Compiled by The SeekingIlm Team
The enemies of Islam, primarily those who attempt in vain to attack the authenticity of the Qur’an on the internet and elsewhere, consistently argue that the Qur’an has been changed drastically after the passing of the Prophet Muhammad 
(‘alayhis salaam). One of the “evidences” they forward for their claim is the report from our mother ‘Aa’ishah (radhiya Allahu ‘anha) that goes:
[Abu Ubaid] said, Ibn Abi Maryam narrated to us from Ibn Lahi’ah from Abil Aswad from ‘Urwah ibn Az-Zubayr from ‘A’ishah that she said, “We used to recite Surat Al-Ahzab with 200 verses during the lifetime of the Nabi (‘alayhis Salam). Then when ‘Uthman transcribed the manuscripts of the Qur’an (masaahif) he was unable to find [all of the verses] except those [verses] as it currently is today.”
This hadith is weak due to (Abdullah) Ibn Lahi’ah. We have already written a research paper regarding his weakness here. So do not be deceived by the usage of this narrative. Even if we say this is authentic, this would could simply mean that the remaining unfounded verses were abrogated and thus the companions unanimously decided to leave them out of their masahif, as well as memories.
Salam,
Why don’t you mention that this “evidence” is mentioned by the great imam as-Suyuti r. in his Itqan as can be read from the quote in Arabic? And why don’t you give the source of the hadith, I mean the book/collection in which this hadith was mentioned? That would clarify the issue much more. And why don’t you give the classification of the hadith, whether it was weak, hasan or sahih instead mentioning the weakness of one of the transmitters? Sorry to bother you but if you do want to do research than be thorough instead of being vague.
Your brother,
Harun
How is it being vague when the title of the “Itqan” is right there in front of your eyes to see in the quote? There is certainly no vagueness in giving the student the quote, with the chain!
The chain is there for everyone to see. We have already done quite abit of research on Ibn Lahi’ah as well, and we even stated that the hadith was weak. So your complaints are unfounded.
Salam bro Abul Layth,
Thanks for the reply but still I have some remarks/questions if you allow me. Forgive my for my somewhat harsh approach but let me ask you this. Have you kept our readers in mind who don’t master the Arabic language? You should think of them too I feel. We both are blessed to be able to read the Arabic and we can read it is in the fourth part of the ‘Itqan (by Suyuti I assume), may Allah
have mercy upon him and bless him. I just feel you should/could have better mentioned this. Why didn’t you mention Suyuti in the first place? I hope you are not afraid to mention this great scholar. I have not read or studied the ‘Itqan but heard and read it’s somewhat controversial because it can shake one’s belief. Do you know why Suyuti mentioned this hadith? Has he classified the hadith? He was a muhaddith/hafidh after all. Does he mention in which hadith collection one can find the hadith? What else does he mention concerning this hadith? He must have had an opinion on this issue. I just feel the above mentioned info in your article doesn’t suffice for someone who wants to know, like me, study and do research. The fact that you say the hadith is weak is also not enough. Which authority said it is weak? Sorry for bothering you with all these questions but they are important in my opinion. This is a delicate issue and can take one outside the fold of islam if one believes the Qur’an isn’t/wasn’t complete. So please help us all out here.
Yours sincerely,
H.
Was-Salam,
Firstly, I generally expect that if someone needs to know this information they can read arabic – not necessarily understand it, but read it. Though your suggestion may be right. Nevertheless, it should encourage the Muslims to learn to read arabic.
Secondly, Imam As-Suyuti in his Al-Itqan is simply reporting what Abu ‘Ubayd reported in his Fada’il, that is all. He does not declare it Sahih or da’if, as he does with most reports in Al-Itqan. He is simply mentioning opinions, that is all.
Thirdly, the hadith was declared weak by the commentators of the recently published Al-Itqan: Markaz Ad-Diraasat Al-Qur’aniyya, wherein they said in comment of this athar:
“It is reported by Abu ‘Ubayd in Fada’il Al-Quran number 700, and in its chain is Ibn Lahi’ah who mingled his narrations after his books burned, and its chain is weak. Except that the length of Surat Al-Ahzab was witnessed by the hadith of Ubayy (radiya Allahu ‘anhu) that will be mentioned next.
However, The ending of the hadith [Then when ‘Uthman transcribed the manuscripts of the Qur’an (masaahif) he was unable to find [all of the verses] except those [verses] as it currently is today.”] is weak without support, or a follow up report (mutaabi’), and it is weak…”
They go on to say that actually the statement is “Baatil”.
Fourthly, the narration of Ubayy that they have mentioned is regarding the verse of stoning that was abrogated – hence Ahzab was longer than what we have today due to abrogation.
Lastly, The Qur’an itself witnesses to self-abrogation:
ما ننسخ من آية أو ننسها نأت بخير منها أو مثلها ألم تعلم أن الله على كل شيء قدير
None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah
Hath power over all things?
[2:106]
Was-Salam
I honestly dont know how these orientalists can criticize abrogation.
Salam sidi Abul Layth,
Barakallahu fik for your answer! I’m happy with the extra info! Now there is more clarity on the issue I feel.
Fi amanillah,
H.