Did Ibn Abbas Say a Scribe Made a Mistake in the Quran? — A Hadith-Critical Refutation of the Tasta'nisu Doubt
The claim that Ibn Abbas attacked the Holy Quran and said that a scribe made a mistake when writing the word tasta’nisu instead of tasta’dhinu in Surah An-Nur 27 is not established by any authentic narration. Every chain of transmission used to support this claim is either fabricated, weak due to known liars and forgers in the chain, interrupted between narrators who never met, or — in several cases — the narration actually proves the correctness of the Quranic reading that Muslims have in their hands today. What follows is a systematic examination of all twenty-five narrations used to propagate this doubt.
The Verse Under Discussion
“O you who have believed, do not enter houses other than your own houses until you ask permission and greet its people.”
The word in question is tasta’nisu — “until you seek familiarity/ask permission.” The claim is that Ibn Abbas said this word should be tasta’dhinu — “until you seek permission” — and that the scribe wrote it incorrectly.
The verdict of al-Qurtubi on all narrations supporting this claim:
“This is not correct from Ibn Abbas and others.”
The First Narration — Weak: Ja’far ibn Iyas Did Not Hear from Mujahid
The first narration reads: On the authority of Ja’far ibn Iyas, who is Abu Bishr, on the authority of Mujahid, on the authority of Ibn Abbas: Concerning the words of the Almighty “Do not enter houses other than your own until you have asked permission,” he said: The writer made a mistake — “until you have asked permission.”
This narration has a broken chain of transmission. The narrator Abu Bishr Ja’far ibn Iyas never heard from Mujahid. Shu’bah stated explicitly: “Ja’far ibn Iyas did not hear anything from Mujahid. It is only a document.” This is recorded in Tahdhib al-Tahdhib. For this reason, al-Bukhari and Muslim did not include any narration by Ja’far ibn Iyas on the authority of Mujahid in their books. What Ja’far quoted was from an anonymous forged document containing random sayings attributed to Mujahid — a jumbled collection whose author is unknown and whose trustworthiness cannot be established.
“In Tahdhib al-Tahdhib it is stated that Shu’bah said: Ja’far ibn Iyas did not hear anything from Mujahid. It is only a document.”
The Second Narration — Fabricated: The Narrator Is a Known Liar
The second narration reads: On the authority of Jabir, on the authority of Mujahid, regarding his statement “Do not enter houses other than your own until you ask permission,” he said: It means clearing your throat. Ibn Abbas said: “The scribe made a mistake, until you ask permission.”
This narration is false. The narrator Jabir ibn Yazid al-Ju’fi is a liar whose hadith is rejected by scholars.
Additionally, note the contradiction between the text of this narration and the first: the first says the mistake was “until you feel comfortable,” while the second says the mistake was “until you ask permission.” These two narrations contradict each other in their own alleged content — a sign of fabrication.
The Third Narration — Weak: The Narrator Is Abandoned
The third narration reads: On the authority of Ash’ath, on the authority of Ja’far ibn Abi Wahshiyyah, on the authority of Sa’id ibn Jubayr, on the authority of Ibn Abbas, who said: The scribe made a mistake — so that you may ask permission and greet its people.
This narration is weak. The narrator Ash’ath ibn Sa’id al-Samman is a narrator whose hadith is abandoned by scholars of hadith and who narrates strange reports.
The Fourth Narration — Weak: Unknown Sheikh in the Chain
Al-Bayhaqi reported the fourth narration on the authority of his unknown sheikh. The chain reads: Abu Nasr told us, Abu Mansour told us, Ahmad told us, Sa’id told us, Hisham told us, Ja’far ibn Iyas told us, on the authority of Sa’id, on the authority of Ibn Abbas.
The narrator Abu Nasr ibn Qatada is an unknown man with no established trustworthiness. The researcher’s commentary in the Al-Rashd edition margin of volume eleven, pages 208–209, states: “Its chain of transmission includes the author’s sheikh whom I do not know.” Furthermore, Al-Bayhaqi could not have taken this narration directly from Sa’id ibn Mansur — Sa’id ibn Mansur died in the year 227 AH while Al-Bayhaqi was born in 384 AH, a gap of approximately 157 years.
The Fifth Narration — Weak: Abu Uwana Narrating from Memory
Al-Bayhaqi included a fifth narration in Shu’ab al-Iman: Abu Nasr told us, Abu Mansur told us, Ahmad told us, Sa’id told us, Abu Awana told us, on the authority of Abu Bishr, on the authority of Sa’id ibn Jubayr, on the authority of Ibn Abbas — he said: Asking permission means asking for permission, as I think, so the writers did not make a mistake in it.
This narration is weak for two reasons. First, the narrator Abu Nasr ibn Qatada is unknown as established above. Second, the narrator Abu Awana al-Wadhah ibn Abdullah al-Yashkari is trustworthy only when narrating from his written book, but commits errors when narrating from memory.
“His books are correct, but if he narrated from memory, he often made mistakes.”
“He is trustworthy if he narrates from his book.”
“If Abu Uwana narrated from his book, then it is more authentic, but if he narrated from memory, then he may have made a mistake.”
Al-Bukhari himself stipulated that Abu Uwana must have narrated from his book before he would transmit from him — as seen in Hadith No. 333 where he explicitly states “Abu Uwana informed us from his book.” There is no evidence that the narration in question was transmitted from Abu Uwana’s book rather than his faulty memory.
Al-Albani stated in Al-Silsila al-Da’ifa 1/316: “How can we know if he narrated this hadith from his book or from memory? In this case, his hadith is not accepted.”
Furthermore, even if this fifth narration were accepted, it does not challenge the Quran — it says explicitly “the writers did not make a mistake.” The word “ma” in the narration is a negation tool.
The Sixth Narration — Weak: Same Abu Uwana Problem
The sixth narration appears in Ibn Abi Hatim’s interpretation: Ali ibn al-Hasan al-Hisanjani narrated to us, on the authority of Musaddad, on the authority of Abu Uwana, on the authority of Abu Bishr, on the authority of Sa’id ibn Jubayr, on the authority of Ibn Abbas — he said: I think it is one of the mistakes made by the scribes. Asking permission means seeking permission.
This narration is weak for the same reason as the fifth: Abu Uwana’s hadith is not reliable when transmitted from his faulty memory, and there is no evidence this was taken from his book. Even if accepted, it refers to mistakes made by scribes when copying — meaning some scribes in distant areas wrote the wrong word and contradicted the Mushaf of the Companions. It does not mean the Quran itself contains an error. Muslims rejected the scribes’ mistake and adhered to the Mushaf of the Companions who took the words directly from the mouth of the Prophet.
The Seventh Narration — Proves the Quran’s Correctness
The seventh narration reads: Ibn Bashar narrated, Muhammad ibn Ja’far narrated, Shu’bah narrated from Abu Bishr, from Sa’id ibn Jubayr, from Ibn Abbas, regarding this verse — he said: “This is an error in the Book: until you have asked permission and greeted them.”
This narration does not challenge the Quranic verse. Rather, it proves the authenticity of the Quranic reading that Muslims have today. Ibn Abbas is pointing out that some scribes in distant regions deviated from the Mushaf of the Companions and of Uthman and wrote tasta’dhinu instead of tasta’nisu. Ibn Abbas pointed out this scribal error, and Muslims rejected that mistake and adhered to the Mushaf of the Companions who took the wording from the Prophet directly.
The Eighth Narration — Broken Chain
A narration appears in al-Tabari: Ibn al-Muthanna narrated, Wahb ibn Jarir narrated, Shu’bah narrated on the authority of Abu Bishr on the authority of Sa’id ibn Jubayr — with the statement that “it is only until you ask permission, but this is a mistake on the part of the scribe.”
The content of this narration is rejected because the chain of transmission is broken. As the chain stands, the narration is from Sa’id ibn Jubayr himself, not from Ibn Abbas — so the chain between it and the Prophet is broken, and the reading is anomalous.
The Ninth Narration — Fabricated: Two Known Liars in the Chain
The ninth narration reads: Hibban narrated to me, on the authority of al-Kalbi, on the authority of Abu Salih, on the authority of Ibn Abbas — “Until you ask permission” means: ask permission.
This narration is fabricated. The narrator Hammad ibn al-Sa’ib al-Kalbi is a liar. Additionally, Abu Salih is in the chain, his hadith is weak, and he himself admitted that everything he reported was a lie.
The Tenth and Eleventh Narrations — Weak and Disconnected
Two narrations appear in al-Tabari’s tafsir involving the Mushaf of Ibn Masud. Both are weak because the narrator Sunaid — al-Husayn ibn Dawud — was truthful but did not master the hadith, and scholars described him as weak. Al-Hafiz said in al-Taqrib 1/257: “He was weak in his leadership and knowledge.”
Furthermore, there is a break between Ibrahim al-Nakha’i and Abdullah ibn Masud: Ibrahim was born approximately in the year 47 AH while Ibn Masud died in the year 32 AH. Ibrahim could not have known Ibn Masud’s recitation directly. The narrator Mughirah ibn Muqsim is also known to conceal the transmission of narrations from Ibrahim al-Nakha’i and his hadith is not accepted unless he explicitly states he heard it — which he did not do here.
Al-Tabari himself said after one of these narrations: “This is a report that has no basis among the trustworthy companions of al-Zuhri.”
The Twelfth Narration — Weak: Concealment and Break in Chain
The twelfth narration involves Sa’id narrating from Hisham, from Mughirah ibn Muqsim, on the authority of Ibrahim, regarding the Mushaf of Abdullah.
It is weak. Mughirah ibn Muqsim conceals the narrations of Ibrahim al-Nakha’i and did not explicitly state that he heard them. Additionally, Mughirah often takes narrations from Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman and conceals them, attributing the narration directly to Ibrahim — yet Hammad is known for making many mistakes. There is also the previously established break between Ibrahim al-Nakha’i and Ibn Masud.
The Thirteenth Narration — Does Not Challenge the Quran
The thirteenth narration: Ma’mar showed us, on the authority of Qatada, regarding “Until you ask permission” — he said: “You ask permission and greet.”
This narration does not challenge the Quran. Qatada is simply interpreting the meaning of tasta’nisu as “you seek permission and greet” — a linguistic commentary, not a claim that the Quranic text is wrong.
The Fourteenth Narration — Weak: Mursal with Broken Chain
The fourteenth narration: Ibn Bashar told us, Abu Amir told us, Sufyan told us, on the authority of al-A’mash, that he used to recite it “until you ask permission and greet.”
This narration is weak and irregular. It is mursal — the chain between al-A’mash and the Prophet is broken. Al-A’mash was born in the year 61 AH.
The Fifteenth Narration — Weak: Unknown Intermediary
The fifteenth narration: Sufyan said: It has reached me that Ibn Abbas used to read it as “until you ask permission and greet.” He said: This is a mistake by the writer.
This narration is weak and disconnected — we do not know who told Sufyan this statement on the authority of Ibn Abbas. Furthermore, even this narration says the phrase “until you ask permission and greet” is a mistake by the writer — proving the correctness of tasta’nisu.
The Sixteenth Narration — Weak: No Chain of Transmission
The sixteenth narration: On the authority of al-A’mash, he said: The companions of Abdullah used to recite it “until you ask permission and greet its people.”
This narration is weak and has no chain of transmission at all. Al-A’mash was born in the year 61 AH while Abdullah ibn Masud died in the year 32 AH — a gap that makes direct transmission impossible. The narration does not identify who the companions of Abdullah ibn Masud are here, whether they are trustworthy, or whether they transmitted this directly from Ibn Masud.
The Seventeenth Narration — A Printing Error: The Phrase Does Not Exist in the Original Manuscript
The seventeenth narration appears in printed editions of al-Bayhaqi’s Shu’ab al-Iman and includes the phrase: “He said: The writer made a mistake so that you may ask for permission.”
This phrase does not exist in the original manuscript of the book. The printers introduced it by mistake. If you examine the Al-Rushd edition of Shu’ab al-Iman, volume eleven, margin of page 210, the annotation states: “What is between brackets is omitted from the original.”
The original manuscript does not contain the phrase “the writer made a mistake.” The printers added it in error.
The Eighteenth Narration — Weak: The Narrator Is a Liar
The eighteenth narration appears also in Shu’ab al-Iman, with the chain including Yaqub ibn Ishaq al-Mukharami. This narrator — full name Yaqub ibn Ishaq ibn Ibrahim ibn Abdullah ibn Ibrahim al-Mukharami Abu al-Hasan al-Dhabi, known as al-Bayhasi — is a liar whose hadith is rejected. He was weakened by al-Daraqutni and Abu al-Husayn ibn al-Munadi.
Al-Bayhaqi himself, after narrating this narration and the one before it, commented with words suggesting the chains are disturbed and said: “The general reading has been proven to be transmitted by continuous narration, so it is more deserving. We do not claim that anything that was agreed upon or transmitted by continuous narration is wrong.”
The Nineteenth Narration — Weak: The Al-Awfi Family Chain
The nineteenth narration carries the chain known as the chain of the Al-Awfi family. Every narrator in this chain is from the Al-Awfi family and every one of them is weak in hadith:
Muhammad ibn Sa’d ibn Muhammad ibn al-Hasan ibn Atiyya is a weak narrator. His father Sa’d ibn Muhammad is a very weak Jahmite from whom no narrations are taken. Sa’d’s uncle al-Husayn ibn al-Hasan ibn Atiyya is weak and his report cannot be relied upon. Al-Husayn’s father al-Hasan ibn Atiyya is described by scholars as a calamity who must be abandoned. Al-Hasan’s father Atiyya ibn Sa’d ibn Junada al-Awfi was a third-class Shi’ite mudallis who learned interpretation from the lying al-Kalbi and did not explicitly state that he heard from Ibn Abbas.
Furthermore, even this narration does not challenge the Quran — it records Ibn Abbas reading the verse as tasta’nisu and then interpreting its meaning.
The Twentieth Narration — A Lie: No Chain of Transmission
Al-Sam’ani mentioned the following in his interpretation: “Ibn Abbas read: ‘Until you ask permission.’ He said: ‘You ask permission.’ This is a mistake by the writer.”
This statement has no chain of transmission whatsoever. There are hundreds of years between al-Sam’ani and Ibn Abbas, and no intermediate narrators are named.
The Twenty-First Narration — Weak: Interrupted Chain by Scholarly Consensus
The twenty-first narration comes through Ali ibn Abi Talha on the authority of Ibn Abbas. By the consensus of hadith scholars, Ali ibn Abi Talha did not hear from Ibn Abbas at all — the chain is interrupted by consensus. Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal also noted that Ali ibn Abi Talha had some objectionable narrations.
The Twenty-Second Narration — Weak: Unknown Narrator
The twenty-second narration carries the narrator Mu’adh ibn Sulayman. He is merely an unknown name — no information establishes his trustworthiness or reliability — and the narration is therefore weak.
The Twenty-Third Narration — Weak: Suspended Chain with Hidden Transmission
The twenty-third narration is weak because it is suspended in the narrating formula and part of its chain of transmission was hidden by the compiler.
The Twenty-Fourth Narration — Fabricated: The Narrator Is Accused of Lying
The twenty-fourth narration carries the narrator Juwaybir ibn Sa’id al-Balkhi, whose hadith is rejected, who is weak, and who is accused of lying. Furthermore, this narration does not challenge the Quran — it speaks about the rhetorical order of precedence and delay (taqdim and ta’khir), which is a well-known topic in Arabic rhetoric and has nothing to do with scribal error in copying the Quran.
The Twenty-Fifth Narration — Weak: Interrupted Chain Between Ikrimah and Ubayy ibn Ka’b
Imam Ibn Abd al-Barr mentioned in al-Tamhid: Abd al-Warith ibn Sufyan informed us… on the authority of Ikrimah, saying: Regarding the recitation of Ubayy ibn Ka’b: “Until you greet or ask permission.” He said: Ibn Abbas learned from him.
This narration is weak. Its chain is interrupted — Ikrimah did not hear from Ubayy ibn Ka’b. Ubayy ibn Ka’b died in the year 30 AH while Ikrimah was born in the year 25 AH at the earliest and died in the year 105 or 106 AH. The Sunni Endowment Department ruled (3/54) that this narration is weak.
Additionally, the Quran that Muslims have in their hands today is itself narrated by Ubayy ibn Ka’b, and it contains tasta’nisu — not the alternative reading. The phrase “He said: Ibn Abbas learned from him” is a comment by Ibn Abd al-Barr himself, not part of Ikrimah’s narration, as is clear from the context and confirmed by the Sunni Endowment Office’s edited text.
Final Conclusion from the Scholars
“Whoever narrated that Ibn Abbas said that is attacking Islam and a heretic in religion, and Ibn Abbas is innocent of that statement. The reciters did not narrate any reading other than tasta’nisu. If that transmission from Ibn Abbas were correct, they would have transmitted from him that he read tasta’nisu. The general reading has been transmitted by continuous narration, and whatever contradicts decisive narration is invalid.”
“The narration of this on the authority of Ibn Abbas is not authentic. Abu Hayyan said: As for the statement of the one who said ‘the writer wrote it while he was asleep and straightened the teeth of the letter seen’ — it is the statement of a heretic and an atheist.”
The reciters who received the readings directly from Ibn Abbas — including Abu Amr, Ibn Kathir, and Nafi’ — all recite the verse as tasta’nisu. None of the seven canonical reciters read it as tasta’dhinu.
The Second Part of the Doubt — The Meaning of Tasta’nisu
Some raise the objection: how can a person become familiar with someone before greeting him and entering his home?
The response is that familiarity here means seeking to understand the condition of the person whose house you want to enter. When you knock on the door and the host comes out, you first read his face and expressions — is he eager for your company or is he in a state of distress and does not want to sit with you? You observe his facial expressions, voice, and movements. If you sense that he is busy or does not want company, you should not enter but leave so as not to burden him. This tasta’nisu can occur at the door, before entering the house — it is not sequential after entry but is part of the process of seeking permission itself.
Not a single one of the twenty-five narrations used to claim that Ibn Abbas accused a scribe of error in Surah An-Nur 27 is authentic. They are collectively characterized by liars and fabricators in the chain, unknown narrators, narrators who never met the people they claim to quote, narrators whose hadith is only accepted when taken from their written books and who here transmitted from faulty memory, printing errors added by typesetters to manuscripts where the original does not contain the disputed phrase, and in several cases narrations that actually confirm the correctness of the Quranic text tasta’nisu. The scholarly consensus — represented by al-Qurtubi, al-Zarqani, Abu Hayyan, and others — is that this claim is not authentic on the authority of Ibn Abbas and that whoever attributes it to him attacks Islam. The three canonical reciters who received the Quran directly from Ibn Abbas — Abu Amr, Ibn Kathir, and Nafi’ — all read tasta’nisu. The Quran is preserved as it was revealed.