The Doubt About the Missing Verses of Surah Al-Ahzab — A Full Response
·14 min read·2964 words
We always hear this sterile doubt from Christians: “Where is the rest of Surah Al-Ahzab?”
The Christian claims:
Surah Al-Ahzab Was Equal to Surah Al-Baqarah
It was narrated on the authority of Aisha: “Surah Al-Ahzab was recited in the time of the Prophet ﷺ in two hundred verses, and we were only able to recite what we have now.” — Al-Itqan 3:82, Tafsir Al-Qurtubi 14:113, Manahil Al-Irfan 1:273, Al-Durr Al-Manthur 6:56. And in the wording of Al-Raghib: “One hundred verses.” — Lectures of Al-Raghib 2:4/434.
It was narrated on the authority of Umar, Ubayy ibn Ka’b, and Ikrimah, the freed slave of Ibn Abbas: “Surah Al-Ahzab was close to Surah Al-Baqarah, or longer than it, and it contained the verse of stoning.” — Al-Itqan 3:82, Musnad Ahmad 5:132, Al-Mustadrak 4:359, Al-Sunan Al-Kubra 8:211, Tafsir Al-Qurtubi 14:113, Al-Kashaf 3:518, Manahil Al-Irfan 2:111, Al-Durr Al-Manthur 6:559.
It was narrated on the authority of Hudhayfah: “I recited Surah Al-Ahzab to the Prophet ﷺ and I forgot seventy verses of it that I did not find.” — Al-Durr Al-Manthur 6:559.
The response follows by examining each narration individually.
First Narration: The Report from Aisha (رضي الله عنها)
The narration from Lady Aisha, may God be pleased with her, is weak due to the weakness of in its chain of transmission.
The scholars of hadith criticism have exhaustively documented Ibn Lahi’ah’s unreliability:
Al-Hafiz — Tahdhib Al-Tahdhib 5/377 Al-Bukhari said: Yahya bin Saeed abandoned him. Ibn Mahdi said: I do not carry anything from him. Ibn Khuzaymah said: I am not among those whose hadith I included in this book if he was alone. Al-Nasa’i said on the authority of his father: He is not trustworthy. Ibn Ma’in said: He was weak and his hadith is not reliable. Ibn Kharash said: He used to write his hadith, his books were burned, so whoever brought something would read it to him — until if someone fabricated a hadith and brought it to him, he would read it to him. Al-Jawzajani said: His hadith should not be relied upon, and it is not appropriate to use him as evidence. Abu Zur’ah said: He was not accurate. Muslim said in “Al-Kuna”: Ibn Mahdi, Yahya ibn Sa’id, and Wakee’ abandoned him. Ibn Hibban said: I searched his reports and saw him concealing the narrations of weak people on the authority of trustworthy people whom he had seen. Then he did not care — whatever was given to him he read, whether it was from his hadith or not. Abu Ja’far Al-Tabari said: His mind became confused at the end of his life.
Among the most heinous things narrated by Ibn Lahi’ah is what Al-Hakim included in Al-Mustadrak from his chain of transmission on the authority of Abu Al-Aswad, on the authority of Urwah, on the authority of Aisha, who said: “The Messenger of Allah ﷺ died of pleurisy.” This is one of the things that proves his narrations are invalid, as it is proven in Al-Sahih that the Prophet ﷺ said when they beat him: “Why did you do this?” They said: “We feared that you might have pleurisy.” He said: “Allah would not have let it inflict it upon me.” Al-Hakim’s chain of transmission to Ibn Lahi’ah is sound, but the defect is from Ibn Lahi’ah himself, as if he had inserted a hadith into a hadith.
Ibn Hajar’s rank of Ibn Lahi’ah: Truthful — he got confused after his books were burned; the narrations of Ibn Al-Mubarak and Ibn Wahb from him are more just than others. Al-Dhahabi’s rank: Weak. The conclusion: the work is to weaken his hadith.
Third Narration: The Report from Hudhayfah (رضي الله عنه)
The narration’s source is Al-Bukhari’s Al-Tarikh Al-Kabir. Its chain of transmission includes , who is disputed over — some have deemed him trustworthy, while others have accused him of lying and abandoned him. It is also said that he was inclined towards Shi’ism.
The chain is: Muhammad Abu Yahya → Muhammad bin Sulayman bin Habib Al-Asadi → Abdullah bin Al-Zubayr Abu Abi Ahmad Al-Zubayri Al-Asadi → Abdullah bin Sharik Al-Amiri → his father: “I heard Hudhayfah recite Surah Al-Ahzab to the Prophet, and I forgot seventy verses of it.”
The scholars of criticism say about Abdullah bin Sharik Al-Amiri:
Al-Mizzi — Tahdhib Al-Kamal, and Al-Hafiz — Tahdhib Al-Tahdhib 5/253 Ali bin Al-Madini said on the authority of Sufyan: He was one hundred years old and was among those who came to Muhammad bin Al-Hanafiyyah. Ibrahim bin Muhammad bin Arara said on the authority of Sufyan bin Uyaynah: He was Mukhtari — and he did not narrate from him. Abd Al-Rahman bin Mahdi had stopped narrating from him. Ahmad bin Hanbal, Yahya bin Ma’een, and Abu Zur’ah said: He is trustworthy. Abu Hatim and Al-Nasa’i said: He is not strong. Al-Nasa’i said in another place: He is not bad. Ibrahim bin Ya’qub Al-Jawzjani said: Mukhtari — a liar. Ibn Hibban mentioned him in “Al-Thiqat” but said: He was an extremist in Shi’ism, he narrated from reliable narrators what did not resemble the hadith of trustworthy narrators. Abu Al-Fath Al-Azdi said: He is from the companions of Al-Mukhtar, his hadith is not written. Yaqub bin Sufyan said: He is trustworthy, from the great people of Kufa, he tends towards Shi’ism.
Ibn Hajar’s rank: Truthful, Shi’ite — Al-Jawzajani exaggerated and called him a liar. Al-Dhahabi’s rank: He was trusted by several, but Al-Nasa’i weakened him.
Therefore, this narration does not constitute evidence to prove the abrogation or loss of any verses from the Quran.
Second Narration: The Reports from Umar, Ubayy ibn Ka’b, and Ikrimah
This is a collection of several narrations that must be examined separately.
What Was Narrated from Umar (رضي الله عنه)
What was narrated from Umar ibn Al-Khattab, may God be pleased with him, is about the verse of stoning only — and not about the length of Surah Al-Ahzab. The discussion of the verse of stoning will be addressed separately below.
What Was Narrated from Ubayy ibn Ka’b (رضي الله عنه)
The narration is as follows: Ubayy ibn Ka’b said to Zur ibn Hubaish: “How many verses do you count in Surah Al-Ahzab?” He said: “Seventy-three verses.” He said: “If we were to equate it with Surah Al-Baqarah, at the end of it is the verse of stoning: ‘The old man and the old woman, so stone them.’”
Narrator: Zur Al-Muhaddith → Ibn Jarir Al-Tabari — Source: Musnad Omar — Page or number: 2/872
Summary of degree: Its chain of narration is authentic, and most scholars are of this opinion.
The narration of Ikrimah, freed slave of Ibn Abbas, in Al-Durr Al-Manthur, Vol. 5, p. 180 by Imam Jalal Al-Din Al-Suyuti: “Ibn Al-Durais narrated from Ikrimah who said: Surah Al-Ahzab was like Surah Al-Baqarah or longer, and it contained the verse of stoning.”
The Narration Attributed to Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه)
The narration attributed to Abu Bakr was weakened by some scholars. In its chain of transmission is , and he was weakened.
The question of the authenticity of the Ubayy narration was addressed in detail:
Abu Anas Al-Azhari — http://www.sonnh.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=373&PN=1 “This hadith was narrated by Ahmad with his chain of transmission on the authority of Yazid ibn Abi Ziyad on the authority of Zur ibn Hubaish on the authority of Ubayy ibn Ka’b, and another time on the authority of Asim ibn Bahdalah on the authority of Zur on the authority of Ubayy.
As for the first, its chain of transmission is weak due to the weakness of Yazid ibn Abi Ziyad. Ibn Ma’in said: He is weak in hadith. Ahmad ibn Hanbal said: He was not a hafiz. Abu Zur’ah said: He is weak, his hadith may be written down but not used as evidence. Ibn Al-Mubarak said: Throw him away. Ibn Hajar said: He is weak.
As for the second, it is also weak; in its chain of transmission is Asim ibn Bahdalah, he is Ibn Abi Al-Najud, the famous Abu Bakr Al-Muqri’, the Sheikh of Hafs Al-Muqri’. Abu Hatim said: His position with me is that of truthfulness, good in hadith, but he was not that good in hafiz. Al-Daraqutni said: There is something wrong with his memory. Ibn Sa’d said: He was trustworthy, except that he often made mistakes in his hadith. Ibn Hajar said: He is truthful but has errors, an authority in recitation.
The hadith revolves around Asim bin Bahdalah, and he is the only one who narrated this text, and his being the only one who narrated it is not valid due to his poor memory, and this hadith is considered one of the things in which Asim made a mistake.”
Sheikh Shuaib Al-Arnaout — Commentary on Musnad Al-Imam Ahmad First hadith (including Asim bin Abi Al-Najoud): “Its chain of transmission is weak. Asim bin Bahdalah — even though he is truthful — has some errors due to his poor memory, so it is not possible that he is the only one who narrated such a text. The rest of the men in the chain of transmission are trustworthy men of the two sheikhs except for Khalaf bin Hisham, who is from the men of Muslim.”
Second hadith (including Yazid bin Abi Ziyad): “Its chain of transmission is weak due to the weakness of Yazid bin Abi Ziyad, who is from Kufa. Ibn Ma’in said: He cannot be relied upon. Ibn Al-Mubarak said: Throw him away. Shu’bah said: He was a narrator. Even though Asim bin Bahdalah is truthful, he has errors due to his poor memory, and this hadith is considered one of his errors. Then there is something strange in the text, which is his saying: ‘I read it with the Messenger of Allah ﷺ…’”
Even If We Accept the Narrations — The Correct Interpretation
Even if we were to accept the authenticity of the Ubayy narration, it is possible that the meaning is not the disappearance of two hundred verses from Surah Al-Ahzab. Rather, the meaning may be that at the time of revelation, both surahs were approximately seventy verses, and Surah Al-Ahzab remained as it was while many new verses were subsequently revealed in Surah Al-Baqarah. Therefore there is no evidence from this hadith of the loss or abrogation of any verses from Surah Al-Ahzab.
The Verse of Stoning — What Does It Prove?
The narration of Ubayy ibn Ka’b mentions “the verse of stoning: the old man and the old woman, if they commit adultery, stone them both.” Umar ibn Al-Khattab, may God be pleased with him, himself addressed this on the pulpit of the Prophet ﷺ:
Sahih Muslim — Book of Punishments — Chapter on Stoning a Married Woman for Adultery Abu Al-Tahir and Harmalah bin Yahya told me. They said: Ibn Wahb told us. Yunus told me on the authority of Ibn Shihab. He said: Ubaidullah bin Abdullah bin Utbah told me that he heard Abdullah bin Abbas say: Umar bin Al-Khattab said while he was sitting on the pulpit of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ: “Allah sent Muhammad ﷺ with the truth and revealed the Book to him. Among what was revealed to him was the verse of stoning. We recited it, we became aware of it and understood it, so the Messenger of God ﷺ stoned, and we stoned after him. I fear that if the people live a long time, someone will say: ‘We do not find stoning in the Book of God,’ and they will go astray by abandoning an obligation that God has revealed. Stoning is in the Book of God, a right upon those who commit adultery if they are married — whether men or women — if evidence is established, or there is pregnancy or confession.”
This indicates that the verse on stoning was among the abrogated verses in Surah Al-Ahzab — abrogated in recitation but not in ruling. This is exactly what Ikrimah, may God have mercy on him, mentioned. These verses were abrogated in recitation, and the evidence is their association with the already-known abrogated verse of stoning.
Imam Al-Suyuti explicitly mentioned these narrations in Al-Itqan fi Ulum Al-Quran under the forty-seventh type: abrogating and abrogated verses. He placed the narration of Ubayy ibn Ka’b in the chapter titled: “The third type: What was abrogated in recitation but not in ruling.”
Imam Al-Suyuti — Al-Itqan fi Ulum Al-Quran, Type 47: On Abrogating and Abrogated Verses “He said to me Ubayy ibn Ka’b: How long is Surah Al-Ahzab? I said: Seventy-two verses or seventy-three verses. He said: It would be equal to Surah Al-Baqarah; and we used to recite in it the verse of stoning. I said: What is the verse of stoning? He said: ‘If an old man and an old woman commit adultery, stone them both. It is a punishment from Allah. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.’”
The phrase “we used to recite” — before abrogation — is like other phrases that indicate abrogation of recitation throughout the hadith literature: “raised,” “dropped from what was dropped from the Quran,” “it was among what was revealed,” “it was among what was recited,” “abrogated,” “I forgot it.” All such phrases mean abrogation of recitation.
Scholarly Disagreement on Abrogation of Recitation
Some scholars have held that it is not permissible for the abrogation of recitation to occur while the ruling remains, as is claimed for the verse of stoning, because the Quran is transmitted by continuous narration (tawatur) and the Quranic nature of a word cannot be proven through individual (ahad) narrations.
For example, Imam Al-Zarkashi stated in Al-Bahr Al-Muhit (The Book of Abrogation):
Shams Al-A’imma Al-Sarakhsi — cited in Al-Bahr Al-Muhit by Imam Al-Zarkashi, p. 255 “It is impossible to abrogate recitation while the ruling remains, because the ruling is not established without recitation. He cited the previous hadith of Umar as being among those whose script was abrogated, because the Quran is not established by such a thing — for whoever denies a verse of the Quran is an unbeliever, and such a thing does not make him an unbeliever. So if it is not established that it is the Quran, how can it be claimed that it was abrogated? Stoning is not known by this, but by the hadith of Ma’iz. Likewise the hadith of Aisha — for the Quran is not established by a single report. The author of ‘Al-Masader’ said: As for the abrogation of recitation without the ruling, its existence is not certain, because it is transmitted through the path of individuals.”
Ibn Hajar, may God have mercy on him, said in Fath Al-Bari about the abrogation of the verse on breastfeeding:
Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani — Fath Al-Bari “Also, Aisha’s statement — ‘Ten known breastfeedings, then they were abrogated by five known breastfeedings, and the Prophet ﷺ died while they were among what was recited’ — does not suffice to be used as evidence for the more correct of the two statements of the scholars of the principles of jurisprudence, because the Quran is not proven except by continuous transmission (tawatur), and the narrator narrated this as Quran, not as a report, so it was not proven that it was Quran, nor did the narrator mention that it was a report for his statement to be accepted in it, and God knows best.”
Al-Nahhas said in Al-Nasikh wa Al-Mansukh, p. 9:
Al-Nahhas — Al-Nasikh wa Al-Mansukh, p. 9 “The chain of transmission of the hadith is authentic; however, its ruling is not the ruling of the Quran that was transmitted by the group from the group — it is an established Sunnah. A person may say: ‘I used to recite such-and-such’ for something other than the Quran. The evidence for this is that Umar said: ‘If it were not for the fact that I hate it to be said: Umar added to the Quran, I would have added it.’ So it is not from the Quran, yes; it is a ruling established by evidence from outside, but that evidence prevents its being established in the Mushaf. If it were the Quran, Umar would have rushed and not paid attention to what people said, because what people said at that time is not a valid deterrent.”
Summary of the Response
The narration from Aisha — weak due to Ibn Lahi’ah.
The narration from Hudhayfah — weak due to Abdullah bin Sharik Al-Amiri, who is disputed and accused of Shi’ite extremism and lying.
The narrations attributed to Umar — relate only to the verse of stoning, not to the length of the surah.
The narration from Ubayy ibn Ka’b — weak in its chains due to Yazid ibn Abi Ziyad and Asim ibn Bahdalah; and even if accepted, it refers to abrogation of recitation, explicitly classified as such by Imam Al-Suyuti in Al-Itqan. The phrase “we used to recite” is the established formula for abrogated recitation.
The narration from Ikrimah — likewise refers to abrogation, as it links the additional verses directly to the already-known abrogated verse of stoning.
None of these narrations constitute evidence for the loss, distortion, or corruption of the Quran. The Quran is preserved by tawatur — continuous mass transmission — and no individual (ahad) narration can establish or challenge what is in the Mushaf.