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)
[Note: Muslims believed this refers only to his human memory, and
does not affect his prophetic office]
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)
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revealed, but subsequently withdrawn in respect of their wording.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)
Zarkasi:
6. The status of the mushaf
6.1 The completeness of the mushaf ?
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)
6.2 The incompleteness of the mushaf
`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)
6.3 Muhammad's forgetting of verses
There are, or there appear to be, references to Muhammad's forgetting
in the Qur'an:
'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)
6.4 Muslim explanation of variants / missing verses
6.4.1 Variants are additions/interpolations
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)
6.4.2 Variants elucidate
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)
6.4.3 Variants preserve the law
Sarakhsi (AH 490), a Hanafi, argued,
[One would want to ask: why would God transmit a ruling, a law,
while not withdrawing it from recitation?]
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)
6.4.4 Naskh (Abrogation and withdrawal)
[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.'
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.
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)
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)