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
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
23 In many cases even internal evidence would show that the report was not credible. For example, one report ascribes the following statement to ‘Ā’ishah: “The chapter of the Confederates (ch.33) consisted, at the time of the Holy Prophet, of two hundred verses; when ‘Uthmān wrote the Muṣḥaf, he was only able to collect of it what it contains.” ‘Ā’ishah could never have spoken these words, as she knew too well that ‘Uthmān never collected the Muṣḥaf, he had only directed the making of copies from Ḥafṣah’s Muṣḥaf. The false notion that ‘Uthmān collected the Holy Qur’ān is of later growth, and this affords the surest testimony that this report is a mere invention. Similarly, the words ascribed to ‘Umar regarding the stoning of the adulterer are a fabrication. He is reported to have said: “If I were not afraid that people would say ‘Umar has added something to the Book of God. I should write it down in the Holy Qur’ān” (A.D. 37:23). This assertion is self-contradictory. If it was really part of the Holy Qur’ān, why should people say that ‘Umar had added to the Book of God?
24 The word āya occurring here means originally a sign, and hence it comes to signify an indication or evidence or proof, and is used in the sense of a miracle. It also signifies risāla or a Divine message (TA.) The word is frequently used in the Holy Qur’ān in its general sense of a Divine message or a Divine communication, and is, therefore, applicable to a portion of the Holy Qur’ān or to any previous revelation. It carries the latter significance here as the context clearly shows.
25 Sale’s translation of the words is misleading and has actually deceived many writers on Islām who had no access to the original. He translates the words nunsi-hā as meaning We cause thee to forget. Now the text does not contain any word meaning thee. The slight error makes the verse mean that Almighty God had caused the Holy Prophet to forget certain Qur’ānic verses; whereas the original does not say that the Holy Prophet was made to forget anything but clearly implies that the world was made to forget.
21
22 Two of the persons to whom such reports are ascribed.