VERSE

The Qur'an says in surah 3:7 that there are clear and unclear verses in the Qur'an. One of the greatest Muslim theologians, Al-Ghazali said that "The number of the clear verses is 500." (Suyuti, 'Itqan Fii 'Ulum Al-Qur'an, Al-Hai'ah Al-Misriyah Al-'Aamah Lil-Kitab, 1975, Part II, Section 65: Al-'Ulum Al-Mustanbata Men Al-Qur'an. ), i.e., a mere 8% of the 6616 verses in the Qur'an. Thus, the Qur'an commands Muhammad and the Muslims to refer to the Jews and the Christians (surah 21:7). More details can the hadiths can be found in this collection of hadiths.

- 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. (John Burton, The Collection of the Qur'an, 1977, p. 164 quoting 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. (John Burton, The Collection of the Qur'an, 1977, pp. 164-165 quoting 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)

- the Missing Stoning Verse,

  Muslim jurists are unanimous about the penalty for adultery:

  > ... 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). (John Burton, The Collection of the Qur'an, 1977, p. 72)

  They differed, however, as to the source of this law. Thus some contend that its source is the sunna, which is also believed to be 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.' (John Burton, The Collection of the Qur'an, 1977, p. 74 quoting 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.' (John Burton, The Collection of the Qur'an, 1977, p. 74 quoting 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.' (John Burton, The Collection of the Qur'an, 1977, pp. 74-75 quoting 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.' (John Burton, The Collection of the Qur'an, 1977, p. 75 quoting 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. (John Burton, The Collection of the Qur'an, 1977, p. 77 quoting Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 12, p. 119)

    The above hadith, however, does not say explicitly if the verse was sunna or part of the Qur'an.

  Others contended that the penalty came from the Book of God and was recited during the time of Muhammad:

  - `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. (John Burton, The Collection of the Qur'an, 1977, p. 121 quoting Burhan al Din al Baji, "Jawab", MS Dar al Kutub, Taimur "majami`", no. 207, f. 14)

    The above hadith is an apparent contradiction with the earlier hadith involving `Ali.

  - 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.' (John Burton, The Collection of the Qur'an, 1977, p. 75 quoting Sulaiman b. Da'ud al Tayalisi, "Sunan", Haiderabad, 1904/1321, p. 6)

    The above hadith clearly tried to reconcile the conflicting reports by saying that it is both in the Qur'an and is sunna.

  - 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."' (John Burton, The Collection of the Qur'an, 1977, p. 75 quoting 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.... (John Burton, The Collection of the Qur'an, 1977, p. 77-78 quoting 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.' (John Burton, The Collection of the Qur'an, 1977, 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.' (John Burton, The Collection of the Qur'an, 1977, p. 78-79 quoting 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.'

    > 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)

    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.'

    There are strong grounds for considering this continuation foreign and irrelevant to the hadith. ibn Hajar, for example, comments,

    > 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. (John Burton, The Collection of the Qur'an, 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. (John Burton, The Collection of the Qur'an, 1977, p. 82 quoting 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)

  The actual wordings of this verse can be found, with slight variations in several hadiths:

  - Malik reports that when `Umar returned from the pilgrimage, he addressed the people of Medina,

    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)

    The version that occurs in the Hulya reads, 'I would write at the end of the Qur'an.' (John Burton, The Collection of the Qur'an, 1977, p. 78)

  - Abu Ma`sar has,

    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.' (John Burton, The Collection of the Qur'an, 1977, 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 ibn Hajar reminds that the report is transmitted by Malik and by others in this form which he judges to be 'correct'. (John Burton, The Collection of the Qur'an, 1977, p. 79, Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, vol. 12, p. 119) ... but Noldeke observed that the terms saikha and battata are alien to the vocabulary of the Qur'an. (John Burton, The Collection of the Qur'an, 1977, 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)

  There are reports that say that the verse was not added to the mushaf but in margins:

  - [Umar 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.' (John Burton, The Collection of the Qur'an, p. 78-79, al Sarakhsi, "Mabsut", 30 vols., Cairo, 1324, vol. 9, p. 36)

  The verse orginally was from Surat al-Ahzab:

  - 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."' (John Burton, The Collection of the Qur'an, 1977. pp. 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 mighty, wise.' (John Burton, The Collection of the Qur'an, 1977, 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. (John Burton, The Collectio of the Qur'an, 1977, p. 84 quoting 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. (ibid, p. 84)

- The Missing ibn Adam Verse,

  - recited during Muhammad's time,

    - 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." (John Burton, The Collection of the Qur'an, 1977, 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?'

      Ubayy said, 'Yes.' This was before the copying of the `Uthman mushafs on the basis of which the practice now rests. (John Burton, The Collection of the Qur'an, 1977, p. 83, Burhan al Din al Baji, "Jawab", MS Dar al Kutub, Taimur "majami`", no. 207, f. 17)

    - 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.' (John Burton, The Collection of the Qur'an, 1977, 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.'"' (John Burton, The Collection of the Qur'an, 1977, 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)

  - It was orginally in Surat Yusuf,

    - Buraid claims to have heard the Prophet recite ibn Adam at prayer. The aya was in surat Yusuf. (John Burton, The Collection of the Qur'an, 1977, 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. (John Burton, The Collection of the Qur'an, 1977, 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)

- The Missing Suckling Verse,

  - revealed in the Qur'an

    > 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 8.3421)

  - recited before `Uthman's collection

    - `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.

      `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")

    - 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. (John Burton, The Collection of the Qur'an, 1977, 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.

      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. (John Burton, The Collection of the Qur'an, 1977, p 95, Abu Muhammad `Abdullah b. Muslim, ibn Qutaiba, "K. ta'wil mukhtalif al Hadith", Cairo, 1966/1386, pp. 310-15)

- The Missing "Pleasing" Verse,

  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."' (John Burton, The Collection of the Qur'an, 1977, 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)

  > Narrated Anas:

  > The Prophet sent seventy men from the tribe of Bani Salim to the tribe of Bani Amir. When they reached there, my maternal uncle said to them, "I will go ahead of you, and if they allow me to convey the message of Allah's Apostle (it will be all right); otherwise you will remain close to me." So he went ahead of them and the pagans granted him security But while he was reporting the message of the Prophet , they beckoned to one of their men who stabbed him to death. My maternal uncle said, "Allah is Greater! By the Lord of the Kaba, I am successful." After that they attached the rest of the party and killed them all except a lame man who went up to the top of the mountain. (Hammam, a sub-narrator said, "I think another man was saved along with him)." Gabriel informed the Prophet that they (i.e the martyrs) met their Lord, and He was pleased with them and made them pleased. We used to recite, "Inform our people that we have met our Lord, He is pleased with us and He has made us pleased." Later on this Quranic Verse was cancelled. The Prophet invoked Allah for forty days to curse the murderers from the tribe of Ral, Dhakwan, Bani Lihyan and Bam Usaiya who disobeyed Allah and his Apostle.
  > (Sahih Bukhari 4.57)

  > Narrated Anas bin Malik:

  > For thirty days Allah's Apostle invoked Allah to curse those who had killed the companions of Bir-Mauna; he invoked evil upon the tribes of Ral, Dhakwan, and Usaiya who disobeyed Allah and His Apostle. There was reveled about those who were killed at Bir-Mauna a Quranic Verse we used to recite, but it was cancelled later on. The Verse was:

  > "Inform our people that we have met our Lord. He is pleased with us and He has made us pleased."
  > (Sahih Bukhari 4.69):

  Wow! thirty/forty days of cursing.

- Other Missing Verses,

  - from al-Bara'a,

    > [Hudaifa remarked] 'They don't recite a quarter of al Bara'a today.' (John Burton, The Collection of the Qur'an, 1977, p. 130)

  - lost with the dead Muslims,

    > 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. (John Burton, The Collection of the Qur'an, 1977, pp. 126-127, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif", ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 23)

  - cancelled / withdrawn verses,

    Anas ibn Malik said:

    > 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. (John Burton, The Collection of the Qur'an, 1977, p. 133, 199)

  - forgotten by Muhammad,

    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. (John Burton, The Collection of the Qur'an, 1977, 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. (John Burton, The Collection of the Qur'an, 1977, 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)

Go Back to Main Index