found a place in that collection was part of the Divine revelation. Such testimony of overwhelming numbers cannot be set aside by the evidence of one or two, but, as a matter of fact, all reports quoted as affecting the purity of the text ascribe a certain statement to only one man, and in not a single case is there a second man to support that assertion. Thus when Ibn Mas’ūd21 makes an assertion, to this effect, Ubayy’s22 evidence, along with that of the whole body of Companions, goes against him; and when Ubayy makes a like assertion, Ibn Mas‘ūd’s evidence along with that of the rest of the Companions goes against him. Thus there is not a single assertion impugning the purity of the Quranic text for which even one supporting witness can be produced.23

The theory of abrogation

That certain verses of the Holy Qur’ān are abrogated by others is now an exploded theory. The two passages on which it was supposed to rest, refer, really, to the abrogation, not of the passages of the Holy Qur’ān but of the previous revelations whose place the Holy Book had taken. The first verse is contained in the sixteenth chapter (al-Naḥl)—a Makkah revelation—and runs thus: “And when We change a message for a message24—and Allāh knows best what He reveals—they say: Thou art only a forger” (16:101). It is a fact that details of the Islāmic law were revealed at Madīnah and it is in relation to these details that the theory of abrogation has been broached. Therefore, a Makkah revelation would not speak of abrogation. But the reference in the above verse is to the abrogation, not of the Quranic verses but of the previous Divine messages or revelations, consequent upon revelation of the Holy Qur’ān. The context shows this clearly to be the case, for the opponents are here made to say that the Holy Prophet was a forger. He was so accused by the opponents not because he announced the abrogation of certain verses of the Holy Qur’ān but because he claimed that the Holy Qur’ān was a Divine revelation which had taken the place of previous revelations. They argued that it was not a revelation at all: “Only a mortal teaches him” (16:103). According to them the whole of the Holy Qur’ān, and not merely a particular verse of it, was a forgery. The theory of abrogation, therefore, cannot be

&