Abrogation of Recitation a Fact or a Myth

Tradition n. 12

(l) Abu Sufyan al‑Kala'i says that Muslimah b. Mukhallad al‑Ansari told them one day: "Inform me about those two verses of the Qur’an which were never recorded". None would answer, not even Abul Kanood, Sa'ad b. Malik who was there. Then Ibn Muslimah recited12:

ان الذين آمنوا وهاجروا و جاهدوا في سبيل الله باموالهم وانفسهم الا أبشروا انتم المفلحون والذين آووهم ونصروهم وجادلوا عنهم قوم الذين غضب الله عليهم اولئك لا تعلم نفس ما اخفي لهم من قرة اعين جزاء بما كانوا يعلمون

And it has been narrated in various ways that the copies of Ibn Abbas and Ubayy b. Ka'ab contained two extraSurahs: Al‑Khala' and Al‑Hafd. It reads13:

اللهم انا نستعينك ونستغفرك ونثني عليك ولا نكفرك ونخلع ونترك من يفجرك اللهم اياك نعبد ولك نصلى ونسجد واليك نسعى ونحفد نرجو رحمتك ونخشي عذابك ان عذابك بالكافرين ملحق

It is now evident that to say that certain parts of the Qur’an have been excluded from recitation means to confirm interpola­tion and omission in the Qur’an.

This can be further explained this way. The abrogation of those recitations was either recommended by the Prophet (‘s) himself, or it was done by those who came to power after the Prophet's death. If one says that the Prophet (‘s) himself recommended it, then it is a claim which calls for substantiation.

All Ulama’ are agreed upon the principle that the Qur’an cannot be superseded or abrogated by an isolate report ‑ i.e. a tradition which has been reported singly. The jurists have made this abundantly clear in their works on the principles of jurispru­dence. In fact, Shafi’i and many other scholars go further to say that the Book of God, (i.e. the Qur’an) cannot be superseded or abrogated by even those traditions which have reached con­tinuity and acquired wide spread currency. This has been con­firmed by Ahmed b. Hanbal in one of the two traditions reported by him. Even those who proposed that a continuous and widespread Sunnah may potentially supersede the Qur’an, have confirmed that such a situation has in reality never occurred. In view of the foregoing, it is incorrect to ascribe the abrogation to the Prophet (‘s). Even those reports which mention the omissions clearly say that it occurred after the Prophet (‘s).

But if it is proposed that the abrogation was perpetrated by those who assumed leadership after the Prophet (‘s), then that indeed is tampering with the Qur’an. It can safely be asserted that the occurence of Tahrif in the Qur’an is supported by the majority of Sunni Ulama’, because they believe that certain ayahs of the Qur’an were abrogated, in as far as their recitation was concerned, irrespective of whether the law con­tained in thatayah remained in force or not. Interestingly enough, we find certain scholars among them disputing whether a person in the state of janabah can recite those verses whose reading have been reportedly abrogated, or whether a person without wudhu would be permitted to touch the script of such a verse. Some of them have adopted a view that this would not be permissible. Yes, among the Mutazilites, there is a group which believes that an abrogation of recitation never occurred14.

Is it not surprising to find Sunni Ulama’ disputing the fact that some of them are supporters of Tahrif. Alusi has censured Al‑Tabrasi of having falsely accused Hashawiyyah. He wrote: "Not a single scholar among the Sunnis has ever supported that view". Then he proceeds to presume that al‑Tabrasi has been insisting on the absence of Tahrif to alleviate the harm done by some Shia scholars who believed to the contrary. All this makes a pathetic reading especially when it is well known that the Shi’a scholars do not subscribe to Tahrif in the Qur’an, while Al‑Tabrasi himself has extensively quoted Sayyid Murtadha, enumerating all his arguments in support of the Qur’an's purity