The other, who was more familiar with litigation, said,
'Yes, Messenger of God, judge between us in accordance with the
Book of God and let me speak first. My son served as a hired
hand under this man, but he fornicated with his employer's wife.
The man, informing me that my son had incurred the stoning
penalty, I ransomed him from that penalty with 100 sheep and a
slavegirl I had. Subsequently I enquired of the learned who
informed me that the stoning penalty lay on the man's wife.'
The Messenger of God said, 'By Him in Whose hand is my soul!
I will judge between you in accordance with the Book of God.
Your cattle and slave girl are to be restored to you.'
(Malik b. Anas, "al Muwatta'", K. al Hudud)
There are strong grounds for considering this continuation
foreign and irrelevant to the hadith. ibn Hajar, for example,
comments,
see also next section
Men! the Sunna has been established, the obligatory duties imposed
and you have been left in no uncertainty. Beware lest you neglect
the stoning verse on account of those who say, 'We do not find two
penalties in the Book of God.' The Prophet stoned, and we have
stoned. By Him Who holds my soul in His Hand! but that men would
say, '`Umar has added to the Book of God', I would write it in
with my hand, 'The saikh and the saikha, when they fornicate, stone
them outright.'
(Malik b. Anas, "al Muwatta'", K. al Hudud,
cf. "Fath", vol. 12, p. 119)
Abu Ma`sar has,
But ibn Hajar reminds that the report is transmitted by Malik and
by others in this form which he judges to be 'correct'.
(p. 79, Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani,
ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo,
1939/1348, vol. 12, p. 119)
see also next section
Suyuti rejects Zarkasi's convenient solution. Stoning cannot be
considered from the angel of khabar al wahid. `Umar had received
his Qur'an text directly from the Prophet. His own solution is
merely apologetic: the reason for the withdrawal of this wording is
the divine solicitude for the welfare of the Muslims. Non-recording
of the verse means non-dissemination of the ruling. Where committed,
the offense is best left undisclosed (a detail which has some
measure of support in a source as distant in time as Malik, K. al
Hudud).
Zurqani improves even on Suyuti's banality by adding that the
Qur'an, the Word of God, is inimitable in, among other respects,
its brevity -- hence the omission of this verse!
(Muhammad `Abdul `Azim al Zurqani, "Manahil al
`Irfan fi `ulum al Qur'an", 2 vols., Halabi, Cairo,
1954, vol. 2, pp. 115-16)
Ubayy said, 'Yes.' This was before the copying of the `Uthman
mushafs on the basis of which the practice now rests.
(p. 83, Burhan al Din al Baji, "Jawab", MS
Dar al Kutub, Taimur "majami`", no. 207, f. 17)
`Abdullah b. al Zubair reports, 'The Prophet said, "Not one and not
two sucklings constitute the bar, nor one nor two sucks."'
`Urwa reports that the Prophet commanded the wife of Abu Hudaifa to
nurse Salim five times to set up the bar. She did so and always
considered Salim a son.
Salim b. `Abdullah reports that `A'isa sent him away and refused
to see him. He was being suckled by her sister Umm Kulthum who had
fallen ill after suckling him only three times. Salim said, `I could
never visit `A'isa, since I have not completed the course of ten.'
... Safi`i adopted the rule of five sucklings as coming from the Prophet
on the strength of the `A'isa report that the five were Qur'anic and
constituted the ban.
(Abu `Abdullah Muhammad b. Idris al Safi`i,
al Mutaalibi, K. Jima` al `ilm, in "Umm", 7 vols.,
Bulaq 1324, vol 5, pp. 23-4, and
pp. 87-88, Mekki, "bab aqsam al naskh")
In the opinion of the Hadith specialists, Malik was by far the
more reliable transmitter. He reported from `Abdullah b. abi Bakr
from `Amra from `A'isa that she said,
Among what had been revealed in the Qur'an was the provision
that ten attested sucklings set a bar to marriage. The ten
were subsequently replaced by the rule that five attested
sucklings set up the bar. The Prophet died and the five were
still being recited as part of the Qur'an.
(p 95, Abu Muhammad `Abdullah b. Muslim,
ibn Qutaiba, "K. ta'wil mukhtalif al Hadith",
Cairo, 1966/1386, pp. 310-15)
(p. 97, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr
al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an",
Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 22)
Anas ibn Malik said:
Gazali argues,
On the other hand, it was of the highest significance for the history
of the development of the Islamic Law and to the attendant school polemic
whether one read fa ma stamta`tum bihi minhunna (Q 4.24)
with or without
the attempted interpolation ila ajalin musamman.
(p. 178, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al
Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 53)
[Note: Burton believes that variant readings are interpolations.]
There is an interesting discussion on verses yielding two-fold
readings. Abu al Laith reported two views: 1. God had uttered them
both; 2. God had uttered only one, but permitted the verse to be
read in two possible ways. Samarqandi's own view was that if each
of the two readings was susceptible of a distinct interpretation
and legal application, God had uttered both. In such instances, the
two readings were the equivalent of two distinct revelations. If
the two readings yielded a single meaning, God had uttered only one
reading, but permitted the other, owing to the differences between
the dialect of the peninsula Arabs.
(Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr
al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an",
Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 82)
Q 5.6, the verse imposing the wudu yielded a two-fold reading, the
distinction this time residing in the vowelling. 'The verse was
revealed to sanction two distinct legal doctrines:
[Note: Q 5:38 says only say cut off hands]
Related to the reading just attributed to Ubayy, is the statement
that the transmission of the reading, famdu ila dikr allah,
showed
that the meaning of the Qur'an fas`aw is 'go!' rather than
'run!' or 'hurry!'.
(p. 39, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr
al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an",
Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 82)
"... in some Qiraats, like that of Ubai ibn Kab, occur also the
word "and he is a father to them...."
(A. Yusuf Ali, "The Holy Quran", 1975, note 3674)
Sura 5:63
Jeffery has found record of 19 alternate readings; seven attributed to
Ibn Mas`ud, four to Ubai b. Ka`b, six to Ibn Abbas, and one each to
`Ubaid b. `Umair and Anas b. Malik....
Here are the readings attributed to Ibn Mas`ud.
sura 3:19:
sura 3:39:
sura 9:
5. Mushaf `Uthmani
5.1 Some missing verses
5.1.1 The missing Bismillah
ibn `Abbas asked `Uthman what possessed him to place
surat al Anfal,
one of the mathani, with Bara'a,
one of the mi'in, join them with no
bismillah between them and place them
among the seven lengthy suras.
`Uthman replied that often the Prophet received quite long revelations.
He would call for one of the scribes and say,
'Put these verses in the
sura in which so-and-so occurs.' Anfal was among the first of the
Medina revelations and Bara'a among the last. Since its contents
resembled those of Anfal, `Uthman took it to belong with it, for the
Prophet had died without explaining that it was part of it.
(p. 164, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr
al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an",
Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 60)
Malik had a shorter explanation for the absence of this
bismillah.
The beginning of Bara'a fell out and its
bismillah fell out with it.
(p. 164-165, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr
al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an",
Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 65)
5.1.2 The Stoning Verse on penalty for adulterers/adulteress
... the majority of the madahib
are unanimously of the view that in
certain circumstances, the penalty for adultery is death by stoning.
Now, we know that this penalty is not only nowhere mentioned in our
texts of the Qur'an, it is totally incompatible with the penalty
that is mentioned: al zaniyatu wa al zani fajlidu kulla wahidin
minhuma mi'ata jaldatin (The adulteress and the adulterer, flog each
one of them one hundred strokes) (Q 24.2).
(p. 72)
5.1.2.1 Source is the sunna (also believed inspired)
The 'basic form' of the report [of `Ubada] runs as follows:
The Prophet said, 'Take it from me! God has now appointed a
way for women: the virgin with the virgin, one hundred strokes
and a year's banishment; the non-virgin with the non-virgin,
one hundred strokes and stoning.'
(p. 74, Safi`i, "Risalah", p. 20)
The descent of inspiration [wahy] was troublesome to the Prophet.
His face would go ashen in colour. One day inspiration came down
upon him and he showed the usual signs of distress. When he
recovered, he said, 'Take it from me! God has now appointed a way
for women: the non-virgin with the non-virgin and the virgin with
the virgin. The non-virgin, one hundred strokes and death by
stoning, the virgin, one hundred strokes and banishment for a year.'
(p. 74, Ahmad b. al Husain al Baihaqi,
"al Sunan al Kubra", 10 vols., Haiderabad,
1925-38/1344-57, vol. 8, p. 210)
We could tell when the inspiration descended upon the Prophet. When
the words, 'or until God appoint a way', were revealed, and the
inspiration ascended, the Prophet said, 'Take heed! God has now
appointed the way: the virgin with the virgin, one hundred strokes
and banishment for a year; the non-virgin with the non-virgin, one
hundred strokes and death by stoning.'
(pp. 74-75, Sulaiman b. Da'ud al Tayalisi,
"Sunan", Haiderabad, 1904/1321, p. 79)
It is related that when a woman guilty of adultery was brought before
`Ali, he flogged her and then had her stoned. Someone protested: 'but
you have inflicted two penalties!' `Ali replied, 'I stoned her in
accordance with the Sunna of the Prophet and flogged her in accordance
with the Book of God.'
(p. 75, Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani,
ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo,
1939/1348, vol. 12, p. 103)
[`Umar said: ] Do not complain about stoning. It is a just claim
and I am minded to write it in the mushaf. I fear that with the
passage of time some will say, 'We do not find stoning in the
Book of God', and on that pretext they will neglect a divine
ruling which God revealed. Stoning is a just claim against the
married person who fornicates, when there is adduced valid proof,
or pregnancy ensues, or a confession is offered.
(p. 77, Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani,
ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo,
1939/1348, vol. 12, p. 119)
5.1.2.2 Verse was in Book of God and recited
`Ali reported that the stoning verse had been revealed but those who
bore it together with other verses in their memories perished in the
Yemama.
(p. 121, Burhan al Din al Baji, "Jawab",
MS Dar al Kutub, Taimur "majami`", no. 207, f. 14)
ibn `Abbas reports a sermon by `Umar in the course of which he said,
'Men! stoning is a penalty laid down by God. Do not neglect it. It
is in the Book of God and the Sunna of your Prophet. The Messenger of
God stoned; Abu Bakr stoned, and I have stoned.'
(p. 75, Sulaiman b. Da'ud al Tayalisi, "Sunan",
Haiderabad, 1904/1321, p. 6)
Malik reports ibn `Abbas as declaring, 'I heard `Umar b. al Khattab
say, "Stoning in the Book of God is a just claim against the
non-virgin, man or woman, who fornicates, when valid proof is
adduced, or pregnancy ensues, or self-condemnation is volunteered."'
(p. 75, Malik b. Anas, "al Muwatta'", K. al Hudud.)
[`Umar] announced from the Prophet's pulpit,
God sent Muhammad with the truth and revealed to him the Book. Part
of what God revealed was the stoning verse. We used to recite it
and we memorised it. The Prophet stoned and we have stoned after
him. I fear that with the passage of time some will say, 'We do not
find stoning in the Book of God', and will therefore neglect a
divine injunction which God revealed. Stoning is a just claim....
(p. 77-78, Ahmad b. al Husain al Baihaqi,
"al Sunan al Kubra", 10 vols., Haiderabad,
1925-38/1344-57, vol. 8, p. 210)
In a variant version `Umar fears that with the passage of time some will
say, 'We do not find the stoning verse in the Book of God.'
(p. 78)
[Umar said:] Allah sent Muhammad with the Truth and revealed the holy
book to him, and among what Allah revealed, was the verse of Rajam (the
stoning of married persons, male and female, who commit adultery) and
we did recite this verse and understood and memorized it. Allah's
Apostle did carry out the punishment of stoning and so did we after
him. I am afraid that after a long time has passed, somebody will say
"By Allah's Book", we do not find the Verse of Rajam in Allah's Book,
and thus they will go astray by leaving an obligation which Allah has
revealed.
(Sahih Bukhari, vol. 8, p. 539)
In the Mabsut, Sarakhsi reports,
`Umar said from the pulpit, '... and part of what was revealed in
the Qur'an read, "the saikh and the saikha, when they fornicate,
stone them outright". Some will repudiate this, and but that men
would say, "`Umar has added to the Book of God," I will write it
on the margin of the mushaf.'
(p. 78-79, al Sarakhsi, "Mabsut", 30 vols., Cairo,
1324, vol. 9, p. 36)
Malik reports also the celebrated hadith of the hired hand:
Two men brought a case before the Prophet. One of them said,
'Messenger of God, judge between us in accordance with the
Book of God.'
At this point, the direct speech ends, but the hadith continues,
'He awarded the son 100 strokes and banished him for a year. He
ordered Unais al Aslami to go to the employer's wife, and in the
event that she confess, imposed the stoning penalty. She confessed,
and Unais stoned her.'
The Book of God might refer to the verdict of God. It has also
been held that it refers to the Qur'an. ibn Daqiq al `Id
suggested that the first explanation was preferable since
neither stoning nor banishment is mentioned in the Qur'an, part
from the general injunction to obey the Prophet's commands. One
might also consider the possibility that the reference is to
God's words, 'or until God appoint a way'. The Prophet showed
that the way was the flogging and banishment of the virgin, and
stoning the non-virgin. A further possibility, it may be, is
that the Book of God is a reference to a verse whose wording has
been withdrawn, that is, the stoning verse, although the verse
also fails to mention banishment. Finally, the reference may be
to the Qur'an prohibition of wasting another's property without
legal title to it. The man had taken possession of the other's
cattle and slavegirl, but the Prophet insisted that they be
returned.
(p. 76-77, Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani,
ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo,
1939/1348, vol. 12, p. 115)
The last suggestion may imply that the hadith at one time terminated
with the words 'Your cattle and slavegirl are to be restored to you.'
The aunt of Abu Usama b. Sahl told him that the Prophet had instructed
them in the reciting of the stoning verse.
(p. 82, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr
al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an",
Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 25)
God sent Muhammad and sent down the Scripture to him. Part of what
he sent down was the passage on stoning, we read it, and we heeded
it. The apostle stoned and we stoned them after him. I fear that
in time to come men will say that they find no mention of stoning
in God's book and thereby go astray in neglecting an ordinance
which God has sent down. Verily stoning in the book of God is a
penalty laid on married men and women who commit adultery.
(Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p. 684)
5.1.2.3 The actual words of the stoning verse
Malik reports that when `Umar returned from the pilgrimage, he
addressed the people of Medina,
The version that occurs in the Hulya reads, 'I would write at the end
of the Qur'an.'
(p. 78)
But that men would say, '`Umar has written what is not the Book of
God', I would write it in, for we used to recite it, 'The saikh
and the saikha, when they fornicate, stone them outright,
as an exemplary punishment from God. God is mighty, wise.'
(p 78)
ibn Hajar compares two versions of the `Umar hadith, one related by
`Ali b. `Abdullah, teacher of Bukhari, and to other related by Bukhari
himself. In `Ali's version, we find
`Umar declared, 'I fear that with the passage of time some will say,
"We do not find stoning in the Book of God", and will neglect a
divine injunction revealed by God. Stoning is a just claim against
the non-virgin fornicator when valid proof is brought, or pregnancy
occurs, or confession is made. We used to recite it, "the
saikh and the saikha, when they fornicate,
stone them outright." The Messenger
of God stoned and we have stoned.'
Bukhari's version stops at confession is made', and ibn Hajar suggests
that Buhkari deliberately ignored the remainder of the hadith.
Nasa'i stated that he knew of no transmitter who included the words
of the 'verse' in his hadith, apart from Sufyan who here transmits the
report as from Zuhri to `Ali b. Abdullah. Nasa'i took Sufyan's version
to be erroneous, as numerous transmitters relate the hadith from Zuhri
without this addition.
... but Noldeke observed that the terms saikha and
battata are alien
to the vocabulary of the Qur'an.
(p. 79, GdQ2, vol. 1, p. 251, n. 3)
An improved version had,
'as an exemplary punishment from God and His
apostle.'
(Sulaiman b. Da'ud al Tayalisi, "Sunan",
Haiderabad, 1904/1321, p. 540)
5.1.2.4 Not added to the mushaf but in margins
We have a report from `Umar that he said,
'The Messenger of God
stoned, Abu Bakr stoned and I have stoned. I am not prepared to add
to the Book of God, otherwise I would write it into the mushaf, for
I fear that there will come some people who, not finding it, will
not accept it.'
(Ahmad b. al Husain al Baihaqi, "al Sunan al
Kubra", 10 vols., Haiderabad, 1925-38/1344-57,
vol. 8, p. 213)
[`Umar summoned] a group of the Muhajirs and the Ansar and inscribe[d]
their testimony on the margin of the mushaf: 'The testimony of `Umar
and of NN that the Messenger of God stoned adulterers.'
(K. al Mabani", in A. Jeffery, "Two
Muqaddimahs", Cairo, 1954, p. 78)
Sarakhsi reports,
`Umar said from the pulpit, '... and part of what was revealed in
Qur'an read, "the saikh and the saikha, when they fornicate,
stone them outright". Some will repudiate this, and but that men
would say, "`Umar has added to the Book of God," I will write it
on the margin of the mushaf.'
(p. 78-79, al Sarakhsi, "Mabsut", 30 vols.,
Cairo, 1324, vol. 9, p. 36)
5.1.2.5 Where it used to be in the Qur'an
Ubayy asked Zirr b. Hubais, 'How many verses do you recite in surat al
Ahzab?'
Zirr replied, 'Seventy-three verses.'
Ubayy asked if that was all. 'I have seen it,' he said, 'when it was the
same length as Baqara. It contained the words "The saikh and the saikha,
when they fornicate, stone them outright, as an exemplary punishment
from God. God is might, wise."'
(p. 78-79, Ahmad b. al Husain al Baihaqi,
"al Sunan al Kubra", 10 vols., Haiderabad,
1925-38/1344-57, vol. 8, pp. 210-11)
Ubayy said, 'It used to equal the length surat al Baqara and we used to
recite in Ahzab the stoning verse.'
Zirr asked, 'What is the stoning verse?'
Ubayy recited, 'If the saikh and the saikha fornicate, stone them
outright as an exemplary punishment from God. God is might, wise.'
(p. 80, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr
al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an",
Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 25)
Ahzab was identified as the sura originally containing the stoning verse,
and, in addition to Ubayy and Abu Musa, `A'isa reports that Ahzab used to
be recited, in the lifetime of the Prophet, as having 200 verses, but when
`Uthman wrote out the mushafs, all they could find was its present length.
(Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr
al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an",
Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 25)
A variant of this hadith speaks of writing out the mushaf with, however,
no mention of date or attribution. ibn al Anbari concluded from `A'isa's
report that God withdrew from the sura everything in excess of its present
length, and Mekki reminds us that withdrawal is one of the modes of
naskh.
(p. 84, Burhan al Din al Baji, "Jawab", MS
Dar al Kutub, Taimur "majami`", no. 207, f. 10)
Ahzab has only seventy-three verses in today's mushaf.
(p. 84)
5.1.2.6 Reasons it was not in the mushaf
Zaid b. Thabit and Sa`id b. al `As were writing out the mushaf. When
they came to this verse, Zaid said, 'I heard the Prophet say, "the saikh
and the saikha."' `Umar stated, 'When it was revealed, I went to the
Messenger of God and said to him, "Shall I write it?" but he seemed to
disapprove.' `Umar added, 'Don't you see that the mature, if unwed,
would only be flogged in the event of fornication, yet the youth, if
wed, would be stoned?'
(p. 80, Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani,
ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo,
1939/1348, vol. 12, p. 119;
Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti,
"al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi,
Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 26)
Marwan b. al Hakam asked Zaid why he would not write the verse in the
mushaf. Zaid replied,
Don't you see that the youth if married is stoned? We raised this
question with `Umar and he said, 'I'll see to it.' He went to the
Prophet and asked his permission to record the verse. The Prophet
said he could not permit that.
(p. 81-82, Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani,
ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo,
1939/1348, vol. 12, p. 131;
Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti,
"al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi,
Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 26-7)
`A'isa explains how the wording came to be omitted from the
mushaf:
The stoning verse and another verse were revealed and recorded on a
sheet (sahifa) which was placed for safe-keeping under her
bedding.
When the Prophet fell ill and the household were preoccupied with
nursing him, a domestic animal got in from the yard and gobbled up
the sheet.
(p. 86, Burhan al Din al Baji, "Jawab", MS
Dar al Kutub, Taimur "majami`", no. 207, f. 15)
Safi`i ... knew and used the hadith about the stoning verse that
had once figured in the Qur'an before the collection of the texts
into the mushaf.
(p. 86, Ikhtiflaf al Hadith, margin of Umm,
vol. 7, p. 251)
5.1.2.7 Reconciliation of hadith reports
The source conflict is acknowledged by ibn Hajar, who comments that the
reason for the withdrawal of the stoning verse was that the Fiqh was at
variance with the apparently general wording of the verse.
(p. 81, Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani,
ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo,
1939/1348, vol. 12, p. 131;
Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti,
"al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi,
Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 26-7)
This observation may perhaps also explain why Malik, who does not present
the text of the `Ubada report, nevertheless glosses the term
saikh and saikha as thayyib and tayyiba
(sc. non-virgin), reducing thereby the
meaning of the stoning verse to coincide with the meaning of the `Ubada
hadith.
(p. 81)
Further, ibn Hajar concluded that the reason for the withdrawal of the
wording of the verse was conflict of opinion among the Companions. He
reports that `Umar addressed the people saying,
Do not complain about stoning. It is a just claim and I was minded
to write it into the mushaf, so I consulted Ubayy. But he said,
'Didn't you come to me once before, when I was asking the Prophet
for permission to recite the verse? You shoved me in the chest with
the words, "Are you asking him to permit the recitation of the
stoning verse when the people are randy as donkeys?"'
(p. 81, Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani,
ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo,
1939/1348, vol. 12, p. 131;
Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti,
"al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi,
Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 26-7)
Safi`i took the view that the source of the stoning penalty had
been the Sunna of the Prophet. Other scholars fell into several
classes.
(Abu Ja`far Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Isma`il al
Saffar, al Nahhas, "K. al nasikh wa al mansukh
fi al Qur'an al Karim", Cairo?, pub. Zaki
Mubarak, n.d., pp. 6-7)
We know of those who, finding no reference to the stoning penalty in the
Qur'an simply rejected it. They insisted on acknowledging only the
Qur'an's flogging penalty.
(Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani,
ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo,
1939/1348, vol. 12, introduction to K.
al Muharabin)
In the 'hired hand' hadith, the Prophet said, 'I shall judge in
accordance with the Book of God.' He therefore inflicted the stoning
penalty, of which there is no mention in the Book of God. He must
have meant, therefore, by the expression the Book of God, the hukm,
the verdict of God, revealed in the manner stated.
(p. 103, "K. al Mabani", in A. Jeffery,
"Two Muqaddimahs", Cairo, 1954, p. 81)
ibn Zafar in the Yanbu` considered that this case ought not be
included in the list of ayas withdrawn in respect of their wording
alone. It was the subject of khabar al wahid which gives no basis
for statements as to the text of the Qur'an. In an undisguised
reference to the parallel quarrels as to the wording of Q 2.106,
and its interpretation, he argues that, in any event, stoning is
not an instance of naskh. It is an example of raf` or of nasa' -
deliberate omission from the mushaf. The rulings of verses of this
kind can be known from sources other than the original texts.
(Burton: The term used, munsa'/mansa',
derives from reading Q 2.106 as: aw nansa'.)
Besides, he argues, such things are unseemly, not merely to
perform, but even to mentioned in so holy a book.
(Muhammad `Abdul `Azim al Zurqani, "Manahil al
`Irfan fi `ulum al Qur'an, 2 vols., Halabi, Cairo,
1954, vol. 2, pp. 115-16)
5.1.3 The ibn Adam verses
5.1.3.1 Recited before `Uthman's collection
Ubayy reports, 'The Messenger of God said to me, "God has commanded me
to instruct you in the reciting of the Qur'an." He then recited: "Did
not those who rejected the Prophet among the people of the Book and the
associators..." The verse continued, "Did ibn Adam possess a wadi of
property", or, "Were ibn Adam to ask for a wadi of property and he
received it, it would asked for a second, and if he received that, he
would demand a third wadi. Only dust will fill the maw of ibn Adam, but
God relents to him who repents. The very faith in God's eyes is the
Hanifiya, not Judaism nor Christianity. Whoso does good, it will never
be denied him."
(p. 82-83, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr
al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an",
Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 25)
ibn `Abbas said, 'Did ibn Adam possess two wadis of pelf, he would
desire a third. Only dust will fill the maw of ibn Adam, but God
relents to him who repents.' `Umar asked, 'What is this?' ibn
`Abbas replied that Ubayy had instructed him to recite this. `Umar
took ibn `Abbas to confront Ubayy. `Umar said, 'We don't say that.'
Ubayy insisted that the Prophet instructed him. `Umar asked him,
'Shall I write it into the mushaf, in that case?'
Abu Musa al An`sari reports, 'There was revealed a sura the like of
Baqara, but it was later withdrawn.' He recalled of it, 'God will
assist this polity with peoples who have no share in the Hereafter.
Did ibn Adam posses two wadis of property, he would crave a third.
Nothing will fill the maw of ibn Adam but dust, but God will relent
to him who repents.'
(p. 83, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr
al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an",
Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 25)
Abu Waqid al Laithi reports, 'When inspiration came upon the Prophet,
we would go to him and he would instruct us in what had been revealed.
I went to him once and he said, "God says, 'We sent down wealth for the
upkeep of prayer and alms-giving. Were ibn Adam to possess a wadi he
would desire another like it, which, if he had, he would desire yet
another. Nothing will fill the maw of ibn Adam but dust, but God relents
to him who repents.'"'
(p. 83, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr
al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an",
Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 25)
5.1.3.2 Where it used to be in the Qur'an
Buraid claims to have heard the Prophet recite ibn Adam at prayer. The
aya was in surat Yusuf.
(p. 83, Burhan al Din al Baji, "Jawab",
MS Dar al Kutub, Taimur "majami`", no. 207, f. 18)
Abu Musa said, 'We used to recite surat al Ahzab, likening it for length
and severity with Bara'a. But I have been caused to forget it, except
that I recall the ibn Adam verse.
(p. 83-84, Abu al Fadl Sihab al Din Mahmud b.
`Abdullah al Alusi, "Ruh al Ma`ani", 6 vols.,
idarat al taba`a al muniraya, Cairo, n.d., vol. 1,
p. 315)
5.1.3.3 Uncertainty
Anas was unable to say whether ibn Adam was a Qur'an verse or not. He
reports from Ubayy, 'We supposed that ibn Adam was a Qur'an verse until
surat al takathur was revealed.'
(p. 84, Sulaiman b. Da'ud al Tayalisi, "Sunan",
Haiderabad, 1904/1321, no. 1983)
This report reduces ibn Adam from ever having been a Qur'an verse, to
being merely a tafsir of Takathur.
(p. 84, Bukhari, K. al Tafsir, ad Q 2.106)
5.1.4 The Suckling Verse
5.1.4.1 Recited before `Uthman's collection
Narrated Aisha:
It had been revealed in the Qur'an that ten clear sucklings
make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and
substituted) by five sucklings and Allah's Apostle
(peace_be_upon_him) died and it was before that time
(found) in the Qur'an (and recited by the Muslims).
(Sahih Muslim, book 8, no. 3421)
`A'isa reported, 'In what was revealed, ten attested sucklings were
required to established the ban. The ten were later replaced by five.
The Prophet died and the five were still being recited in the Qur'an.'
She used to say, 'The Qur'an was revealed with ten attested sucklings
setting up the bar. These later became five.' No man ever called upon
her who had not completed a course of five sucklings.
Hafsa sent `Asim b. `Abdullah b. Sa`d to her sister Fatima to be nursed
ten times. This was to enable him to visit her.
(p. 88, Abu `Abdullah Muhammad b. Idris al Safi`i,
al Mutaalibi, K. Jima` al `ilm, in "Umm", 7 vols.,
Bulaq 1324, vol 7, p. 208)
ibn Qutaiba (A.H. 276) ... addresses himself to the comparison
between that hadith as reported by Muhammad b. Ishaq and the
'sounder' version from Malik.
5.1.4.2 Effects on Fiqh
Among the fuqaha' who adapted their Fiqh to this report
were Safi`i and Ishaq (b. Rahawaih),
both of whom made five the minimum line of demarcation
between what does and what does not establish a bar to marriage.
(p. 95)
5.1.4.3 Interpretations
Suyuti intervened to suggest one of the two interpretations of `A'isa's
report:
5.1.5 Other missing verses
[Hudaifa's remarked] 'They don't recite a quarter of al Bara'a today.'
(p. 130)
Zuhri reports, 'We have heard that many Qur'an passages were revealed
but that those who had memorised them fell in the Yemama fighting.
Those passages had not been written down, and following the deaths of
those who knew them, were no longer known; nor had Abu Bakr, nor `Umar
nor `Uthman as yet collected the texts of the Qur'an. (Burton: The
published text ought here to be amended: for "fa lamma jama`a Abu Bakr",
I propose to read: "wa lamma yajma` Abu Bakr", to follow: "lam yuktab".)
Those lost passages were not to be found with anyone after the deaths of
those who had memorised them. This, I understand, was one of the
considerations which impelled them to pursue the Qur'an during the reign
of Abu Bakr, committing it to sheets for fear that there should perish
in further theatres of war men who bore much of the Qur'an which they
would take to the grave with them on their fall, and which, with their
passing, would not be found with any other.
(pp. 126-127, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud,
"K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355,
p. 23)
Anas is reported in the two Sahih's as declaring:
'There was revealed
concerning those slain at Bi'r Ma`una a Qur'an verse which we recited
until it was withdrawn: "Inform our tribe on our behalf that we have
met with our Lord. He has been well pleased with us and has satisfied
our desires."'
(pp. 48-49, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr
al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an",
Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 26)
We used to read a verse of the Qur'an revealed in
their connection, but later the verse was cancelled. It was: "convey to
our people on our behalf the information that we have met our Lord, and
He is pleased with us, and has made us pleased."
(Sahih Bukhari, vol. 5, p. 288)
`Abdullah b. Mas`ud reported that the Prophet had taught him to recite
a particular Qur'an verse which he learned by heart and copied out in
his personal mushaf. When night came, and `Abdullah rose to pray, he
desired to recite that aya but could not recall a syllable. 'In the
morning he consulted his mushaf, only to find the page blank! He
mentioned this to the Prophet who told him that that verse had been
withdrawn that very night.
(p. 133, 199)
For Q 2.106 at least a dozen suggested reading have been recorded --
ample evidence of the extent, and hence of the significance, of the
dispute as to the meaning. What was eventually settled as the joint
exegesis of Q 87 and Q2 (the interpretation of each of these verses
operating upon that of the other) was that there was indeed verses
once revealed to Muhammad as part of the 'total Qur'an revelation'
which, however, have been omitted from the collected texts of the
Qur'an, the mushaf. That had by no means occurred from Muhammad's
having merely forgotten them. Q 87 refers to God's will and Q 2 uses
the root n.s.y. in the causative. God had caused Muhammad to forget
in conformity with the mysterious divine intention as to the final
contents of the Book of God.
(p. 48)
He instances the report from Abu Musa as to the sura like Bara'a
which was revealed, but later withdrawn. Abu Musa recalled
something of it, but Mekki resolutely refuses to go into further
detail. The Qur'an text cannot be established on the basis of
reports. The many examples of this category he would therefore
prefer to pass over in silence. God alone knows the truth of the
matter.
(p. 85, Mekki, "bab aqsam al naskh")
The extreme Sh`ia, the Rafidis, alleged that the impious rulers
had expunged from the mushaf some 500 verses including those which
most unambiguously marked out `Ali as the appointed successor to
the Prophet.... The rebels against `Uthman, justifying their revolt,
enumerated amongst their grievances their resentment at his 'having
expunged the mushafs.'
(Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif",
ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 36)
5.2 Some variant verses
5.2.1 The hajj ritual, tawaf
Farra' (A.H. 207) reports: 'Some Muslims read Q 2.158: "There shall
be no blame on him if he do not perform the tawaf."'
(p. 31, Safi`i, "Risalah", p. 17)
He comments that this reading can be explained in one of two ways:
`Ata' regarded the tawaf as entirely optional.
This view, Tabari
explains, was explicitly derived from the variant reading of Q 2.158
transmitted in the mushaf of `Abdullah b. Mas`ud. The same is
reported from Anas, ibn `Abbas and Mujahid.
(p. 31, Abu Ja`far Muhammad b. Jarir al Tabari,
"Jam` al Bayan `an ta'wil ay al Qur'an",
ed. Sakir, 15 vols. to date, Cairo, 1954-,
vol. 3, p. 320)
5.2.2 The penalty for breach of oaths
5.2.2.1 The variant
Q. 589 regulates the penalties for breach of oaths. Among these is
a three day's fast and the Hanafis argue that the fast should be
consecutive. `Abdullah is said to read, 'a fast of three [consecutive]
days.'
(p. 34, Abu Hamid Muhammad b. Muhammad al Gazali,
"K. al Mustasfa", 2 vols., Bulaq, 1322, vol. 1,
p. 102)
The same variant reading was attributed to Ubayy ... [and also
talks about mut`a marriages]
(p. 35)
On the basis of a variant consonantal reading of Q 2.106 ... Safi`i
interpreted the verse to mean: 'Whatsoever verse We replace and
whatsoever revelation We postpone to a later time, We shall bring
another like it, or better than it in the meantime.' This reading,
nansa', like the reading adopted by the majority, nunsi, represents
equally the flight from a reading of the script which provoked
serious theological compunction for the Muslims, that is, nansa
(we forget). God does not forget!
(p. 63, Safi`i, "Risalah", p. 17)
5.2.2.2 Various views
Sarakhsi (AH 490), a Hanafi, argued,
The fast in expiation of a breach of oath is consecutive on the
basis of `Abdullah's reading which was in circulation as late
as the time of Abu Hanifa, but did not turn out to be mutawatir,
the sole criterion for inclusion in the mushaf. No one can question
`Abdullah's veracity, nor his memory. We can but conclude that the
word 'consecutive' was part of the original wording of the Qur'an
and has been preserved in `Abdullah's reading. The word was
apparently withdrawn in the lifetime of the Prophet. The Muslims
were caused to forget it, with the exception of `Abdullah who was
honoured with its preservation, in order to preserve the ruling.
The isolate sunna-hadith may establish a practice; the isolate
Qur'an-hadith can do no less.
(p. 35, Abu Bakr Muhammad b. Ahmad al Sarakhsi,
"Usul", 2 vols., Haiderabad, 1372, vol 2, p. 81)
Sarakhsi argued that God had caused the other Companions to forget his
reading, but permitted `Abdullah to transmit it so that the ruling might
be preserved.
(p. 172)
Safi`i argued that, as the Qur'an did not stipulate that it should
be consecutive, the Muslim was free to decide whether to fast on
consecutive of separate days. The Q 5.89 fast should be read on the
analogy of the substitute fast imposed for breach for Ramadhan. The
Qur'an merely says 'a similar number of days.' (Q 2.183)
(p. 34, Abu `Abdullah Muhammad b. Idris al Safi`i,
al Mutaalibi, K. Jima` al `ilm, in "Umm", 7 vols.,
Bulaq 1324, vol 7, p. 60)
The fast in expiation for a breach of one's oath need not be
consecutive, even if `Abdullah did read, 'three [consecutive]
days'. This reading is not universally acknowledged to be the
Qur'an text. Perhaps `Abdullah adduce this reading in order to
elucidate what he took to be a justifiable exegesis. Or, perhaps
he may have attracted to Q 5.89, by analogy, the word
'consecutive', which does occur in Q 58.4. Abu Hanifa, conceding
that the reading is not Qur'anic, accepted it, but as a Hadith.
The practice, however, should be based exclusively on what is
explicitly attributed to the Prophet.
(p. 35, Gazali, vol. 1, p. 102)
... He further adduced `Abdullah's reading in arguing that the fast
in expiation of the breach of an oath is consecutive. We do not accept
this view because that reading has been repealed.
(p. 37, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr
al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an",
Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 82)
5.2.3 On mut`a marriages
[Ubayy] was credited with reading Q 4.24, a verse charged with
significance for the Muslim law on marriage, in a variant version:
fa ma stamta`tum bihi minhunna [ila ajalin musamman]
(p. 35, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud,
"K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo,
1936/1355, p. 53)
We argued that it was irrelevant to the revealed status of the Qur'an
document whether one read: aswabu, aqwamu or ahya'u (Q 73.6); saiha or
zaqya (Q 36.29).
5.2.4 On Wudu
Two opposing doctrines -- the invalidation of the ritual purity
[wudu] and the contrary doctrine -- could both be referred to the
Qur'an, according as the contending fuquha read:
lamastum / laamastum or the permissibility of
sexual intercourse with the
menstruating woman at the expiry of her period but before she has
cleansed herself, and the contrary doctrine, according as they
read either yathurna or yattahirna.
arjulakum - enjoined the washing of the feet
arjulikum - permitted the wiping of the feet'
(p. 36-37)
5.2.5 Other variants
The Muslims were fully alive to the import of variant readings:
'The differences in the readings indicate the differences in
the legal rulings.'
(p. 36, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr
al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an",
Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1,
p. 82)
Anas recited: hiya asaddu wat'an wa aswabu qilan.
Some one pointed
out that the 'correct' reading was aqwamu; aqwamu,
he retorted,
aswabu, ahya'u --- they're all the same.
(p. 34, Abu Ja`far Muhammad b. Jarir al Tabari,
"Tafsir", vol. 1, p. 54)
Another case in point is `Abdullah's reading of Q 5.38: faqta'u
aimanahum (for aidiyahum).
(p. 38, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr
al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an",
Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 82)
... and our madhab adduce as evidence of the legitimacy of basing
a ruling on a variant reading the practice of cutting off the
right hand of the thief on the ground of `Abdullah's reading, also
adduced by Abu Hanifa.
(p. 37, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr
al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an",
Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 82)
It is reported of Ubayy that he read: kullama ada'a lahum masaw
fihi [marru fihi sa`aw fihi] and from `Abdullah that he read
lilladina amanu anziruna [amhiluna akhhiruna]
(p. 39, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr
al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an",
Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 47)
`A'isa's reading, which she shared with Hafsa:
wa al salat al wusta salat al'asr
(p. 37, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr
al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an",
Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 82)
[Q 2.106: ma nansakh min ayatin aw nunsi ha na'ti bi khairin min ha
aw mithli ha.]
Sa`d b. abi Waqqas recited Q 2.106: aw tansa ha. His reading was
challenged, on the ground that Sa`id b. al Musayyab read: aw
tunsa ha. Sa`d countered with a reference to two further verses,
Q 87.6-7: sa nuqri'uk fa la tansa [illa ma sa'a allah] and Q 18.24
udkur rabbaka ida nasita.
Sa`d, a Meccan, in addition, challenged the isnad of the
reading of Sa`id, a Medinese.
(p. 64, Abu Ja`far Muhammad b. Jarir al Tabari,
"Tafsir", vol. 2, p. 535)
Q 4.101 apparently indicates that travelers may abbreviate the
ritual prayer if threatened with attack. That the restriction is
absolute, in the sense that the prayer might be cut short only if
the Muslims had reason to fear attack, was a view attributed by
some of the fuqaha' to `A'isa. `Ali is the authority for the
contrary view that the ritual prayer may be shortened by travelers.
Appealing to asbab al nuzul, `Ali claimed that the first half of
the verse had been revealed to the Prophet in reply to a question
put to him on the subject. The answer, as revealed, read 'No blame
is incurred if, when traveling, you shorten the prayer.' Only a
year later, on the occasion of a fresh revelation, was the context
extended to include the reference to fear of attack. The addition,
however, bears only upon the second half of the verse.
(p. 150, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr
al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi,
Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 90-1)
According to Ubayy b. Kab, one of the secretaries of Muhammad,
the verse reads: "O children of Israel, I am God's messenger
to you, and I announce to you a prophet whose community will be
the last community and by which God will put the seal on the
prophets and messengers." where "Ahmad" is not mentioned.
(Abdul Haqq)
"Among things which have reached me about what Jesus of Mary
stated in the Gospel which he received from God for the followers
of the Gospel, in applying a term to describe the apostle of God,
is the following. It is extracted from what John the apostle set
down for them when he wrote the Gospel for them from the Testamant
of Jesus son of Mary: "He that hateth me hateth the Lord. And if I
had not done in their presence works which none other before me
did, they had not sin: but from now they are puffed up with pride
and think that they will overcome me and also the Lord. But the
word that is in the Law must be fulfilled, 'They hateh me without
a cause' [ie. without reason]. But when the Comforter has come
whom God will send to you from the Lord's presence, and the spirit
of truth which will have gone forth from the Lord's presence he
[shall bear] witness of me and ye also, because ye have been with
me from the beginning. I have spoken unto you about this that you
should not be in doubt." The Munahhemna [God bless and preserve
him] in Syriac is Muhammad, in Greek his is the Paraclete.
(Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad,
tr. Guillaume, pp. 103, 104)
'Yazid b. Ma`awiya was in the mosque in the time of al Walid b. `Uqba,
sitting in a group among them was Hudaifa. An official called out,
'Those who follow the reading of Abu Musa, go to the corner nearest
the Kinda door. Those who follow `Abdullah's reading, go the corner
nearest `Abdullah's house.' Their reading of Q 2.196 did not agree.
One group read, 'Perform the pilgrimage to God.' The others read it
'Perform the pilgrimage to the Ka`ba.' Hudaifa became very angry, his
eyes reddened and he rose, parting his qamis at the waits, although in
the mosque. This was during the reign of `Uthman. Hudaifa exclaimed,
'Will someone go the Command of the Faithful, or shall I go myself?
This is what happened in the previous dispensations.' He came over and
sat down, saying, 'God sent Muhammad who, with those who went forward,
fought those who went back until God gave victory to His religion. God
took Muhammad and Islam made strides. To succeed him, God chose Abu
Bakr who reigned as long as God chose. God then took him and Islam made
rapid strides. God appointed `Umar who sat in the midst of Islam. God
then took him also. Islam spread rapidly. God next chose `Uthman. God's
oath! Islam is on the point of such expansion that soon you will
replace all other religions.'
(p. 143, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al
Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 11)
Sura 33:6
"The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves,
and his wives are their mothers..."
"Shall I tell you of an evil worse than that, for retribution with
God? He who God cursed him, and was angry with him, and made some
of them into monkeys and pigs, and worshiped (the idol)
al-taghut."
wa man `abadu al-taghuta,
wa `abadata al-taghuti,
wa `ubada al-taghutu,
wa `abuda al-taghutu,
wa `ubuda al-taghuti,
wa `ubidati al-taghutu,
ubbada al-taghuta
(translation by William Campbell, "The Quran and
the Bible in the Light of History and Science",
Section Three, III.C)
`Abdullah has "The way of the Hanifs" instead of "Behold, the
[true] religion (din) of God is Islam.
(Arthur Jeffery, Materials, Leiden, 1937)
`Abdullah has "Then Gabriel called to him, 'O Zachariah'", instead
of the Uthmanic reading: "Then the angels called to him as he stood
praying in the sactuary."
(Arthur Jeffery, Materials, Leiden, 1937)
`Abdullah's codex for sura 9 begins with the Bismilah, while the
`Uthmanic text does not.
(Arthur Jeffery, Materials, Leiden, 1937)
`Abdullah's codex contained Shi'ite readings in suras 5:67; 24:35;
26:215; 33:25,33,56; 42:23; 47:29; 56:10; 59:7; 60:3; 75:17-19.
(Arthur Jeffery, Materials, pp. 40, 65, 68, Leiden, 1937)
Goldziher has signaled a disputed vocalic reading for the very
Tawba verse which Zaid is said to have reinstated: There has now
come to you a prophet from amongst your own number (anfusikum);
from amongst the most precious among you (anfasikum). The variant
has been ascribed, not merely to Companions, but even to the
Prophet himself!
(p. 170, I. Goldziher, Die Richtungen de
Islamischen Koranauslegung, Leiden, 1952,
p. 35)