súra which we likened in length and warning to the Bará'at, but I have forgotten it except this piece: ‘If there were for the son of man two valleys of wealth, he would desire a third, and nothing can fill the belly [i.e. satisfy the desire] of the son of man except dust’; and we used to recite a súra which we likened to one of the Musabbiḥát [the shorter chapters at the end of the Holy Qur-án], but I have forgotten it, and now remember only this much: 'O you who believe! why do you say what you do not do; surely the testimony of this is written in your necks, and of this you will be questioned on the day of judgment.’”
(b) In the Ṣaḥiḥ Muslim, Kitáb-ur-Riḍá' the following is reported as having been related by 'Ayesha: “Surely in what was revealed of the Qur-án there was this injunction, that ten known acts of suckling are effective in the prohibition of marriage relations, but these were abrogated and replaced by five acts of suckling, and the Messenger of God, may peace and the blessings of God be upon him, died, and this was among what was recited of the Qur-án.”
(c) In the Ṣaḥiḥ Muslim, Kitáb-ul-Ḥudúd, there is a report from 'Abdulla, son of 'Abbas, who quoted the words of 'Umar, son of Khattáb, spoken while he sat in the pulpit: “Surely God raised Muhammad, may peace and the blessings of God be upon him, with truth, and He revealed to him the Book, and there was among what was sent down upon him the verse relating to stoning [of the adulterer and the adulteress]; we read it, and guarded it, and understood it, and the Messenger of God, may peace and the blessings of God be upon him, stoned [the offenders], and after him we also stone [them]. But I fear that when time lengthens with the people, a sayer will say, ‘Surely we do not find stoning in the Book of God,’ and thus they will go astray by forsaking ah injunction which God has sent down; and surely stoning is truly in the Book of God a punishment for the person who commits adultery, whether man or woman, either after its having been proved by witnesses, or by the woman’s conception or the confession of the accused.’”
(d) In the Itqán, vol. ii. p. 30, 'Ayesha is reported to have said that “there used to be recited two hundred verses in the chapter Al-Aḥzáb in the time of the Holy Prophet, but when 'Us̲man wrote the copies of the Qur-án, we could not get more of it than what we have now.”
(e) In the Itqán, vol. i. p. 81, there is a report from Málik saying that “when the first part of it [the chapter entitled Immunity] came down, the Bismilláh [or the opening formula] also came with it, from which it appears that it was like the Baqrah in its length. And in the copy of Ibn-i-Mas'ud there were 112 chapters, for he did not write the Mu'awwaz̲atán [the last two chapters], and in the copy of Ubayy there were 116 chapters, for he wrote at the end two chapters, Ḥafd and Khala'.”
These are the five reports on the basis of which it is sought to establish that some verses, passages, or chapters which once formed part of the Holy Qur-án are not now contained in it. The first question is, Are there any reports which contradict the conclusion that is sought to be drawn from these? If there are, then the next point to be settled will be which set of reports is more reliable, on which side the weight of evidence lies, and which is the conclusion which early practice and established historical facts confirm. It is in the Itqán that the two last-mentioned reports are met with, and the Itqán is the work of Jalal-ud-Din Sayuti, the material for whose writings, as already shown, is entirely drawn from reports of the lowest value—reports of which no trace is to be met with among the earlier generations. Such reports cannot be depended upon even
