The Qadi Abu Bakr holds 'that the entirety of the Qur'an, as God revealed it, and as He commanded that it be recorded, such as He did not abrogate, nor withdraw in respect of the wording alone, is represented in the mushaf of `Uthman.' (p. 195, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 61)

Bukhari preserves a hadith to the effect that some men waited upon ibn `Abbas, cousin and supporter of `Ali, and later upon Muhammad b. al Hanafiya, son of `Ali and himself a figurehead in the Si'a's claim on behalf of the Holy Family. To the question whether Muhammad had 'left anything' each of these notables in turn replied that Muhammad had left no more than may be found between the 'two covers'. ibn Hajar comments, 'Muhammad did not omit from the mushaf any part of the Qur'an which ought to be publicly recited [at prayer].' (Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 9, p. 53)

The Qadi Abu Bakr al Baqillani states, 'The entire Qur'an revealed by God and commanded by Him to be recorded in writing, except what He suppressed, wording and ruling together, or wording only, although He may also have suppressed the ruling, is this which is between the two covers. Not one jot is missing and not one title has been added.' (p. 131, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 61)

`Abdullah b. `Umar reportedly said, 'Let none of you say, "I have got the whole of the Qur'an." How does he know what all of it is? Much of the Qur'an has gone [d h b]. Let him say instead, "I have got what has survived."' (p. 117, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, "al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an", Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 2, p. 25)

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

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

[Safi`i: ] 'The Sunna is the judge of the Book, it elucidates it'. (p. 29, al Hamdani, "I`tibar", p. 25)

The Muslim exegetes concluded, on the basis of their reading of Q 87.6-7 that they must distinguish between the Qur'an and the mushaf. Relative to the first, the second is obviously incomplete. (p. 81-82)

Tabari, the exegete, embraced and defended the view that there were omissions from the mushaf which must therefore be distinct from the Qur'an. By the latter, he would understand all that had ever been revealed to Muhammad. By mushaf, he would understand all of the Qur'an which had been preserved in writing and passed down to posterity by the first generation of Muslims, the Companions. (p. 106)

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)

`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)

There are, or there appear to be, references to Muhammad's forgetting in the Qur'an:

Q 17.86: If We wished, We could make away with what We have revealed to you.

Q 87.6-7: We shall teach you to recite it and you will not forget -- except what God wills.

Q 2.106: ma nansakh min ayatin aw nunsi ha na'ti bi khairin min ha aw mithli ha. (p. 47-48)

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

The Prophet recited the Qur'an and omitted an aya. When he had finished the prayer, he asked, 'Is Ubayy in the mosque?' 'Here I am, Messenger of God.'
'Then why didn't you prompt me?'
'I thought the aya had been withdrawn.'
'It hasn't been withdrawn, I forgot it.' (p. 65-66, `Abdul Rahman al Tha`alibi, "al Jawahir al Hisan fi tafsir al Qur'an", 2 vols., Algiers, 1905, vol. 1, p. 95)

[Note: Muslims believed this refers only to his human memory, and does not affect his prophetic office]

These and similar instances provide the exegesis of the Qur'anic texts.... By degrees, what was originally exegesis penetrated into the actual reading. This is more common than exegesis and better founded. At the least, the readings show the correctness of the tafsir. (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)

The variant readings were classed then as isolate and the legitimacy of deriving legal rulings from them was long debated: Safi`i does not have a statement on the question, but what may be deduced from this practice is that he thought it not permissible. Those who took his view argued that the isolate reading had been transmitted as Qur'an, whereas it is not. Those who permit the derivation of a ruling from the isolate reading plead the analogy of the isolate hadith. This line was approved by ibn al Subki in Jam` al Jawami`, 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. 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)

Abu 'Ubaid [Ah. 224], in his Fada'il al Qur'an, stated that the function of the isolate reading was the elucidation of the mashur reading. For example, `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)

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)

[Some 200 verses of the Qur'an were believed to be abrogated. Jalaludin estimates that it is between 5 and 500. Muslims, however, have no agreement on which are the mansukh and which are the nasikh.] Other verses had been withdrawn in respect of both their wording and ruling. An example in the Tradition is Anas' hadith on the Qur'an's reference to the Bi'r Ma`una martyrs. Further cases include Ubayy's remark that Ahzab had originally been as long as Baqara; Hudaifa's remark, 'They don't recite a quarter of al Bara'a today.'

These are all sound hadiths and represent instances of naskh al hukm wa al tilawa and naskh al tilawa duna al hukm. Both are types of Qur'an omission from the mushaf. (p. 130)

Bukhari preserves a hadith to the effect that some men waited upon ibn `Abbas, cousin and supporter of `Ali, and later upon Muhammad b. al Hanafiya, son of `Ali and himself a figurehead in the Si'a's claim on behalf of the Holy Family. To the question whether Muhammad had 'left anything' each of these notables in turn replied that Muhammad had left no more than may be found between the 'two covers'. ibn Hajar comments, 'Muhammad did not omit from the mushaf any part of the Qur'an which ought to be publicly recited [at prayer].' (Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 9, p. 53) That implies that there is Qur'an material missing from the mushaf that need not be publicly recited. For ibn Hajar, the hadith denies the existence outside the mushaf of verses which ought to have been included.

That implies that there are verses that ought not to be included in the mushaf. He finds this reading of the tafsir of the hadith confirmed by other reports from Companions mentioning Qur'an materials revealed, but subsequently withdrawn in respect of their wording. That had not prejudiced the continuing legal validity of their rulings. The wording had simply been omitted from the mushaf. An instance of the kind is `Umar's report on the omission of the stoning verse. (p. 130)

ibn Qutaiba resorts to logic. It is quite feasible that a ruling be revealed in the Qur'an, yet the wording subsequently be annulled, leaving the ruling alone valid. `Umar report this to have been the case in the instance of the stoning verse, and others have reported the like in connection with other revelations that had been part of the Qur'an before the texts were brought together. If it is possible to abandon the ruling yet retain the wording in the mushaf, it is equally possible to abandon the wording, yet retain the ruling in the Fiqh. (p. 96, Abu Muhammad `Abdullah b. Muslim, ibn Qutaiba, "K. ta'wil mukhtalif al Hadith", Cairo, 1966/1386, pp. 310-15)

Similar is the tone of Zarkasi (A.H. 794) who reports that al Wahidi had given as an example of the abrogation of something whose wording was still in the mushaf by something whose wording had not been endorsed for inclusion in the mushaf, the abrogation of flogging by stoning, in the case of the non-virgin. Stoning is not publicly recited today, although it had been in the days of the Prophet. The ruling has remained valid, but the wording has not. Similarly, certain wordings have been endorsed as part of the mushaf, whose rulings have ceased to be valid. If there can be a Qur'an revelation which is recited, but not practised, there can be a Qur'an regulation which is practised but not recited. (p. 96, Badr al Din Muhammad b. `Abdullah al Zarkasi, "K. al Burhan fi `ulum al Qur'an, 4 vols., Halabi, Cairo, 1957/1376, vol. 2, p. 41)

Zarkasi:

The naskh [sic] of the wording and recital occurred by means of God's causing them to forget it. He withdrew it from their memories, while commanding them to neglect its public recital and its recording in the mushaf. With the passage of time, it would quite disappear like the rest of God's revealed Books which He mentions in the Qur'an, but nothing of which is known today. This can have happened either during the Prophet's life so that, when he died, the forgotten material was no longer being recited as part of the Qur'an; or it might have happened after the death of the Prophet. It would still be extant in writing, but God would cause them to forget it. He would then remove it from their memories. But, of course, the naskh of any part of the revelation after the death of the Prophet is not possible. (p. 97-98, Badr al Din Muhammad b. `Abdullah al Zarkasi, "K. al Burhan fi `ulum al Qur'an, 4 vols., Halabi, Cairo, 1957/1376, vol. 1, p. 235)

The wording of al saikh wa al saikha has been withdrawn, but the ruling is still valid in Law. (p. 106, Abu `Abdullah al Asfara'ini, "K. al nasikh wa al mansukh", MS Dar al Kutub, Taimur majami` no. 297, f. 102)

The Sunna - the Prophet's stoning the adulterer - has not been established by tawatur, but only by isolate reports. The most one might say is that the community unanimously accepts stoning and since ijma` cannot abrogate a source (it merely serves to indicate the existence of a mutawatir source that did abrogate), to identify that source as having been a mutawatir sunna which, however, has not reached us, is no more satisfactory than to attribute the naskh in question to a mutawatir verse which also has failed to reach us owing to the withdrawal of the wording. (p. 108, Abu al Hasan Saif al Din `Ali b. abi `Ali b. Muhammad al Amidi, "K. ah Ihkam fi usul al Ahkam", 4 vols., Cairo, 1332, vol. 2, p. 185)

It cannot be argued, merely because `Umar said in his hadith, 'But I fear that men will accuse me of adding to the Qur'an something that does not belong to it I would have recorded al saikh wa al saikha', or that, if recorded, it would have been written on the margin of the mushaf, that that indicates that it was not really part of the Qur'an. For we hold that it could have been a verse whose wording alone was withdrawn. Nor can it be held that ayat al saikh wa al saikha was never established by tawatur but depended solely upon `Umar's word; that the abrogation of the mutawatir [Q 24.2] by the isolate is never admitted by the scholars; and that, since stoning is documented solely in isolate reports, one is inevitably forced to the conclusion that stoning is derived from the consensus of the scholars. But the ijma` cannot serve in its own right to abrogate a source -- it merely indicates the fact of abrogation, and thus signals their awareness of the existence of a mutawatir source that did the abrogating. Thus, to postulate on this topic the existence at one time of a mutawatir sunna, which has not however reached us, is in no way preferable to postulating the existence at one time of a Qur'an verse which has not reached us, owing to the withdrawal of the wording. (p. 108-109, Muhammad b. `Ali al Hasimi al `Alawi al Taba'taba'i, "Mafatih al wusul fi usul fiqh al Si`a", MS Alexandria, Baladiya, no. 1031, bab naskh al kitab bi al sunna)

In Tahawi's view, the frequency of variants was the result of the first generation's inexperience of verbatim oral transmission of texts together with their ignorance of the art of writing. (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)

Sarakhsi is prepared to concede that parts of the Qur'an may have eluded the recording procedures during the Prophet's life, on account of the Qur'an verses: ma nansakh min aya wa nunsi ha; 'If We wished, We could make away with what We have revealed to you'; 'We shall teach you to recite it and you will not forget -- except what God wills.'

He will, however, have none of the suggestion that this is conceivable after the Prophet's death. The possibility, he claims is not admitted by Muslims. (Abu Bakr Muhammad b. Ahmad al Sarakhsi, "Usul", 2 vols., Haiderabad, 1372, vol 2, p. 78)

The reports, allegedly from Abu Bakr, Anas, Ubayy and others, indicating the loss or the forgetting of this or that aya which 'they used to recite in the lifetime of the Prophet', he regards as circulated by the enemies of Islam bent upon its destruction.

Among such 'lies' he includes `Umar's report to the effect that the stoning verse had once been part of the Qur'an, and he cannot explain how such a great scholar as Safi`i should be represented by a similar view on the question of the suckling 'verses' as that alleged in the `A'isa report, which, incidentally, he words, 'and that was part of what was recited in the Qur'an following the death of the Prophet.' (p. 99)