17]
The above informs us of a well-known incident involving an underprivileged, poor Jewish man who was begging for money so as to pay the Jizyah. He was unaware of the fact that his situation exempted him from any payment and in fact obligated the state to look after him which is why he was given money from the treasury and taken care of afterwards. This is clear evidence that the elderly and the unfortunate indigent is not to be taxed, but is rather to be looked after. This also completely demolishes the nonsensical allegation that Islam is anti-semitic or anti-Jew. An astute observer might ask, “How do you know the story related above is of a Jewish indigent?” That is because the above is a concise report of an incident that is elaborated with more details in Abu Yusuf’s Kitab al-Kharaj whereby the man is specifically identified as a Jew. For the sake of brevity we will cite the relevant part where his Jewish heritage is identified:
و قال: من أي أهل الكتاب أنت؟ فقال: يهودي
“And he(‘Umar) said, “From which group amongst the People of the Book do you belong?” The man replied, “I  am a Jew”.” [18]
Ensuring the rights of the non-Muslim subject is protected Jundub bin Abdillah r.a. narrates that the Prophet s.a.w. said:
من يخفر ذمتى كنت خصمه ومن خاصمته خصمته
“Whoever disrespects the protection I have granted to a non-Muslim, I will be his enemy, and one whose enemy I become, I will defeat him.” [19]
The Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. is also reported to have said:
ألا من ظلم معاهدا أو انتقصه٬ أو كلفه فوق طاقته٬ أو أخذ منه شيئا بغير طيب نفس٬ فأنا حجيجه يوم القيامة
“Whoever oppresses a non-Muslim subject or puts a burden on him beyond his capacity or forcibly takes away anything from him shall find me to be their advocate on the day of Resurrection (against the oppressing Muslim).” [20]
Writing on the treatment of non-Muslim subjects under an Islamic government and citing a similar hadith to the above Winter and Williams write:
“Jewish and Christian citizens of an Islamic state have the status known as dhimma (‘protection’). The Prophet s.a.w. said, ‘Whoever oppresses any Jew or Christian enjoying the dhimma status, shall have me as his adversary.’ A dhimma citizen is exempted from the zakat tax payable by all Muslim citizens, and from conscription (although jurists frequently hold that non-Muslims are entitled to volunteer to fight for their country). Dhimma citizens also enjoy the right to establish their own law-courts where questions of personal law such as marriage, divorce and inheritance are adjudicated by a judge of their own religion, in accordance with their own values. In exchange for the extension of the protection primarily to life and property, dhimma citizens pay a tax known as jizya which may be roughly equivalent to the zakat, a tax paid only by Muslims. Failure to provide this prime service and security renders them non-liable to the payment of this due. Indeed, cases are known of Muslim leaders returning the jizya to their non-Muslim subjects in cases of their inability to extend this protection.” [21]
From Reliance of the Traveller(‘Umdat al-Salik), the narrations cited above and Winter and William one can conclude the following:
  1. Jizyah is specifically for non-Muslim subjects who are able to pay it.
  2. Women, children and the poor are automatically exempted from Jizyah.
  3. Muslims are obliged to sacrifice their lives for the protection of non-Muslims pursuant to the proper observance and fulfillment of the Jizyah system.
  4. The Jizyah is to be tolled or exacted in a kind, lenient, fair and polite manner without involving torture of any kind.
  5. Failure to properly observe the correct etiquette of dealing with non-Muslim subjects incurs the wrath of the Prophet s.a.w. turning him into the non-Muslim’s advocate against the Muslim.
  6. Complete freedom of religion is afforded to non-Muslim subjects to the extent that they are granted the opportunity of judicial autonomy for their own community.
A proper understanding of the Jizyah system cannot in any way stimulate a complaint from thinking non-Muslims. They should as a matter of fact, heartily embrace what is clearly a magnanimous treatment of non-Muslim subjects enshrined in the Islamic constitution. Muslims are not permitted to wage war willy-nilly and treat life in a trivial manner. Life including that of a disbeliever is sacred. Upon citing over 40 narrations of the sacredness of life the erudite Mufti Taqi Usmani writes:
“Many of the above mentioned forty Ahadith have condemned and pronounced warnings against taking the life of not only a Muslim, rather they have condemned unjustly taking the life of any human being, whether Muslim or non-Muslim.” [22]

[1] Winter, T. J., & Williams, J. A. (2002). Understanding Islam and the Muslims: The Muslim Family Islam and World Peace. Louisville, Kentucky: Fons Vitae. P. 82
[2] Muhammad Afifi al-Akiti (2005). Defending the Transgressed by Censuring the Reckless Against the Killing of Civilians. United Kingdom: Aqsa Press. p. 31
[3] Winter, T. J., & Williams, J. A. Op. Cit.
[4] Anon. History of Judaism (Crash Course). Retrieved from
[5] Cosman, P. C., & Jones, L. G. (2007). Handbook to Life in the Medieval World. New York: Infobase Publishing. p. 91
[6] Zohar, Z. (2005). A Global Perspective on Sephardic and Mizrahi Jewry: An Introductory Essay. In Zion Zohar (ed.), Sephardic and Mizhary Jewry from the Golden Age of Spain to Modern Times. New York: New York University Press. p. 9
[7] Scheindlin, R. P. (2000). A Short History of the Jewish People: From Legendary Times to Modern Statehood. New York. Oxford University Press. pp. 82-83
[8] Ibid. p. 73
[9] Ibid.
[10] Roth, N. (1994). Jews, Visigoths & Muslims in Medieval Spain: Cooperation and Conflict. Leiden, The Netherlands: E. J. Brill. pp. 171-172
[11] Frater, J. (2011). I Call Bullshit: Debunking the Most Common repeated Myths. Berkeley, California: Ulysses Press. p. 246
[12] Ahmad Ibn Naqib Al-Misri (1994). Reliance of the Traveller (Nuh Ha Mim Keller, Trans.). Beltsville, Maryland: Amana Publications. (Original work published 1800). p. 608
[13] Sahih Bukhari as cited in Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri (2010). Fatwa on Terrorism and Suicide Bombings. London: Minhaj-ul-Quran International. p. 148; Muhammad Taqi Usmani (2010). The Sanctity of Human Life in the Qur’an and Sunnah (Shakir Jakhura, Trans.). Karachi, Pakistan: Maktaba Ma’riful Quran. p. 32
[14] Tahir-ul-Qadri Ibid. p. 149
[15] Ibid. p. 148
[16] Ibid. p. 149
[17] Ibid. p. 150
[18] Ibid. p. 151
[19] Muhammad Taqi Usmani. Op. Cit. p. 32
[20] Sunan Abi Dawud as cited in Kaleem-Ullah Khan (2003). Islam: The Source of Universal Peace. New Delhi, India: Goodword Books. p. 123
[21] Winter, T. J., & William, J. A. Op. Cit. p. 83
[22] Muhammad Taqi Usmani Op. Cit. p. 31

Monday, 4 August 2014

The 7 Ahruf & 10 Qiraat Of Quran

First off, let's talk about the different ahruf. What are the different ahruf? You see, the Quraishi - the Arabs in Arabia at the time did not speak one different dialect of Arabic. They were not a homogeneous group of people. No, they were different groups of people, there were different kinds of Arabs at the time. Even then, even now to this day especially there are different kinds of Arabs and they spoke different kinds of Arabic. For example, one example that we know is that the Prophet (saw) once encountered a group of people who: instead of saying "al" for example: "al-kitab" they said "am," like "am-kitab." So for example they would say "rasul amlah" (the Messenger of God). So, they would say "am" instead of "al." They spoke different dialects of Arabic, and these different dialects were actually captured in the Quran originally. Originally, they were captured and these are called the different ahruf. The Quran was revealed in different ways to accommodate for these different people who spoke different dialects of Arabic, because it was not standardized at the time. We have a Hadith in:
Sahih Muslim, Book 4, Number 1782:
"'Umar b. Khattab said: I heard Hisham b. Hakim b. Hizam reciting Surah al-Furqan in a style different from that in which I used to recite it, and in which Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) had taught me to recite it. I was about to dispute with him (on this style) but I delayed till he had finished that (the recitation). Then I caught hold of his cloak and brought him to the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) and said: Messenger of Allah, I heard this man reciting Surah al-Furqan in a style different from the one in which you taught me to recite. Upon this the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) told (me) to leave him alone and asked him to recite. He then recited in the style in which I beard him recite it. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) then said: Thus was it sent down. He then told me to recite and I recited it, and he said: Thus was it sent down. The Qur'an was sent down in seven dialects. So recite what seems easy therefrom.."
And this is reported in Muslim, so it is an authentic Hadith. So we know that the Quran was revealed in seven different ways - originally. seven different ahruf - styles of dialects of the Quran. And this book: "Introduction to the Sciences of the Quran" defines it is:
"...a temporary definition would be given as follows: the ahruf are the various ways that the verses of the Quran are read. Imam al-Qurtubi said, |very variation of a word in the Quran is said to be a harf. So, for example, when we say the harf of Ibn Masud, it means the way that Ibn Masud used to recite that verse or word [1]." (Chapter 10, Page 172).
In other words, there are different ways of reciting the Quran that were given to different people - different dialects at the time. Each of these is correct. So the question then is: well how come we don't have ahruf of the Quran? How come we don't have different dialects of the Quran to this today? Uthman in his wisdom at the time, when he was compiling the Quran into one single document - one single Mushaf (one single book), burned the other ahruf of the Quran. Burned them, and he only preserved one of them, which was the one original Quraishi harf of the Quran - the original Quraishi dialect. He preserved that Quran.
Now you my ask: what is the different Qiraat of the Quran? What are they? The different Qiraat are: from that one hard of the Quran which Uthman preserved - from that one reading style or one dialect: come the different Qiraat. The different Qiraat are the different ways that the one Quraishi harf can be read. The different styles of that one harf. The variations within that one harf, that one dialect which Uthman preserved. So for example you have:
Surah Duha 93:1-3: Transliteration:
"Waadduha. Waallayli itha saja. Ma wadda AAaka rabbuka wama qala."
That's the standard way that we think of, right? Now, listen to this one:
Surah Duha 93:1-3: Transliteration:
"Waadduheh. Waallayli itha sejeh. Ma wadda AAaka rabbuka wama qaleh."

You see the difference? "Duha - Duheh." There's a difference there. These are the different styles of reciting the same exact letters. You also have for example:
Surah Fatiha 1:1-3: Transliteration:
"Alhamdu lilla hirabbil Alameen. Ar rahman niraheem. Maliki yawm middeen."
That's how we usually think of it. Now listen to this one:
Surah Fatiha 1:1-3: Transliteration:
"Alhamdu lilla hirabbil Alameeen. Ar rahman niraheeem. Maliki yawm middeeen."

There's other ways too. The thing is the Quran can be recited in different ways. The majority of the Muslim world settled on the hafs reading - the hafs Qiraat of the Quran - the hafs recitation style. However, other styles of the Quran still are read, in fact some places exclusively use one style. North Africa for example for the most part uses warsh style. Other parts exclusively use the Aduri style. Other parts exclusively use the Qaloon style. So there are different styles of reciting the Quran. The ahruf are one thing and the Qiraat are another thing. Uthman burned the different ahruf of the Quran from the one harf that was preserved, come the different Qiraat. Every single one of these different Qiraat is from the prophet's mouth directly (saw) and it is the authentic Quran 100%. There are 7 authentic Qiraat and there are 3 that are considered questionable.



Now, coming to the 5th view which is considered by many to be a really acceptable view. This was actually first given by Imam Malik. It states that the 7 readings are actually the variation in recital. They refer to the variations in the recital or the Quran of 7 kinds. So they refer to the 7 kinds of variations in the recital. Although the recitals are more than 7, the variations found in then evolved around 7 basic points. Imam Malik stated that the 7 readings denoted the 7 variations in the recital of the Quran. These variations are:
1. Variations in numbers such that 1 word is read as singular in 1 recital and plural in the other.
2. Variations in gender - masculine in 1 recital become feminine in the other. For example: "la yakbal" becomes "la thakbal."
3. Variations in placements of diacritical marks. The kasara, fatha, etc.
4. Variations in verb. So, "ya-rishun" becomes "yuwarishun."
5. Variations in syntax.
6. Variations caused by transposition.
7. Variations of pronunciation or accent. Variations in: Tafkheem, Tarqeeq, Imla, Maad, Kasar, Izar, Idgham which are actually rendering the sound heavy, soft, inclining it, prolonging it, shortening it, expressing clearly and assimilating.
Many prominent scholars adhere to this view. However, there is some difference in the formulation of those variations, because each arrange them individually. Imam Razi's enlistment is considered most concise, well arranged and firmly established. He says the variations in the recital of the Quran depend on 7 kinds:
1. Variations in noun. This includes difference in number and gender.
2. Variations in verbs. The same verb is read in the past, present or future tense, or as an imperative.
3. Variations in positions of diacritical marks.
4. Variations caused by omissions and additions. There is an extra word in one reading which is not found in another.
5. Variations of placement of words. A word proceeds in a reading while it follows in another.
6. Variations caused by replacement of words. There is a word in one reading, but quite another word in the other reading.
7. Variations of accent.

This is a reasonable opinion regarding the 7 readings, and many scholars agree that it refers to the 7 kinds of difference in reading. In the end, one thing is important to keep in mind that is: that the Prophet himself did not explain the 7 ahruf and hence one cannot say that 1 particular view is what the Hadith intended to mean. But the view of Imam Razi appears to be more correct, as it is applicable to the various forms of recitals current to date. So, we cannot judge and we cannot say that one view supersedes the other or one view is like the 100% most correct view. These are opinions of the scholars and their analysis regarding the different opinions.  So over here, it seems that Imam Razi's opinion is like much more muhkam that compared to the other opinions. But, however we cannot say that this was exactly what the Prophet meant, so that's one important thing which we have to keep in mind.

200 Verses Accidentally Lost From Surah Ahzab 33?

200 Verses Accidentally Lost From Surah Ahzab 33?
Christian & non Christian critics claim that 200+ verses originally in the 33rd chapter of the Quran (Surah Ahzab) unintentionally got lost forever. The basis of their argument is from the following Hadiths:
"Ubayy bin Ka'b asked the people around him, "How many verses do you count in Surah Ahzab (The 33rd Surah of the Quran)?" They replied, "72 or 73 verses." Ubayy said to them, "Surah Ahzab used to contain the same number of verses as Surah Baqarah (over 280 verses) or more. We used to recite a verse from Surah Ahzab, 'When a muhsan male and female commit adultery, then stone them both as a deterrent [punishment] from Allah.'" (An-Nasai and Abdullah ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal both have narrated this hadith. Hafiz ibn Hajar has classified this as a hasan hadith (Muwafaqatu Al-Khubr Al-Khabr - vol. 2, pg. 304.)).
"Ibn Mardawayh reported that Hudhayfah said: 'Umar said to me 'How many verses are contained in the chapter of al-Ahzab?' I said, '72 or 73 verses.' He said it was almost as long as the chapter of the Cow, and in it was the verse of stoning." (Cited In: Durr Al-Manthur,  5/180 & Shawkani's Tafsir: Fath Al-Qadeer - Source).
This Hadith  mentioning the amount of verses in Surah Ahzab is in other hadith collections too, which slightly different wording. In one narration, the narrator Ibn Lahi'ah is present. This particular narrator is claimed by various scholars to be da'if (weak), hence this particular chain is called into question.
"[Abu Ubaid] said, Ibn Abi Maryam narrated to us from Ibn Lahi'ah from Abil Aswad from 'Urwah ibn Az-Zubayr from 'A'ishah that she said, "We used to recite Surat Al-Ahzab with 200 verses during the lifetime of the Nabi (SAWS) ('alayhis Salam). Then when 'Uthman transcribed the manuscripts of the Qur'an (masaahif) he was unable to find [all of the verses] except those [verses] as it currently is today."

This hadith is weak due to (Abdullah) Ibn Lahi'ah. We have already written a research paper regarding his weakness
here." (Source).

Regarding the chain from Umar: I've not come across any hadith scholar which graded this chain, even after extensive research. So, this chain & it's content can't be used as evidence. The chains of Ubay Ibn Ka'b are weak, although scholars dispute this. Ibn Kathir, Albani and Ibn Hazm stated the isnad is Sahih, but Busayri & Haythami states the isnads are weak (Source).
Scholars have classed this narration as weak, because after Ubayy narrated the hadith, only Zurr b. Jubaysh reported the narration and from Zurr, only only 2 others have narrated this. This would add doubt to it's authenticity. The chain is as follows:

Commenting on the narration from Yazid:
"The chain is weak because of the weakness of Yazid bin Abi Ziyad." (Shiekh Arna'oot's Commentary Of Musnad Ahmad - Number 21244 - Source).
"The narration through this chain is Da'if (weak) because of the presence of Yazid b. Abi Yazid." (Sheikh Abdul Sami & Abdul Bari Al-Saygh - cited here).

Commenting only on this narrator now:

"Yazid ibn Abi Ziyad al-Hashimi ... about him al- Hafiz (Ibn Hajr) says, "Da'if, when he became old his memory suffered ..." 143:890, pg. 464/ 142:894, pg. 170." (Sheikh Albani - Da'if Ahadith Of An-Nawawi's Riyadus Salihin).
أما الأول فإسناده ضعيف ؛ لضعف يزيد بن أبي زياد ، وهو أبو عبد الله الكوفي ، مولى عبد الله بن الحارث بن نوفل . قال ابن معين : ضعيف الحديث ، وقال أحمد بن حنبل : لم يكن بالحافظ ، وقال في موضع آخر : حديثه ليس بذاك ، وقال أبو زرعة : لين ، يكتب حديثه ولا يحتج به ، وقال ابن المبارك : ارم به ، وقال شعبة : كان رفَّعًا ، وقال الذهبي : صدوق عالم فهم ، شيعي ، رديء الحفظ ، لم يترك ، وقال ابن حجر : ضعيف .
"As for the first, its isnaad is da'eef, because of the weakness in Yazid Ibn Ziyad and he is Abu Abdullah al-Kufi, free slave of Abdullah ibn al-Harith ibn Nawfal. Ibn Maeen said (about him): weak in hadith. Ahmad ibn Hanbal said: He wasn't a good memorizer/preserver & used to fabricate. And in other place he said: His ahadith are not approved. Abu Dhura said: he is weak but writes hadith, but he's not to be relied upon. Ibn al-Mubarak said: he was accused by that. Shabe said: He was elevating (meaning he narrated mawquf or marasel as marfo). Dhahabi said: truthful, knew meaning, understood, but had bad memory, wasn't abandoned. Ibn Hajar said: Weak." (Source).

 يزيد بن أبي زياد صدوق سيء الحفظ
"Yazid ibn Abi Ziyad was truthful, but had bad memory." (Ibn Hajar - Al Amali Al Mutlaqah, #70).

 يزيد بن أبي زياد وهو ضعيف يكتب حديثه
"Yazid ibn Abi Ziyad poorly wrote/kept writings." (Imam Haythami - Majma Al-Zawa'id, 5/150).

 يزيد بن أبي زياد مع ضعفه يكتب حديثه
"Yazid ibn Abi Ziyad has weakness in hadiths." (Ibn Adi - Al-Kamil Fi Al-Du 'afa', 9/164-165).

Moreover, Bayhaqi  in Sunan Al-Kubra mentions that Yazid wasn't a good memorizer (Sunan Al-Kubra Of Bayhaqi - 4/12) and in (Al-Bazar - Al-Bahr Al-Zakhar, 6/131) he is said to be weak & here also. Additionally, this scholarly website mentions more scholars who comment on Yazid's weakness.

Regarding the chain from Aasim:
"The chain is Da'if (i.e. weak) - Aasim bin Bahdala - even if acceptable used to have inadvertences due to bad memory, so he alone cannot be relied upon in reports like this." (Classification Of Musnad Ahmad - Sheikh Shuaib Arnaut Accompained By Aadil Murshid & Sa'id Al-Ham - Al-Resalah Beirut, 1999 - Volume 35 - Page 134 - cited here. The Sheikh Also Mentioned It's Weakness Here - Commentary Of Number 21245).
"In its chain is Aasim bin Abi al-Najwad and he is Da'if (i.e. weak)." (Imam Haythami - Mawarid Az-Zamaan, Hadith 1756).
"Their chains depend upon Aasim bin Abi al-Najwad and he is Da'if (i.e. weak)." (Imam Shahabuddin Ahmad Al-Boseri  - Ithaf Al-Khira Al-Mihra, 5792 - cited here).

Commenting only on this narrator now:

وأما الثاني ؛ فضعيف أيضًا ؛ في إسناده عاصم بن بهدلة ، هو ابن أبي النجود ، أبو بكر المقرئ المشهور ، شيخ حفص المقرئ ، قال أبو حاتم : محله عندي محل الصدق ، صالح الحديث ، ولم يكن بذاك الحافظ ، وقال ابن معين : لا بأس به ، وقال أبو زرعة : ثقة ، وقال العجلي : صاحب سنة وقراءة للقرآن ، رأسًا في القراءة ، وقال الدارقطني : في حفظه شيء ، وقال ابن سعد : كان ثقة ، إلا أنه كان كثير الخطأ في حديثه ، وقال ابن حجر : صدوق له أوهام ، حجة في القراءة
"As for the second: it's isnad is also weak because of Asim bin Abi Bahdala. And he is ibn Abi Nujud, famous as: Abu Bakr al-Mugri. Sheikh of Hafs al-Mugri. Au Hatim said: for sahih hadith, he was not such a memorizer/preserver. Ibn Maeen said: There is no problem in him. Abu Dhura said: he was confident. Al-Ijli said: companion of sunna and reader of Quran, heard in recitation. Daraqutni said: His memory was bad. Ibn Sad: He was confident, except he made a lot of errors in the hadith. Ibn Hajar said: Truthful, but had errors; we have proof in the recitation." (Source).

More comments on Aasim's weakness here & over here, he's classed as truthful but "la al-awham" (made some mistakes). More scholars agree with the hadith's weakness here. Moreover, an email response from a sheikh at
"The allegation of abrogated verses of surat Al-Ahzab was based on the following two fabricated, unauthentic, narrations falsely attributed to Ubay and A'ishah (may Allah be pleased with them)." (
Various critics of Islam hold non-Islamic historical records to be true, which are based on a much less sophisticated & stringent methodology than the sciences of Hadith. This is why they would accept what Hadith scholars (even the majoirty) deem to be weak hadiths. Now, let us agree with those group of scholars (for sake of argument) that this narration is sahih. The answer to this is: We first need to know the 3 types of Quranic abrogation:
Ibn Salama, al-nasikh wa al-mansukh, Cairo, 1966, p.5.
Abrogation of the recited (verse) together with the legal ruling.
Abrogation of the legal ruling without the recited (verse).
Abrogation of the recited (verse) without the legal ruling.

"Abrogated Qur'anic verses fall into three categories. The first is where abrogation affects the two aspects of a Qur'anic text: the ruling, as well the recitation (nask al-hukm wa al-tilawah). In this type of abrogation, the verse is withdrawn from the Qur'anic text and its ruling is no longer valid.

The second catagory of abrogation affects the ruling of a verse but not its wording (nask al-hukm duna al-tilawah). This means that the verse remains part of the Qur'anic text and is recited. However, the ruling it conveys is no longer in operation.

The third category of abrogation affects the wording of a verse but not its ruling. This means that, although the verse is no longer part of the Qur'anic text, its ruling remains applicable."
(Abdullah Saeed - Interpreting The Qur'an: Towards A Contemporary Approach - Routledge, 2006 - Pages 79-80).

Similar thing is mentioned in: (Abbas Jaffer & Masuma Jaffer - Quranic Sciences - ICAS Press - Pages 153-156). We know that these 3 type of abrogations exist, because the Hadiths imply they do. To see this wisdom behind abrogation in Quran, go here and here.

Notice Hadiths says that they used to recite a verse relating to stoning. Most scholars hold that the recitation (not the injunction) of the verse of stoning was abrogated from Quran.
الراوي زيد بن ثابت: قال زيد كنا نقرأ والشيخ والشيخة . . فقال مروان أفلا نجعله في المصحف قال لا ألا ترى أن الشابين الثيبين يرجمان قال وقال ذكروا ذلك وفينا عمر بن الخطاب رضي الله عنه قال أنا أشفيكم من ذاك قال قلنا كيف قال آتي النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فأذكر كذا وكذا فإذا ذكر الرجم أقول يا رسول الله أكتبني آية الرجم قال فأتيته فذكرته قال فذكر آية الرجم قال فقال يا رسول الله أكتبني آية الرجم قال لا أستطيع ذاك
"Narrated Zaid Bin Thabit: we used to read: "The old man and the old woman." Marwan said: "Shouldn't we write it down as part of the written Quran?" He replied: "Don't you see that the two young married (adulterers) are to be stoned?" And Umar Bin Al Khattab - may Allah be pleased with him was with us then, so he said: "I will get the answer." We both said: "How?" He said: "From the Prophet, and I will mention such and such to him, and when I get to stoning, I will say: Oh Messenger of Allah, allow me to write the stoning verse." He (Umar) said: "O Messenger of Allah, let me write the stoning verse. He said: "I can't." (Sunan Al-Baihaqi - Classed Sahih By Baihaqi & Sheikh Albani In: Silsilat Al-Sahiha, 6/974 - Source. Also In Sunan Nasai, 3046).

They were ready to write down the verse in the manuscripts, because it's recitation used to be part of the Quran. Baihaqi's footnote of the above Hadith is:
في هذا وما قبله دلالة على أن آية الرجم حكمها ثابت ، وتلاوتها منسوخة ، وهذا مما لا أعلم فيه يه خل
"With this & what was earlier, this indicates the ruling of the stoning verse is permanent and it's recitation abrogated, and this is something not known to be disputed." (Source).

The reason the Prophet didn't allow Umar to write it down because it's recitation was abrogated. Ibn Hajar gives us a hadith:

فقال عمر : لما نزلت أتيت النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقلت أكتبها ؟ فكأنه كره ذلك , فقال عمر : ألا ترى أن الشيخ إذا زنى ولم يحصن جلد , وأن الشاب إذا زنى وقد أحصن رجم
"Umar said: "When this verse came down I approached the Prophet peace be upon him so I asked him: Should I write it down? It is as if he hated that Then Umar said: "Cant you see that if the old man if he commits adultery he does not get the whip, and that if the young man if he commits adultery he gets stoned?" (Ibn Hajar - Fathul Bari - Hadith Commentary Of Bukhari, 6441 - 1407 AH/1986 -  Source).

This Hadith (similar wording) is also in: (Musnad Umar,  2/870 - Classed Sahih & Muhalla Bi Al-Athar, 11/235 - Classed Sahih By Ibn Hazm - Source).
The verse of stoning wasn't supposed to stay in the Quran, which is why the Prophet didn't want it in there. For more evidence the recitation of this was abrogated while the ruling remained, go here and the end of this. So in context, the Hadith could even mean these 200 verses were abrogated.

Secondly, notice how the Hadith says "Surah Ahzab used to contain the same number of verses as Surah Baqarah" and "it was almost as long as the chapter of the Cow." The past tense here is used, indicating these verses were abrogated.
"We can understand from here that the abrogated verses on stoning as mentioned and explained in the above was actually a part of this surah and was latter on removed by divine injunction. Nowhere in this narration one can see that Umar while talking to Hudaifah believes that this surah is incomplete . He was just talking about the surah before its pre-abrogation state." (Source).
Additionally, Zamakhshari's tafsir states that it refers to the 200 verses which were abrogated from Surah Ahzab. Moreover: Suyuti narrated from Aisha:

"During the life of the Prophet, Surah Ahzab was read with 200 verses, when Uthman collected the verses we only found that amount that is found in the current Quran." (Tafsir Durr Al Manthur - Volume 5 - Page 180 cites: Suyuti - Al Itqan Volume 2 - Page 25).
The chapter the above is in is called: النوع السابع والأربعون في ناسخه ومنسوخه
(47 types of abrogation and abrogated - cited here), showing this was considered as abrogated.

Another hadith similar to the 200 verses one ends mentioning the abrogation of the stoning verse:
فرفع فيما رفع أي نسخ فيما نسخ من تلاوة آياته
"It was lifted with what was lifted and abrogations were abrogated from the recitation." (Narrated By Ubay bin Ka'b - Collected By Hakim & Ibn Majah - cited in: Muhammad Tahir's Tafsir - Source).

حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ فَضَالَةَ ، عَنْ عَاصِمٍ ، عَنْ زِرٍّ ، قَالَ : قَالَ لِي أُبَيُّ بْنُ كَعْبٍ : يَا زِرُّ ، كَأَيِّنْ تَقْرَأُ سُورَةَ الأَحْزَابِ ؟ قَالَ : قُلْتُ : كَذَا وَكَذَا آيَةً ، قَالَ : إِنْ كَانَتْ لَتُضَاهِي سُورَةَ الْبَقَرَةِ ، وَإِنْ كُنَّا لَنَقْرَأُ فِيهَا : " وَالشَّيْخُ وَالشَّيْخَةُ إِذَا زَنَيَا فَارْجُمُوهُمَا ألْبَتَّةَ نَكَالا مِنَ اللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ " . فَرُفِعَ فِيمَا رُفِعَ .

"Narrated Ibn Fadala > Aasim > Zurr said Ubay bin Ka'b said to me: Oh Zurr, how much of Surah Ahzab do you recite? He said: I said: Such and such verses. He said: It was almost as long as Surah Baqara, and in it (Surah Ahzab) we used to recite: "The old man or old woman that commit adultery, stone them as a punishment from Allah and his Messenger." It was lifted with what was lifted." (Musnad Tayaalisi, #537. Also mentioned with similar wordings in Shawkani's tafsir - Declared Hasan By Ibn Kathir).

In this above chain, we have Aasim which as shown above is graded weak by some, due to mistakes he made. If critics accept the narration collected in Musnad Ahmad in which Aasim is present, they shouldn't have much problem accepting the above one, which states that the stoning verse was lifted with what was lifted (i.e. 200 verses of Surah Ahzab).

A Sheikh wrote:

فالمشهور عند أهل العلم أن سورة الأحزاب كانت أطول مما هي الآن ، ونُسِخ منها جزء كبير
"It's a known view amongst scholars that Al-Ahzab was longer than what we have now, a large part of it is abrogated." (Source).

Also, when we check Qurtubi's tafsir, we find:

.وهذ يحمله أهل العلم على أن الله تعالى رفع من الأحزاب إليه ما يزيد على ما في ايدينا ، وأن
"Scholars hold that Allah raised more from Al-Ahzab than what is in our hands." (Qurtubi's tafsir - Surah Ahzab 33:1 - Source).

A Hadith mentioned in the same tafsir:
أبوبكر فمعنى هذا من قول أم المؤمنين عائشة : أن الله تعالى رفع إليه من سورة الأحزاب ما يزيد على ما عندن
"Abu Bakr said it means in the word of Aisha, the mother of the believers: Allah raised up more from Surah Al-Ahzab than what he left in (than what we have)." (Ibid - Source).

However, in the above Hadith, by Ibn Lahi'ah exists in the chain (shown in Qurtubi's tafsir in full), and there has been debates over the authenticity of this narrator. Various scholars classify him as da'if, while others state his narrations are only accepted if you find the same hadith narrated by others, before his books were burnt or if reports from certain narrators. More on Ibn Lahi'ah can be read here & here.
EAt times, a weak narration is accepted by scholars of hadith, for various reasons. In this specific case with the above narration located in Qurtubi's tafsir, scholars have accepted it (as shown above). Scholars have differed regarding Ibn Lahi'ah's trustworthiness & preservations of narrations, which means under certain conditions, his narrations could be accepted. This means it is possible that that above narration's content in Qurtubi's tafsir is true, but is could be false too. Since scholars hold most of Surah Ahzab was abrogated (which Qurtubi's tafsir says), this indirectly implies they accept the part of the narration that says these verses were abrogated. Even if scholars have classed the chain as weak, the content is found in other narrations showed above.

Accepting all the narrations given above (for sake of argument), one may ask as to what type of abrogation do these 200+ verses refer to. It cannot refer to the 2nd type of abrogation (abrogation of ruling without recitation) because if it did, we would have seen the 200 verses in Surah 33 today. The type of abrogation either refers to the 1st (abrogation of recitation with ruling) or 3rd (abrogation of recitation without ruling). The important thing is that these 200+ verses were not unintentionally lost, as Allah intentionally abrogated these verses, so the question of corruption doesn't arise.

Another point worth mentioning is that Ubayy bin Ka'b (who narrated the narration in question) was part of the 12 men committee in charge of standardizing the Quran.

الراوي محمد بن سيرين : أن عثمان جمع اثني عشر رجلا من قريش والأنصار فيهم أبي بن كعب وزيد بن ثابت في جمع القرآن
"Narrated Muhammad bin Sirin: Uthman gathered the twelve men, they were from the Quraish and Ansar which included:  Ubayy bin Ka'b and Zayd ibn Thabit to collect the Qur'an." (Chain Declared Strong By Ad-Dahabi In: Ad-Dahabi's: Siyar A'lam Al-Nubala, 1/400 - Source. Also In Abu Dawud's: Kitab Al-Masa'hif - #79 - Source & cited here. Also narrated By Kathir bin Aflah (longer narration) - Declared Sahih By Ibn Kathir In: Fada'il Al-Quran, #84 - Source).

More names are given in Abu Dawud's Kitab Al-Masa'hif. Ubayy was aware of the previous length of Surah Ahzab, but didn't include them in the standardized text.
Now, this was all agreeing for sake of argument that all the narrations are sahih. Even if I did accept it, the above explanation on abrogation would stand. Also, a sheikh offers another explanation:
"It means that at a certain time this Surah was in the same length of Surat- Al-Bakarah. However, the revelation of Surat-Al-Bakarah took almost 10 years! So, it was not completed whan Ubay RAA said what he said." (AmajOnline - Source).

Lastly, a lot of Christians will be unaware that their own Bible has abrogations in it (go here). Moreover, if you want a taste of real corruption, read Biblical textual variants & watch this.

Is Surah Ahzab 33:56 Incomplete?

Certain skeptics have become excited after reading a Quranic verse:
Surah Ahzab 33:56:
"Allah and His angels send blessings on the Prophet: O ye that believe! Send ye blessings on him, and salute him with all respect."

Then, reading a hadith:
حميدة بنت أبي يونس ، قالت : قرأ علي أبي - وهو ابن ثمانين سنة - في مصحف عائشة ( إن الله وملائكته يصلون على النبي يا أيها الذين آمنوا صلوا عليه وسلموا تسليما وعلى الذين يصلون الصفوف الأول ) . قالت : قبل أن يغير عثمان المصاحف .
"Hamida Bint Yunus said: "My father who was eighty years old recited for me the verse of salutation from the Mushaf of Aisha the following: "Allah and his angels send blessings on the Prophet: O ye who believe! Send ye blessings on him, and salute him with all respect, and upon those in the front row for prayers." She said: "This was before the Mushaf of Uthman was changed."" (Imam Suyuti's: Al-Itqan Fi Ulum Al-Quran - Source).

So, they claim that because Quran lacks "and to those in the front row for prayers" therefore, the Quran is incomplete and hasn't been preserved. Now, is the narration even authentic? It's stated in Tafsir At-Tabari that Ahmad Shakir said that the narration is munkar, as one transmitter mixed up things from his memory, plus also mixed up things later on in his life1. Scholars defined "munkar" as:

"The term 'unacceptable (munkar), for a hadith could mean that this version of the hadith narrated through a certain isnad was unreliable but other authentic versions existed, or that the tradition was entirely forged." (Dr. Jonathan A. C. Brown - Hadith: Muhammad's Legacy In The Medieval And Modern World - Oneworld, 2009 - Page 99).

"Definition: It is the hadith which was narrated by a weak narrator in contradiction to the narration of more reliable narrator or narrators. Ibn Hajar (May Allah have mercy on him) has a second definition: It is the hadith whose isnaad contains a narrator who has committed serious mistakes, unable to distinguish true from false or he is an open sinner. Status of Al-Munkar: It is very weak (ضعيف جدا)." (Science of Hadith (8) - Slide 3 - Source)

Another narrator is majhool (which means: unknown).1 So, we request skeptics to cite scholars who accept this narration even though it is weak, or skeptics should cite scholars who declare it is authentic. Even if we do accept the narration for sake of argument, we can say it was abrogated in it's recitation, but not it's ruling (which is a type of Quranic abrogation in Islam). To learn the types of abrogation that Islam teaches and more, read this, this, this and this. In Suyuti's own work, the narration is under:
ما نسخ تلاوته دون حكمه
"The abrogation of recitation without the ruling." [Imam Suyuti's: Al-Itqan Fi Ulum Al-Quran - Source. Also mentioned here, (2/68)].

Moreover, Zaid bin Thabit (a member of the 12 men committee) was in charge of making sure no abrogated verses were written in the copy, as 2 witnesses per source were demanded. Uthman's copy was based on this copy. (Ahmed Von Denffer - Ulum Al-Quran - Source). The following hadith implies no abrogated verse was written in Zaid's copy:
Sahih Bukhari - Volume 6, Book 60, Number 8:
"Narrated Ibn Abbas: Umar said, "Our best Qur'an reciter is Ubai and our best judge is 'Ali; and in spite of this, we leave some of the statements of Ubai because Ubai says, 'I do not leave anything that I have heard from Allah's Apostle while Allah: "Whatever verse (Revelations) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten but We bring a better one or similar to it." (2.106)."

Ibn Hajar's Fathul Bari (commentary of this Bukhari narration) implies this as well. Moreover:

"Qazi Abu Bakr in Al-Intisaar says, "The sequence of Al Quraan was an obligatory order and Jibraeel used to tell Rasulullah to place a particular Aayat at a particular place." He further says, "The whole Quraan Shareef was revealed by Allaah Ta'aala who ordered that it be kept safe in written form. Hadhrat Uthman, neither deleted anything from it nor did he add anything to it and its sequence and arrangements are the same as arranged by Allaah Ta'aala, Rasulullah who confirmed the same arrangement and sequence. He neither brought any verses forward and nor did take any verses backward from its original position and the Ummah recorded the same sequence from Rasulullah." (Suyuti's: Al-Itqan  - cited in: Mufti Afzal Hoosen Elias - Quraan Made Easy (Complete) - Zam Zam Publishers, Karachi-Pakistan, 2008 - Page 28).

Therefore, accepting the narration for sake of argument doesn't prove that Surah 33:56 is incomplete or unpreserved.

Preservation Of The Quran: Questions & answers

Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani

The Holy Quran has stated:
إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ
Surely We have revealed the Admonition (the Quran), and surely We are its Guardian (Al-Hijr, 15:9).

Through this revelation it has been prophesised that the Quran will exist in its original form till the Last Day, and no power on earth will succeed in destroying it or causing any alteration and adulteration it it. It has been made apparent in the preceding pages how Almighty Allah has made this prophesy practically true and how the Quran has been safeguarded in every age. Hence, today it can be said with full confidence and without any fear of contradiction that we have the Quran in exactly the same form as it was taught by the Holy prophet Muhammad (SAW) and even a single dot or stroke could not be changed.
This is not only the faith of Muslims but unbiased non-Muslims have also accepted this fact and could not dare to deny it. But when one's vision is blurred by malice and prejudice, even a crystal glass would appear murky to him. And this is the reason that some non-Muslims writers have raised suspicions and objections about the preservation of the Holy Quran. We would like here to briefly discuss the truth about these suspicions.

First Objection:

Some Verses Of Early Days Could Not Be Preserved

The well-known Oreintalist F. Buhl has claimed that Quranic verses were not being written in the early days of their revelation, and their preservation depended entirely on the memory of the Prophet (SAW) and his Companions. Hence it is quite likely that the verses revealed during the period may not have been preserved. In support of his claim Buhl [1] has presented two verses of the Holy Quran:
سَنُقْرِئُكَ فَلَا تَنسَى ﴿٦﴾ إِلَّا مَا شَاءَ اللَّـهُ
1: "We shall make you (O Prophet) recite (our revelations) so that you shall not forget, except what Allah wills." (Al-Ala, 87:6-7).

مَا نَنسَخْ مِنْ آيَةٍ أَوْ نُنسِهَا
2: "Whatever revelation We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or similar to it." (Al-Baqarah, 2:106).
But anyone even with a rudimentary understanding of the Quran and it's exegesis can see the absurdity of this objection, because these two verses refer only to the abrogated verses of the Quran.
The background of revelation of the first verse is that in the beginning whenever Jibril used to bring some verses the Prophet (SAW) used to hurriedly repeat them for fear of forgetting them and this cause him a great deal of strain. This verse comforted him by assuring him that he should not put himself to hardship of memorising the revelations because Allah has taken the responsibility of preservation of the Quran upon Himself, hence he would not forget them.
But this could have been taken amiss due to the fact that some verses of the Quran were forgotten later on due to their abrogation. This has been explained by saying لا ما شاء اللـه (except that which Allah Wills). This only means that only that verse would be forgotten that was abrogated and not otherwise. Similarly, the other verse only denotes that due to their abrogation some verses would be forgotten by the Prophet (SAW) and his Companions.[2]
Hence, the most the two verses prove is that when Allah abrogated some verses, He not only ordered their erasure from the transcriptions but simultaneously cause their obliteration from the memories of the people. As far as the non-abrogated verses are concerned, it has been categorically affirmed about them that they will never be forgotten by the Prophet (SAW). How does it follow from this there is a possibility of forgetting the un-abrogated verses also?
The argument on the basis of these verses that the Quran was not being recorded in the early days of Islam is utterly baseless and absurd. We have already mentioned that it is authentically proved that the Quran existed in written form with the Companions before the acceptance of Islam by 'Umar (RA).

Hence the mention of only "forgetfulness" in the first verse does not mean that the Quran did not exist in written form, but it's actual reason is that this verse deals with the topic of "forgetfulness". Any mention of erasure of the written verses at this point would have been out of the way and out of context. That is why the second verse deals with both abrogation ('erasure of the written sentences') and forgetfulness because in this verse, the subject of discussion is abrogation. The literal meaning of abrogation is erasure, or blotting out, hence this verse clearly denotes that the Quran was presented in written form and some of its verses were erased due to their abrogation. It is surprising that the verse which is actually affirming the Quran's existence in written form is being presented by Buhl to negate it.

Second Objection:

The Prophet Had Once Forgotten A Verse
Oreintalist D.S. Margoliouth has tried to cast doubts about the preservation of the Quran on the basis of a tradition by Bukhari and Muslim. [3]. It has been reported by Sayyidah 'Aisha (RA) that the Holy Prophet (SAW) once heard one of his Companions reciting the Quran, and said:
It has been reported by Sayyidah 'Aisha (RA) that the Holy Prophet (SAW) once heard one of his Companions reciting the Quran, and said:
رحمه الله. لقد أذكرني آية كنت أنسيتها
"Allah's mercy be on him, he made be remember a verse that I had forgotten." [4]

By quoting this narration, Margoliouth intends to deduce that if the Prophet (SAW) can forget one verse at any time, it may possibly happen with other verses as well. Probably he also wants to indicate that the Quran did not exist in writing otherwise the Prophet (SAW) would not have forgotten that verse. But this objection is so absurd and baseless that even a man with ordinary intelligence will not accept it. Sometimes, it does happen that man does remember something yet due to a prolonged dissociation with it he does not have it fresh in his memory, but as soon as someone mentions it, it becomes fresh in memory again. Actually this is not forgetfulness but only a temporary dissociation of thought. The same happened with the Holy Prophet (SAW). Terming it forgetfulness on the basis on such an incident is the height of travesty which is nothing but sheer bigotry. On the contrary, had Mr. Margoliouth viewed it with insight and justice, he would have realised that this incident actually proves that Allah has safeguarded the Quran in such an extraordinary manner that no possibility exists for any part of it to become lost. The incident simply proves that reality that every single verse of the Quran was made to be memorised by so many people that if ever a verse did not remain fresh in the memory of the Prophet (SAW) for the time being there was no possibility of it getting lost.
The objection that this incident denotes that the Quran at that time, did not exist in written form is even more unfounded and ridiculous: We have already pointed out that the only thing this incident says is that a verse was revived in the memory of the Holy Prophet (SAW) by it's recitation by a Companion. It does not prove that the Quran was not founded in written form. Does. Mr. Margoliouth think that a thing once written can never become obscure from a person's mind for a short while? Further, the whole world knows that the Holy Prophet (SAW) did not know reading or writing. So, there was no connection between his remembrance of the Quran and it's transcription, hence inference that the Quran did not exist in written form can be drawn from this incident only by a person who has closed the doors of justice and wisdom on himself.

Third Objection:

Reference of Surah Al-An'am in Surah An-Nisa'
Margoliouth has advanced another very strange argument about his contention that the Quran was not written. He points out that the Quran stated in Surah An-Nisa':
...وَقَدْ نَزَّلَ عَلَيْكُمْ فِي الْكِتَابِ أَنْ إِذَا سَمِعْتُمْ آيَاتِ اللَّـهِ يُكْفَرُ بِهَا وَيُسْتَهْزَأُ بِهَا فَلَا تَقْعُدُوا مَعَهُمْ حَتَّىٰ يَخُوضُوا فِي حَدِيثٍ غَيْرِهِ
"And (O Believers!) He has indeed (already) revealed to you in the Book that when you hear revelations of Allah being delievered in and mocked at, sit not with them (who do this) until they indulge in a discourse other than that..." (An-Nisa, 4:140).

This verse is Madinian and the Makkan verse referred to in it as under:
...وَإِذَا رَأَيْتَ الَّذِينَ يَخُوضُونَ فِي آيَاتِنَا فَأَعْرِضْ عَنْهُمْ حَتَّىٰ يَخُوضُوا فِي حَدِيثٍ غَيْرِهِ
(O Prophet) when you see those who meddle with our revelations, you withdraw from them till they meddle with some other discourse. (Al-An'am, 6:68).

The first verse refers to the second verse but their wordings are different. Margoliouth infers from this that the Quran did not exist in written form, because if it were written down, the first verse must have used the very same words as the second verse. The difference in the wordings means that the words of the second verse were not preserved when the first verse was revealed. [5]

This argument of Margoliouth is so palpably unsound that one feels abashed even to refute it. The question here arises, "If the words of the above mentioned verse of Surah Al-An'am were not preserved at the time of revelation of Surah An-Nisa' how were they written in the Quran later on?" If the original words of Surah Al-An'am were not preserved, logically the later scribes would have written there exactly the same words as in Surah An-Nisa'. The difference in words in fact denotes that the words of both the verses were fully preserved and unchanged, and there was no element of conjecture or guess. If the transcription of the Quran had been guess-work there should have been no difference in the wordings of these two verses.

The fact is that in every language there are two ways of making reference to a preceding subject. Sometimes the exact words of the previous narration are. Sometimes, the exact words of the previous narration are repeated, which form of speech is known in English as Direct Narration; while sometimes the same words are not repeated but the basic meanings are described in different words, known as Indirect Narration. Of these, the former form is not commonly adopted, generally it is the latter form that is resorted to in literary phraseology. This latter form is the one adopted in Surah An-Nisa'. Another reason for this is that many a time every Surah of the Quran has a different style in relation to the formation of its sentences. Hence if a sentence from another Surah is added in between it's own phrases, the sequence of the verse would break and the flow of these sentences would not be maintained. Anybody having the slightest literary taste can see that reproduction of the exact words of the Surah Al-An'am in the verse of Surah An-Nisa' would break the sequence and flow of the phrase. Further, it should be noted that the entire Surah Al-An'am about which Margoliouth says that it was not written, was revealed in one instance and it contains the following verse also: [6]

وَهَـٰذَا كِتَابٌ أَنزَلْنَاهُ مُبَارَكٌ مُّصَدِّقُ الَّذِي بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ
"And this (Quran) is the blessed Book which We have revealed confirming that which was (revealed) before it." (Al-An'am, 6:92).
In the verse the word 'Book' has been used for the Quran. If the Quran was not being written up till the revelation of Surah Al-An'am it could not be called a "Book" which word implies only to written materials. In short, this objection of Margoliouth , too, turns out to be unfounded, absurd and a produce of animus and prejudice.

Fourth Objection:

Slander of Margoliouth against Imam Bukhari
Raising his fourth objection on the preservation of the Quran, Margoliouth says that Bukhari has stated that the sentence:

إِلَّا أَنْ تَصِلُوا مَا بَيْنِي وَبَيْنَكُمْ مِنَ الْقَرَابَةِ
(Except that you respect the relation that exists between me and you).
was a divine revelation through Wahy, but the commentators say that this sentence does not exist in the Quran. Hence they consider this sentence as an explanatory note to the Quranic verse 23 of Surah Ash-Shura, 42, that is:

إِلَّا الْمَوَدَّةَ فِي الْقُرْبَى
...but (I seek to guide you) in respect of love of kinship... [7]

But we wish to state with full sense of responsibility that with these words an Orientalist of the reputation of Margoliouth has made such a slanderous statement which which cannot be termed as anything other than a dishonest and prejudiced bias or at the least a lamentable ignorance. With this, Mr. Margoliouth has tried to create an impression that Imam Bukhari considered a sentence as part of the Quran which is not found in the Quran at present. Any unbiased and honest person may turn the pages of Sahih Bukhari and find that he has copied the verse in exactly the same words as they exist in the Quran and the sentence (......الا ان تصاوا) has been written as it's explanation. The complete text of Imam Bukhari's statement is as under:
...باب قوله إلا المودة في القربى حدثنا محمد بن بشار
عن ابن عباس أنه سئل عن قوله إلا المودة في القربى . فقال سعيد بن جبير : قربى آل محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم ، فقال ابن عباس : عجلت ، إن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم لم يكن بطن من قريش إلا كان له فيهم قرابة . فقال : إلا أن تصلوا ما بيني وبينكم من القرابة

CHAPTER, The statement of Allah "Except in respect of love of kinship (42:23). Narrator Muhammad bin Bashar... from Ibn 'Abbas (RA) that he was asked (regarding) "but (I seek to guide you) in respect of love of kinship" (43:23). Sa'id ibn Jubayr said: "It means here (to show what is due for) the relatives of Muhammad (SAW)." On that Ibn 'Abbas said: You have hurried in giving the answer! There was no branch of the tribe of Quraysh but the Prophet had relatives therein. The Prophet (SAW) said "I do not want anything from (you) except to be kind to me from my kinship with you." [8]

It is quite clear now that under the heading of the verse Imam Bukhari has written exactly the same sentence of the verse that occurs in the Quran. Then as an explanation to it Sayyidina Ibn 'Abbas (RA) was asked to comment on the verse إلا المودة في القربى and he said إلا أن تصلوا ما بيني وبينكم من القرابة but Mr. Margoliouth had the effrontery to state that Imam Bukhari believes this sentence as part of Quran revelation. Once can easily understand how deep and abiding and abiding is the prejudice which animates these so called pioneers of research and truth due to their prejudice against the Quran, and how tightly the malice and grudge against Islam has trapped them.
فِي قُلُوبِهِم مَّرَضٌ فَزَادَهُمُ اللَّـهُ مَرَضًا
In their hearts is a disease, so Allah has increased their disease. (Al-Baqarah, 2:10)

Fifth Objection:

Some verses were lost by Sayyidah 'Aisha (RA)
The fifth objection raised by Margoliouth is that according to a narration of Musnad Ahmad some verses were lost [9] by Sayyidah 'Ayshah (RA). The narration referred to by Margoliouth is as under,
عنعن عائشة زوج النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم , قالت : لقد نزلت آية الرجم ، ورضاعة الكبير عشرا , فكانت في ورقة ، تحت سرير في بيتي , فلما اشتكى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم - تشاغلنا بأمره , ودخلت دويبة لنا فأكلتها
"Sayyida 'Aisha (RA) stated that verses above stoning and ten 'Rid'at of older people were revealed. These verses were written on a paper that was kept under the bed. When the Prophet (SAW) suffered from the agony of death we got busy in looking after him. Our pet animal came and ate that paper." [10]
The fact is that the verses mentioned in this narration were the ones that were abrogated for recital. Sayyidah 'Aishah (RA) herself believes on the abrogation of those verses. If she had kept them written in a paper it does not mean anything other than the preservation of a relic. She, however, remembered them and if she knew them to be a part of the Quran she would have got them transcribed in the copies of the Quran, but she never made any attempt all her life. It is clear that she herself considered them no more than an academic momento. This incident does not cause any reproach to the preservation of the Quran.

Sixth Objection:

Number of memorisers of the Qur'an in the days of the Prophet
Some people have doubted the preservation of the Quran on the basis of a tradition of Sayyidina Qatadah (RA). This traditions is quoted by Bukhari in the following words.
-سألت أنس بن مالك رضي الله عنه : من جمع القرآن على عهد النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ؟ قال : أربعة كلهم من الأنصار : أبي بن كعب ، ومعاذ ابن جبل ، وزيد بن ثابت ، وأبو زيد
"I asked Sayyidina Anas bin Malik as to who collected the Quran in the days of the Prophet (SAW). He said, Four persons, all from among the Ansars, Ubayy bin Ka'b, Mu'az bin Jabal, Zayd bin Thabit and Abu Zayd."

On the basis of this Hadith, some people think that in the days of the Prophet (SAW) there were only four persons who had memorised the Quran by heart. In fact this is not true. We have already given the names of those who had memorised the Quran during the days of the Prophet (SAW). Hence the narration of Sayyidina Anas bin Malik certainly does not mean that there were no more than these four memorisers of the Quran in the entire group of the Companions. But in the tradition under reference the phrase "who collected the Quran" has been used, and the correct interpretation of this is "Who wrote the Quran"? Sayyidina Anas (RA) in fact meant that these were the four persons who had with then the complete manuscript of the Quran during the very early days of the Prophet (SAW).

Further, Hafiz Ibn Hajar (RA) has written the full story of the narration of Sayyidina Anas (RA) with reference to a narration from Tabari as follows "Once the tribes of Aws and Khazraj each claimed supremacy over the other and boasted feats of their members." The .people of Aws enumerated the names of their tribesmen who had gained a special status in Islam. In reply to this the people of Khazraj (including Sayyidina Anas) said that there were four persons in their tribe who had collected the entire Quran. Hence his narration could also mean that there were only these four persons in both the tribes who had collected the Quran. [11]

Seventh Objection:

'Abdullah Bin Mas'ud And Mu'Awwadhatayn (The last two Surahs)

Some people make the most of the narration of Musnad Ahmad which states that Sayyidina 'Abdullah bin did not consider the last two Surahs of the Quran (Al-Falaq and An-Nas) as part of the Quran. [12]

This is a false allegation. In fact. 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud, like the entire Ummah considered these two Surahs as part of the Quran, and the traditions which are against it are not correct. It is proved from the fact that: the uninterrupted recitals from him contain these Surahs. Of the ten recitals the one from 'Asim is quoted by Abu Abdur Rahman Sulmi, Zirr ibn Hubaysh and Abu Amr-al-Shaybani, and all of them have reported it from Sayyidna 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud. [13] Similarly, the recital of Hamzah is quoted by 'Alqamah, Aswad, Ibn Wahb, Masruq, Asim bin Damrah and Harith and all of them have reported it from 'Abdullah bin Masud. [14] Futher, the recitals of Kisai and Khalaf are also traced back to 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud because Kisai learnt it from Hamzah, and Khalaf was a student of his student.

Since there is a consensus on the fact that all the reports of "The ten recitals" are the most convincing and authentic reports and are being transmitted uninterruptedly from generation to generation [15] hence, isolated report against these must be rejected and cannot be accepted. It is on this basis that most scholars of Hadith and researchers have termed as weak, invented or at least unacceptable reports that attribute the false belief towards 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud. These scholars include 'Allamah Nawawi, 'Allamah Ibn Hazm, Imam Razi, Qadi Abu Bakr bin 'Arabi. 'Allamah Bahr-ul-'Ulum, and of the latest era, the renowned research scholar 'Allamah Zahid Kauthari (RA). [16]

One may think that since Hafiz Ibn Hajar and 'Allamah Nuruddin Haythmi (RA) have asserted that all the narrators of these reports were reliable people, [17] how can these reports be termed as incorrect? But the people who have a knowledge of the science of Hadith know it well that reliability of the narrators alone is not sufficient for a tradition to be correct, but it is also necessary that it should have no element of flaw and irregularity in it. All scholars of Hadith have defined "Correct Tradition" as devoid of any defect or irregularity and if a tradition contains these elements, it would not be regarded as correct despite the reliability of it's narrators. In his preface Hafiz Ibn-us-Sallah writes as under.

"Hence Hadith Ma'allal (Motivated Tradition) is that wherein some defect may be suspected even though apparently it may seem to be correct. And this defect may be found even in it's precedent wherein also the narrators are reliable men and in which all the conditions of authenticity seem to be present. The defect is comprehended by those having deep insight in the science of Hadith through several means e.g. by finding the narrator as an isolated one, or sometimes due to his opposition to some other narrator coupled with some other indications. [18]

Similarly, there is a kind of Tradition called "Shaz" (Rare). In it the narrators are reliable but because they oppose other narrators more reliable than themselves their report is not accepted. Hence, 'Allamah Nawawi and Ibn Hazm and regard as unacceptable those Hadith that allege that 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud did not consider the last Surahs as part of the Quran although their narrators are reliable men. They have the following reasons for their stand:
1: These reports are defective because they are against such recitals of 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud as have been reported uninterruptedly.

2: The narration of Musnad Ahmad that describes the saying of Ibn Mas'ud... انهما ليستا من كتاب الله (These are not part of the Book of Allah) is reported only by 'Abdur Rahman bin Yazid Nakh'i. Nobody else has reported this sentence from him as such. [19] Also it is not an uninterrupted narration, hence it is classed as "Rare". According to the principles established by Scholars of Hadith "Rare reports" are not acceptable.
3: Even if these reports are taken as correct they shall remain "Isolated New", and the Ummah has consensus that any Isolated news that does not conform to the rule of continuity is unacceptable. The recitals of Sayyidina 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud (RA) are proved through uninterrupted narrations and are doubtless authentic. Hence these isolated news against those narrations are unacceptable.

The question now remains that if these narrations are not correct then why the reliable narrators reported such a baseless thing? The answer to this question is that although he believed them to be part of Quran, 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud (RA) may not have written them in his manuscript for some reason. And reporter of this fact may have deduced from it that Ibn Mas'ud did not consider them to be Quranic revelations although it was a fact that he had not written them down in spite of believing them to be part of Quran. There could be many reasons for not writing them in his manuscript. For example, 'Allamah Zahid Kawthri has stated that he had not written them down because there was no fear of their being forgotten. Every Muslim remembers them by heart. [20]
This argument is supported by the fact that 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud (RA) did not even write down the Surah Al-Fatiha in his manuscript. Imam Abu Bakr Al-Ambari has reported that Ibn 'Abbas was asked about it and he replied that if he had to write Surah Al-Fatiha he would have written it with every Surah. Imam Abu Bakr says that this meant that since the Surah is recited with every Surah during Salah, he had omitted it and relied on the memory of Muslims.[21]
Anyhow, there can be several explanations by 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud had not written surah, Al-Fatiha and these two Surahs in his manuscript. It cannot be concluded from it that he did not consider them to be part of the Quran, while the entire Quran has been reported uninterruptedly from him including these Surahs.

Eighth Objection:

Collection of the Quran during the time of Sayyidina Abu Bakr (RA)

We have already mentioned in detail about the accomplishment of the collection of the Holy Quran during the time of Sayyidina Abu Bakr (RA). Some Orientalists have outright refused to accept this fact. They maintain that no attempt was officially made to collect and compile the Quran at that time and it was only Sayyidina 'Uthman (RA) who first preformed this task. They further claim that the transcription of Sayyida Hafsah (RA) which 'Uthman (RA) used was her personal copy and not the officially compiled Quran. To support this claim they have raised certain objections to the tradition quoted by Bukhari that has been reported from Zayd bin Thabit (RA) and which has described the incident of collection and compilation of the Quran at the time of Abu Bakr Siddiq. [22] All these objections have been summerised by Montogomery Watt. [23] It is unnecessary to mention all those objections in these pages and give an answer to them because most of them are such that anybody with common sense can easily answer them. However, some important objections are answered below.

One of their objections is raised on a Hadith in Bukhari that Sayyidina Abu Bakr (RA) was motivated to write down the Quran on observing that many martyrs the Battle of Yamamah were the Huffaz (those who had memorised the Quran). They state that the number of Huffaz martyred in this battle was negligible because most of the martyrs were recently converted Muslims. This objection is not only unfounded but also absurd. It was first raised by Fredrich Schwally and subsequently other Orientalists blindly follow him, [24] and none of them bothered to have gone through the list of martyrs and see how far this objection is true? The fact is that the number of participants in the battle of Yamamah was three hundred and sixty Muhajirin (Immigrants) and Ansars (Helpers) of Madina and three hundred Muhajirin (Immigrants) from other parts around Madinah. [25] Evidently the names of all the 660 persons could not be preserved. However, fifty eight names have been mentioned by Ibn Kathir. [26]

Of these 58 persons one was Salim Mawla Abi Huzyfah (RA) who held the most distinguished position among the Companions by virtue of being a Hafiz and Qari (Recitor). He was one of the four Companions who were specifically named by the Prophet (RA) from whom the Quran may be learnt. He was the Imam (that is, he used to lead the Salah) at the mosque of Quba before the Hijrah and 'Umar (RA) also used to offer Salah behind him. He often used to lead the Salah during journeys because he was regarded as the greatest scholar of the Quran. [27]

The other eminent person was Abu Huzayfah (RA) and he was the forty-fourth Muslims in history of Islam. [28] His eminent place regarding the knowledge of the Quran can well be imagined from his close connection with Sayyidina Salim apart from his long association with the Holy Prophet (SAW).

The third eminent person was Zayd bin Khattab (RA), the elder brother of Sayyidina 'Umar (RA) who had accepted Islam in it's earliest days. Sayyidina 'Umar (RA) used to say about him that every gust of wing brought of the memory of Zayd to him. [29]

The fourth of them was Sayyidina Thabit bin Qays bin Shammas (RA) who was one of the scribes of Quranic revelations [30] and his special relation to the Quran is well-known.

Another person was 'Abbas bin Bishar (RA) who was present in the battle of Badr. Sayyida 'Ayshah (RA) has stated that three Ansar Companions were superior to other Companions by virtue of their knowledge and wisdom, and one of them was 'Abbas bin Bishar. [31]

Also, Sayyidina Tufayl bin 'Amr ad'Dausi (RA) was martyred in the Battle of Yamamah. He was a distinguished Companion who had learnt the Quran frlm Ubayy bin Ka'b (RA), who was known to be the greatest scholar of Qir'at. [32] Also included in the list are brother of Zayd bin Thabit, Yazid bin Thabit, Unclde of Bara' bin 'Azib, Qays bin Harith, brother of Sayyidina Mu'az, 'Aiz bin Ma'iz, brother of Zubayr Sa'ib bin 'Awwam and the son of Sayyidina 'Uthman bin Maz'um Sa'id bin 'Uthman.

In addition to the above named there were 18 from among the immigrants, and about 20 from the Helpers (Ansar) who had accepted Islam before the battle of Badr. There were another 10 who were present in the battle of Uhud. [33] This list of martyrs at Yamamah includes only names such as could be preserved in the history. How many more Huffaz (recitors who has memorised the Quran) were among the unnamed martyrs is very difficult to estimate. But Fredrick Schwally, George Bell and Montgomery Watt see no recitor among them. And not only that, they want to impress the world of their research by calling them the recent converts and deny the authenticity of the tradition of Bukhari on the basis of this assumption. This is the height of treachery with the This is the height of treachery with the principles of learning and research, and an extremely deceitful technique to undermine justice and honesty. In fact, it was not just in the case of battle of Yamamah where all the Huffaz Companions were martyred but this battle was just one in the long chain of battles that were to ensure, and there was a large number of learned Companions who were keen to sacrifice their lives in battles more fierce than this. If under these conditions, Sayyidina Umar (RA) got the idea to collect the Quran how can it be made a basis for rejecting a strongly authentic tradition of Sahih Bukhari?

Another objection raised by Watt on this tradition is that if Sayyidina Abu Bakr (RA) had prepared an official transcription of the Quran, it would have served as a precedent (a definite argument) but we do not find any evidence to that effect in the traditions of that time. The absurdity of this objection is also quite evidence. That this transcription was a precedent and there can be no greater proof of this than the fact when Sayyidina 'Uthman (RA) decided to prepare the copies of the Quran he sent for the same transcription from Sayyidah Hafsah (RA) that was prepared by Sayyidina Abu Bakr (RA).

Watt has also raised the objection that if this was an official transcription then after the death of Sayyidina 'Umar (RA) why did it remain in the custody of Sayyidah Hafsah (RA) instead of his successor Caliph. The answer to this objection is obvious that after the martyrdom of Sayydina 'Umar (RA) there was no successor for sometime and all his belongings, including his transcription, were transferred to his daughter Sayyidah Hafsah (RA). No sensible person would make this a basis for rejecting such an authentic tradition.

Ninth Objection:

Complete Quran was not written upto the time of Sayyidina Abu Bakr's Caliphate

It has been described earlier that whenever any verse was revealed to the Prophet (SAW) he used to send for the scribes and dictate it to them. In this was the entire Quran had been written down before the death of the Prophet (SAW) but it was not compiled in a book form. Different verses were written on different things. Sayyidina Abu Bakr (RA) got all of them collected and transcribed into various folios.

Contrary to this, Noldeke and Arthur Jeffery etc. have claimed that the Quran was not completely written down during the days of the Prophet (SAW), but only some portions of it were written. They have based their claim on the tradition of Sahih Bukhari that Sayyidina 'Umar (RA) advised for collection of the Quran after the battle of Yamamah and the reason he advanced was that he feared loss of many poritions of the Quran if the Huffaz (memorisers) got martyred as they were in the Battle. Arthur Jeffery has written that the cause of fear was the killings of those "Huffaz" who has memorised the Quran. He argues that there was no cause for such a fear if the entire Quran had already been written during the lifetime of the Prophet (SAW). [34]
But it is extremely sad and surprising that like some other Orientalists Arthur Jeffery has also refused to accept the tradition of Bukhari which denotes that Sayyidina Abu Bakr (RA) had got prepared an official copy of the Quran. [35] One wonders in which square to fit this double standard. On the one hand, Jeffery considers all such events incorrect and suggest that preservation of the Quran was officially written during the days of Abu Bakr (RA), yet, on the other hand, he has based his argument on the wordings of Sayyidina 'Umar (RA) which is a part of the same tradition from Zayd bin Thabit (RA). On the one hand, he calls the entire tradition as "fiction" but on the other hand he also quotes the same tradition for proving his claim that Quran was not written down. Still they have the audacity to claim that justice, fairplay and impartiality of the Orientalists was quite obvious and that it is evident from their books that they want nothing else but to unveil the reality!

Anyway, if the method adopted for collection of the Quran during the Caliphate of Sayyidina Abu Bakr Siddiq (RA), as describes in the preceding chapter is kept in view, the argument of Jeffery automatically becomes void. To remind once again, the method adopted for this purpose was based collectively on memory and manuscripts at the same time. No verse was put to writing until it's being a part of the Quran was proved by all available means. Such a guarded system could become possible only because apart from the Quranic verses being in writing, a large number of such persons were available who knew them by heard. Such persons were called Huffaz (plural of Hafiz) and if they had not been available in such a large number the feat of collection of the Quran could not have been accomplished so scrupulously as it deserved.

In addition to that, an uninterrupted chain of transmission was needed for proof of the Quran and just one or two copies could not fulfill this requirement. Hence a substantial number of Huffaz was inevitable for the collection of the Quran. That was why Sayyidina 'Umar (RA) feared that if the martyrdom of Huffaz continued like that and the collection of the Quran was delayed, the chain of transmission could break or at lest become weak, and it would not be possible to confirm the written verse from the uninterrupted memories of the Companions. Hence, it is quite false to use Sayyidina 'Umar's (RA) caution to conclude that the Quran did not exist in written form.

Tenth Objection:

Doubts about the origin of different recitals

The reality of different recitals has been discussed in detail in the preceding pages. But a large group of Orientalists have presented another misleading view about it. Noldeke, Goldzehar and Jeffery etc have written that the different in recitals was not auditory in nature but the actual reason was that transcriptions that Sayyidina 'Uthman (RA) got prepared did not have dots and diacritical marks, and hence, it could be read in different ways. Everybody read it according to his own interpretation and that became his recital. [36]
The gist of the claim of Orientalists is that the popular recitals of the Quran do not have any proof of origin from the Prophet (SAW) but have come up from the different manner of reading the transcription of Sayyidina 'Uthman (RA) that was without dots and diacritical marks. In fact these transcripts were kept free of dots and diacritical marks intentionally so that all the recitals that had their origin from the Prophet (SAW) could be incorporated in the script and their claim of the orientalists is, therefore baseless.
We have already described that in every age, three conditions have been laid down for any recital to be acceptable as original. These three conditions are,
1: There should be room for it in the 'Uthmani transcriptions.
2: It must conform to the rules of Arabic Grammar.
3: It should have authentic proof of uninterrupted transmission from the Prophet (SAW).

Consequently, no recital was accepted to be correct until authentic proof was available for it's origin from the Prophet (SAW). If the recitals had come into being simply due to 'Uthmani script, each and every recital that could be incorporated in it would have been taken as correct, and the third condition would not have been introduced. Whoever will think the different recitals of the Quran will clearly see that at various occasions there was scope for reading a word in several ways but since they did not have proof of originating from the Prophet (SAW) they were not adopted. This will be clear from the following two examples. In surah Al-Baqarah it has been stated: لا يقبل منها شفاعة ولا يؤخذ منها عدل ولا هم ينصرون In one recital the underlined word is read as لا يُقبل (la yuqbalu) and in another recital it is read as لاتُقبل (La tuqbalu); but a similar verse occurs in Surah Al-Baqarah with the words تنفعها شفاعة ولا هم ينصرون. Here the only recital is لا تنفعها (La tan'fa 'uha) and there is no alternate recital as لا ينفعها (La yan'fa'uha) although it can be incorporated in 'Uthamni script because in that transcription it was written as thus it could be read both ways. But because the other recital has no proof of it's origin from the Prophet (SAW), none of the recitors adopted it.

Similarly, in Surah Ya-sin it occurs انما امرة اذا اراد شيئا ان. According to one recital, the underlined word is read as فيكونُ fa'yakunu and in another recital it is read as فيكونَ (fa yakuna), but a similar verse in Surah Al-'Imran اذا قضى امرا فانما يقول له كن فيكونُ has only one recital as (fayakunu) and the other recital has not been adopted by any one despite it's scope in the 'Uthmani Script. [37]

There are many other examples like these which clearly indicate that the recitals did not come into being due to the script but because they had authentic uninterrupted link with the Prophet (SAW) and in order to preserve Sayyidna 'Uthman (RA) kept his transcription free of dots and diacritical marks.
That is why only one person (Abu Bakr bin Muqsim [38]) can be named in the entire Ummah who had adopted the view that recitals could be invented from 'Uthamni transcriptions according to one's own interpretations and it was not necessary for them to have their origin from the Prophet (SAW). But when he pronounced his misleading view, he was severely reprimanded by the entire Muslim world and the Caliph called him before a council of the "Recitors" and "Jurists" and demanded from him to repent which he did, and have a written proclamation of his turning back from this view. [39]
This incident clearly denotes that to innovate recitals from 'Uthmani transcriptions according to one's own interpretation has always been regarded as an aberration in the Muslim world. There has always been a consensus that only such recitals of the Quran would be taken as reliable as are originated authentically from the Prophet (SAW). If the recitals had come into being simply due to difference of interpretation in reading the 'Uthmani script, Ibn Muqsom would not have been reprimanded like that. Hence, the claim of the Orientalists that the recitals came into being due to absence of dots and diacritical marks in 'Uthmanu transcriptions is baseless and unfounded. On the contrary, the truth is that these recitals are prove through uninterrupted chain from the Prophet (SAW) and it was to preserve them that 'Uthman (RA) had kept his transcriptions devoid of dots and diacritical marks so that all the accepted recitals could be incorporated in their script.

Eleventh Objection:

Rare recitals of the Quran

Some Orientalists are making a mountain out of a molehill through false assumptions on the basis of rare recitals of the Quran. Particularly Goldzeher and Jeffery have quoted several examples of these recitals and have drawn self-conceived inferences from them. [40] In these pages it is not possible to present all those examples and expose the reality about them. For this task a whole book will be required. [41] Also we feel that it this would be unnecessary. However, we wish to mention some fundamental facts about the rare recitals, and we do hope that with these in view the readers will understand the rejection of the false assumptions of these Orientalists that they have made on the basis of rare recitals.

We have stated earlier that Muslims are united on their understanding that only such recitals of the Quran are reliable that fulfil three conditions, namely
1: The particular recital can be incorporated in 'Uthmani script.

2: It should confirm to the rules of the Arabic Grammar.

3: It must have proof of the authentic uninterrupted transmission from the Holy Prophet (SAW), or at least it must be popular among the scholars of Recitals.

Any recital lacking even one of these three conditions is termed "Rare Recital" and no one in the entire Ummah took it as reliable. A close look on "Rare Recitals" reveals that one or more of the following defects are present in them.
1: Sometimes that recital is totally innovated, just as recitals of Abdul Fadl Muhammad bin Fa'far Khuza'i that he has attributed to Imam Abu Hanifah. Darqutni and all other scholars have exposed them and declared that they are all innovated.[42]

2: Sometimes they have very weak precedents, just as the recitals of Ibn-us-Samifa and Abdus-Samal or many of those recitals which Ibn Abu Dawood has attributed to different Companions and their followers in his Kitab-ul-Masahif.[43]
3: Sometimes the precedent is correct but in fact it is not the recitals of the Quran, but a companion or his follower added one or more words during ordinary discourse as an explanation to some word of the Quran. Since Quran in its entire substance was uninterrupted and thousands of Huffaz were present in every period of time, there was no danger of actual addition in the original text due to additions of explanatory words.[44] Hence, such explanations were not considered objectionable. For example, it is reported that Sa'ad bin Waqqas read وله أخ أو أخت من أم . In this the underlined words (من أم) were an explanatory addition. Similarly, it is reported that Sayyidina 'Uthman (RA) read a verse like this ولتكن منكم أمة يدعون إلى الخير ويأمرون بالمعروف وينهون عن المنكر ويستعينون الله على ما أصابهم وأولئك هم المفلحون

In this, the underlined phrase ويستعينون الله على ما أصابهم is indeed exegesic addition, because if it has been part of the Quran in his recital, it must have been present in the transcriptions compiled by him. But this phrase does not occur in any of his seven transcriptions. [45]

4: Sometimes it happened that certain recitals were abrogated in the last days of the Prophet's (SAW) life but some Companion who had already memorized it remained unaware of this act, hence he continued to recite it as he had learnt.[46] Because the other Companions knew that this had been abrogated they did not recite it nor did they consider it to be a correct recital any more.

5: It appears from some Rare Recitals that probably some followers of Companions made a mistake in the recitation of the Quran quite unintentionally (as sometimes happens even with eminent Huffaz) and a listener reported it as he had heard.[47]

Whatever Rare Recitals of the Quran have been reported mostly come under one of the above five situations. Obviously, no question arises for accepting these recitals as reliable. Consequently, the Ummah never relied on them in any age. That is why these recitals could not even become popular, nothing to say of their being uninterrupted. Hence the inferences drawn by the Orientalists on the basis of Rare Recitals that (God Forbid) differences exist in the text of the Quran, is such an unfounded and absurd idea that it deserves no consideration at all from scientific and research point of view. And Allah knows the best.


[1] F. Buhl-Encyclopaedia of Islam v3. pp1067, Koran.
[2] Tafsir Al-Qurtubi v20, p18.
[3] Margoliouth, D.S. Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics p543.
[4] Sahih Bukhari Fadail al Quran v2. p.753 & Sahih Muslim v1, p267.
[5] Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics v10, p542.
[6] Tafseer Ibn Kathir v1, p122.
[7] Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, v1, p543
[8] Sahih Bukhari, Kitab Tafseer, surah Hameem 'Ayn, Sin, Qaf, v2, p713, printed at Karachi Fath ul Bari v8. p457, 'Um-datul Qari v19 p157
[9] Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, v1, p543
[10] Musnad Ahmadl Zaw'id, Masnadat 'Aisha v6, p269, Beirut
[11] For details see Fath-ul-Bari v9, pp41,42.
[12] Watt: W. Montgomery: Bell's Introduction to the Quran p46.
[13] An-Nashr fil Qir'at al 'Ashar, Ibn ul Jazari, v1, p156
[14] Ibid p166
[15] Faid ul-Bari v1, p262

[16] See in sequential order Al-ltqan v2. p.81, Al-Muhalla, Ibn Hazm vl. pl 3, Fawatih ur Rahmut, Sherah Muslimuth Thubut by Bahrul 'Ulum v2,
       p12. Maqalat ul Kawthari. p16. My own Article in Al-Balagh, Sh'abah 1393, Sayyidina 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud and Muwadhatayn

[17] Fath al Bari v8, p3, Majmu'az Zawaid, Haythami v7, p149.
[18] Fath-ul-Mulhim v1, p54
[19] Majma' Zawaid, Hathmi v7, p149, and Fath ur Rabbani v18, pp351-352
[20] Maqaalaat ul Kawthri, p16.
[21] Tafsir Al-Qurtubi v1, p114, 115.
[22] This report has been described in the preceding pages.
[23] Watt: Bell's Introduction to the Quran 40, 42, Edingburgh 1970.
[24] Watt: Bell's Introduction to the Quran. p192.
[25] Tarikh-al-Tabari v2, p516
[26] Al-bidayah wan-Nihayah v6, p340.
[27] Al-Isti'yab, Ibn 'Abdul Barr, v2, pp28,29
[28] Al-Isabah by Ibn Hajar v4, p43.
[29] Al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah, by Ibn Kathir v6, p336.
[30] Zad-ul-Ma'ad, Ibn Qayyim v1, p30, Mu'iniyah Egypt.
[31] Al-Isabah v2, p255 and Al Ist'iyab 'Ala Hamish as Sahaba v2, p444-446
[32] Al-Isabah, v2, p217.
[33] Al-kamil-Al-Jazari v2, p140, and Al-Bidayah wan Nihayah, v6, p340.
[34] 'Arabic Muqaddamah, Kitab-ul-Masahif - Abu Daud Rahmania Press Egypt 1355 A.H. by Arthur Jeffery p5.
[35] Arthur Jeffery: Materials for the History of the Text of the Quran 1937 p6.

[36] Arthur Jeffery Kitab-ul-Masahif p7. Rahmania Press Egype 1355 A.H. Madhahib ut Tafsir Islami, Goldzehar Arabic tr. Doctor Aboul Halim
       Najjar p8. Al-Khanji Press Cairo 1374 AH.

[37] Both these examples have been taken from Tarikh-ul-Quran pp128, 129 by 'Allamah Tahir Kurdi.
[38] His full name is Muhammad bin Hasan bin Yaqub Ibn Muqsim. Born 265 AH, Died 357 AH.

[39] Taikh Baghadad al Khatib v2 p206-207 printed Beirut. It is also written in this book that Aby Agmad Al-Fardi (RA) saw him after his death in his
dream that he offered Salah turning his back to the Qiblah. He interpreted it as a result of his opposition to the scholars in Recital.

[40] Madhahib tafsir Al-Islami by Goldzeher and Arthur Jeffery, Materials for the History of the text of the Quran Leiden 1936. P.6, Arabic translation
        by Dr. Abdul Halim Najjar.

[41] Dr. Abdul Halim Najjar has provided marginal notes in his translation of Madhahib Tafsir ul-Islam by Goldzeher.
[42] Al-Nashr fi Qira'at 'Ashr, Ibn Al Jazari v1, p16 Al-Itqan v1, pp78,79
[43] An Nashr: v1, p16.
[44] Al-Nashr: Ibn Jazari v. 1 p 31, 32. Al-Itqan v1 p 79 22,23. Sharh al Mawatta. Zarqani v1 p 225.
[45] Kanzul Ummal by Ali Muttaqi v1, p286, ref 'Abd bin Hamid wa Ibn Jarir.
[46] Mushkil-ul-Athar at Tahavi v4. p196 to 202.
[47] Al-Nashr by Ibn-ul-Jazari v1, p16, Al-Mabani fin-Nazmul Ma'sni: Muqad-da-mat fi 'Ulum al-Quran p170. Al-Khanji Press.