World Dawah Quran & Sunnah through understanding of Salaf
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
Introduction
All praise is due to Allah, Lord of the worlds, and may peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad, his family, and all of his Companions.
To proceed:
Among the objections raised by critics of Islam against the preservation of the Qur’an is their appeal to a narration from the Mother of the Believers, ʿĀʾishah (may Allah be pleased with her), in which it is reported that a domesticated animal entered and ate a manuscript that had been kept beneath her bed. They claim that this demonstrates that part of the Qur’an was lost, thereby contradicting Allah’s statement:
Indeed, it is We who sent down the Reminder, and indeed, We will surely preserve it. (Qur’an 15:9)
This allegation rests upon two assumptions:
- That the narration is authentic and beyond criticism.
- That even if authentic it proves that part of the Qur’an was lost.
Neither assumption is correct. The narration itself is not established in the manner claimed by the critics. Even if, for the sake of argument, its authenticity were conceded, it would still provide no evidence whatsoever that any part of the Qur’an was lost or that Allah’s promise to preserve His Book was compromised.
This will become clear through the following discussion.
First Response: The Narration Is Not Authentic, So There Is No Contradiction
The narration upon which the critics base this objection is the report from the Mother of the Believers, ʿĀʾishah (may Allah be pleased with her), who is reported to have said:
The verse of stoning and the verse concerning ten breastfeedings for an adult were revealed. They were written on a sheet that was kept beneath my bed. When the Messenger of Allah ﷺ passed away and we were occupied with his death, a domesticated animal entered and ate it.
It was recorded by Abū Yaʿlā (4569), al-Dāraquṭnī (4330), al-Bayhaqī in al-Maʿrifah (15468), Ibn Mājah (1944), al-Ṭabarānī in al-Awsaṭ (7805), and Ibn Ḥazm in al-Muḥallā (11/235), through the route of ʿAbd al-Aʿlā → Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq → ʿAbdullāh ibn Abī Bakr → ʿAmrah → ʿĀʾishah.
It was also narrated by Imām Aḥmad (6/269) through Ibrāhīm ibn Saʿd → Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq → ʿAbdullāh ibn Abī Bakr.
Likewise, Abū Yaʿlā, al-Dāraquṭnī, Ibn Mājah, al-Ṭabarānī, and Ibn Ḥazm transmitted it through ʿAbd al-Aʿlā → Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq → ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn al-Qāsim → his father → ʿĀʾishah.
Upon examining the various chains of transmission, it becomes apparent that despite their apparent multiplicity, they all revolve around a single narrator Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq. He alone is the source of this additional wording, whether he narrated it from ʿAbdullāh ibn Abī Bakr or from ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn al-Qāsim. Consequently, these routes do not constitute genuinely independent corroborating chains, for in hadith criticism what matters is the point at which the chains converge, and here they all converge upon a single narrator.
More importantly, Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq was contradicted by narrators who were more reliable and possessed stronger memories.
Imām Mālik narrated this same report from ʿAbdullāh ibn Abī Bakr, from ʿAmrah, from ʿĀʾishah with the wording:
Among what was revealed of the Qur’an was: ‘Ten known breastfeedings make marriage unlawful.’ Then this was abrogated by ‘five known breastfeedings.’ The Messenger of Allah ﷺ passed away while this was still being recited from the Qur’an.
Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ (1270).
A report conveying the same meaning was also narrated through ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn al-Qāsim from his father from ʿAmrah, as recorded by al-Ṭaḥāwī in Mushkil al-Āthār (3/7) and Ibn Mājah (1942).
Likewise, Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd al-Anṣārī narrated from ʿAmrah from ʿĀʾishah:
The Qur’an was revealed with ten known breastfeedings that made marriage unlawful; then they were reduced to five
Recorded by Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim (1452), ʿAbd al-Razzāq (13913), al-Dāraquṭnī (4338), Musnad al-Shāfiʿī (307), and al-Bayhaqī (7/454).
Similarly, Ḥammād ibn Salamah narrated from ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn al-Qāsim, from his father, from ʿAmrah, from ʿĀʾishah:
“Among what Allah revealed in the Qur’an, and which was later removed, was: ‘Nothing prohibits marriage except ten breastfeedings, or five known breastfeedings.’”
Recorded by Ibn Mājah (1942) and al-Ṭaḥāwī in Mushkil al-Āthār (3/7).
These leading hadith authorities all transmitted the original narration concerning breastfeeding, yet not a single one mentioned the manuscript, the domesticated animal, or the claim that it ate the written page.
This is the real defect in the disputed narration. The addition, “a domesticated animal entered and ate it,” was narrated exclusively by Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq despite his contradiction of narrators who were more reliable and more precise. According to the principles of hadith criticism, such an isolated addition is classified as shādhdh (anomalous).
The hadith critics explicitly discussed Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq from this perspective.
Imām al-Dhahabī said:
“As for narrations concerning legal rulings, his reports fall from the level of ṣaḥīḥ to that of ḥasan, except for those in which he narrates something anomalous, for such reports are regarded as objectionable (munkar).”
Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ (7/41).
He also wrote:
“What appears to me is that Ibn Isḥāq is acceptable in hadith, upright in character, and truthful. However, whatever he narrates alone contains an element of irregularity, for there is some weakness in his memory.”
Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl (3/475).
This is precisely the point at issue. No one disputes the underlying narration concerning breastfeeding. The discussion concerns only this additional statement, which Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq narrated alone while contradicting the established narrations of more reliable authorities. Such an addition is therefore anomalous and cannot be used to oppose a matter established by definitive evidence, namely Allah’s preservation of His Book.
A Number of Scholars Explicitly Declared This Addition Weak
The foregoing conclusion is further strengthened by the fact that several early scholars explicitly stated that this narration or at least this particular addition is not authentic.
Ibn Qutaybah al-Dīnawarī, after mentioning the narration of the domesticated animal, wrote:
The Messenger of Allah ﷺ carried out stoning, the Muslims carried it out after him, and the jurists acted upon it. As for the report of ten breastfeedings for an adult, we consider it to be a mistake on the part of Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq. Nor can we be certain that the mention of stoning on this manuscript was authentic, because the Messenger of Allah ﷺ had already stoned Māʿiz ibn Mālik and others before this time. How then could it have been revealed to him again? Furthermore, Mālik ibn Anas narrated this very hadith from ʿAbdullāh ibn Abī Bakr, from ʿAmrah, from ʿĀʾishah, who said: ‘Among what was revealed of the Qur’an were ten known breastfeedings… then they were abrogated by five known breastfeedings…’ The wording of Mālik’s narration differs from that of Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq, and Mālik is more reliable than Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq according to the scholars of hadith.
Taʾwīl Mukhtalif al-Ḥadīth, pp. 314–315.
This is among the finest analyses of the issue. Ibn Qutaybah did not merely judge the report to be weak; rather, he explained why. Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq contradicted Imām Mālik, whose precision and reliability were unquestionably superior. It is a well-established principle of hadith criticism that, when trustworthy narrators disagree, the narration of the more reliable narrator is given precedence.
This observation is particularly insightful. Interpreting the narration according to its apparent meaning would necessarily imply that part of the Qur’an disappeared after the death of the Prophet ﷺ. Yet this conclusion has been unanimously rejected by the Muslim community. Therefore, it is impermissible to interpret a disputed report in a manner that contradicts both scholarly consensus (ijmāʿ) and the definitive texts of revelation.
The Appeal to Ibn Ḥazm’s Authentication and the Response
Some critics attempt to strengthen their argument by pointing out that Ibn Ḥazm declared this narration authentic in al-Muḥallā, where he simply described it as ṣaḥīḥ.
This appeal is incomplete and misleading because it quotes only one statement from Ibn Ḥazm while ignoring his detailed discussion of the very same issue elsewhere.
In Al-Iḥkām, Ibn Ḥazm wrote:
Some people have fallen into a grave error by relying upon reports fabricated by liars and heretics, among them the claim that a domesticated animal ate a manuscript containing a Qur’anic verse that continued to be recited, causing it to disappear altogether
He then continued:
All of this is misguidance, from which we seek refuge with Allah. The only belief that is permissible is Allah’s statement: ‘Indeed, it is We who sent down the Reminder, and indeed, We will surely preserve it.’ Whoever doubts this has committed disbelief. Such people have also spoken shamefully about the Mothers of the Believers by accusing them of neglecting what was being recited in their homes until a sheep consumed it and it was thereby lost. This is manifest falsehood and an impossibility. For whatever the domesticated animal supposedly ate must fall into one of two possibilities: either the Messenger of Allah ﷺ had memorized it, or Allah had already caused him to forget it. If he had memorized it, then it makes no difference whether the animal ate the manuscript or left it untouched. If Allah had already caused him to forget it, then whether the animal ate it or not, it had already been removed from the Qur’an. Therefore, it is impermissible to include it in the Qur’an… Rather, whatever Allah removed from the Qur’an was removed during the lifetime of the Prophet ﷺ. It is impossible for any of this to occur after the death of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. Were it otherwise, it would amount to denying Allah’s statement: ‘Today I have perfected for you your religion.’ It would also mean that something was removed from the religion after the Messenger’s death, thereby introducing a deficiency into the religion and contradicting the perfection that Allah guaranteed.
Al-Iḥkām fī Uṣūl al-Aḥkām (1/491–492).
This passage makes it unmistakably clear that Ibn Ḥazm never accepted the interpretation advanced by the critics. On the contrary, he refuted it in the strongest possible terms. He affirmed that claiming any portion of the Qur’an was lost after the Prophet’s death directly contradicts Allah’s promise to preserve His Book as well as the perfection and completion of the religion. The consumption of a written manuscript by an animal could never result in the loss of any part of the Qur’an whether that passage remained part of the recited Qur’an or had already been abrogated by Allah during the lifetime of His Messenger ﷺ.
It therefore becomes evident that citing Ibn Ḥazm’s brief authentication while omitting his own explanation and legal conclusion is an incomplete and misleading use of his words.
Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Qurṭubī likewise said:
As for the claim that this addition was written on a manuscript in the house of ʿĀʾishah and that a domesticated animal ate it, this is an invention of the heretics and the Rāfiḍah.
Tafsīr al-Qurṭubī (14/112).
Al-Zamakhsharī expressed a similar view in al-Kashshāf (3/518).
Al-Qurṭubī did not mean that no such report exists in the hadith collections. Rather, he was condemning the interpretation promoted by the people of innovation who use this report to claim that part of the Qur’an was lost. Such a conclusion is false and contradicts the mass-transmitted certainty that Allah has preserved His Book.
Thus, the appeal to this narration fails even from the standpoint of hadith criticism. The disputed addition rests entirely upon a single narrator who contradicted more reliable authorities. Moreover, numerous leading scholars either declared this addition weak or rejected the conclusion drawn from it. It is therefore impermissible to oppose a definitive principle explicitly established by the Qur’an and unanimously affirmed by the Muslim community on the basis of such a report.
Second Response: Even If the Narration Is Judged Authentic or Acceptable, It Does Not Indicate That Any Part of the Qur’an Was Lost
At most, one may concede purely for the sake of argument that the narration is authentic. Yet this does not benefit those who cite it as evidence, because the authenticity of a report does not necessarily validate one’s interpretation of it. The decisive consideration is its meaning and implication. Many authentic narrations have been misunderstood by some people, only for the scholars to interpret them in light of the clear and definitive texts and in a manner consistent with the established principles of the Sharīʿah.
Accordingly, even if this narration were accepted as authentic, it would not indicate that any part of the Qur’an was lost. At most, it informs us that a particular manuscript belonging to the Mother of the Believers, ʿĀʾishah (may Allah be pleased with her), was consumed by a domesticated animal. The Qur’an itself, however, had already been preserved in the hearts of the Companions, written in numerous manuscripts, and transmitted through uninterrupted mass transmission (tawātur) from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. The loss of a single manuscript could therefore never result in the loss of any portion of Allah’s Book.
This may be demonstrated from several perspectives.
First: ʿĀʾishah Was Not the Only One Who Possessed the Qur’an; Rather, It Was Preserved in the Hearts of the Companions and Written in Numerous Manuscripts
This fact alone is sufficient to invalidate the objection.
The preservation of the Qur’an never depended upon a single written manuscript, nor was the copy possessed by the Mother of the Believers, ʿĀʾishah (may Allah be pleased with her), the master copy upon which the Muslims relied. Rather, the Qur’an had been memorized by a large number of the Companions, written down in the presence of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ by the scribes of revelation, and many Companions possessed personal manuscripts in which they recorded portions of the Qur’an.
Consequently, even if one manuscript belonging to one of the Companions were destroyed, lost, or eaten by an animal, this would have had no effect whatsoever upon the preservation of the Qur’an. That manuscript was merely one means of recording the revelation. The primary means of preservation was the collective memorization and transmission of the Muslim community from their Prophet ﷺ.
Ibn Ḥazm said:
“This narration is authentic, but it is not as they imagine. When the verse of stoning was revealed, it was memorized, known, and acted upon by the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. However, the scribes of the Qur’an did not record it in the muṣḥafs, nor did they preserve its wording as part of the Qur’an. ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb requested this, as we have previously mentioned, but the Messenger of Allah ﷺ did not grant his request. Thus, it is established that its recitation had been abrogated. The manuscript upon which it had been written remained, as ʿĀʾishah (may Allah be pleased with her) said, until the domesticated animal ate it, though no one had any further need for it. The same applies to the verse concerning breastfeeding, without any difference. The proof of this is that they had memorized it, as we have already related. Had it remained part of the Qur’an, the animal’s consumption of that manuscript would never have prevented them from restoring it to the Qur’an from memory.
Therefore, we know with certainty that no two Muslims disagree that Allah obligated His Messenger ﷺ to convey the revelation, and that he fulfilled that duty completely… Thus, if those verses had been among what the Messenger ﷺ was commanded to convey permanently, he would certainly have conveyed them. Had he conveyed them, they would have been preserved. Had they been preserved, his death would not have affected them, just as his death did not affect the rest of the Qur’an that he conveyed. If, however, he did not convey them permanently, or he conveyed them and then Allah caused both him and the people to forget them, or they remembered them but he did not command that they be written into the Qur’an, then they were certainly abrogated by Allah, and it is impermissible to include them as part of the Qur’an.
Al-Muḥallā (11/236).
This is among the strongest responses to the objection. Ibn Ḥazm explains that, even assuming the manuscript was eaten, this could not possibly result in the loss of any portion of the Qur’an, because the Qur’an was never preserved exclusively in that manuscript. It had already been memorized by the Companions. Had those verses remained part of the Qur’an that Allah commanded to be preserved, the Companions would simply have restored them from memory. The destruction of a single manuscript could therefore have had no effect whatsoever.
The objection thus rests upon a fundamentally mistaken conception of how the Qur’an was preserved during the lifetime of the Prophet ﷺ and his Companions. Its proponents imagine that the Qur’an depended upon scattered sheets of parchment, such that the loss of one sheet meant the loss of whatever was written upon it. This was never the case. The primary means of preservation was memorization and direct oral transmission, while writing served to document and reinforce that preservation not to replace it as the sole repository of the Qur’an.
Second: The Interpretation of the Scholars Regarding Allah’s Statement : Indeed, We Will Surely Preserve It
The critics appeal to Allah’s statement:
Indeed, it is We who sent down the Reminder, and indeed, We will surely preserve it. (Qur’an 15:9)
They then interpret this preservation in a manner never proposed by any classical exegete namely, that Allah promised to preserve every individual sheet upon which any portion of the Qur’an was written.
The exegetes understood the verse quite differently.
Muḥammad ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī said:
Allah, Exalted is He, says: ‘Indeed, it is We who sent down the Reminder’ that is, the Qur’an ‘and indeed, We will surely preserve it.’ That is, We shall preserve the Qur’an from having falsehood added to it that does not belong to it, or from having anything removed from it that truly belongs to it, whether its rulings, limits, or obligations.
He then narrated with his chain from Qatādah concerning Allah’s statement, Indeed, We will surely preserve it, who said:
Allah preserved it from Satan adding any falsehood to it or removing any truth from it.
Al-Ṭabarī then mentioned another interpretation that the pronoun refers to the Prophet ﷺ but concluded in a manner indicating that referring it to the Qur’an is the apparent meaning of the context.
Tafsīr al-Ṭabarī (8/8).
Al-Ṭabarī therefore did not interpret Allah’s promise as the preservation of individual manuscripts. Rather, he understood it as the preservation of the Qur’an itself from addition, omission, and distortion.
Likewise, Ibn Kathīr wrote:
Allah then affirmed that He is the One who revealed the Reminder, the Qur’an and that He is its Protector against alteration and corruption. Some scholars held that the pronoun in His statement, ‘We will surely preserve it,’ refers to the Prophet ﷺ However, the first interpretation is stronger, and it is the apparent meaning of the context.
Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr (8/246).
The statements of these two eminent exegetes clearly demonstrate that the divine promise concerns the preservation of the Qur’an itself from alteration, omission, and corruption not the preservation of every physical manuscript upon which revelation was once written.
Accordingly, the critics’ appeal to this verse is misplaced, for they have interpreted it in a way that no recognized authority in Qur’anic exegesis has ever endorsed.
The Authentic Sunnah Further Clarifies the Meaning of This Divine Preservation
Among the clearest explanations of how Allah preserves the Qur’an is the authentic narration of ʿIyāḍ ibn Ḥimār al-Mujāshiʿī, in which the Prophet ﷺ relates from his Lord:
And I have revealed to you a Book that water cannot wash away.
Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim (2865).
The scholars explained the meaning of this description.
Imām Yaḥyā ibn Sharaf al-Nawawī said:
As for His statement, ‘Water cannot wash it away,’ its meaning is that it is preserved in the hearts, and cannot be lost. Rather, it will remain throughout the ages. As for His statement, ‘You shall recite it while asleep and awake,’ the scholars said that it means it will be preserved for you in both the states of sleep and wakefulness. It has also been said that it means you will recite it with ease and facility.
Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim by al-Nawawī (9/217).
This hadith demonstrates one of the unique characteristics with which Allah distinguished the Qur’an. Its preservation does not depend solely upon written manuscripts such that, if its pages were destroyed or its copies lost, its contents would disappear. Rather, Allah preserved it within the hearts of the believers, who transmit it from one generation to the next, ensuring that it remains intact throughout the ages.
The falsity of this objection therefore becomes clear. At most, the narration concerns a particular manuscript belonging to one individual. The Qur’an itself, however, was preserved by Allah in the hearts of the believers before it was preserved in written pages. Consequently, the loss of a single manuscript could never result in the loss of any part of the Book of Allah.
The Scholars Explained How This Preservation Was Accomplished
Among the finest discussions of this subject is that of Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, who wrote:
The third issue: If we say that the pronoun refers to the Qur’an, then the scholars differ regarding the manner in which Allah preserves it. Some said that He preserved it by making it miraculous and distinct from all human speech, such that mankind is incapable of adding to it or subtracting from it. Were anyone to add or remove anything, the unique composition of the Qur’an would immediately be altered, making it evident to every rational person that such wording is not part of the Qur’an. Thus, its miraculous nature serves as a protective barrier, just as city walls protect a city.
Others said that Allah preserved it by preventing anyone from producing anything comparable to it.
Others said that He prevented its destruction and corruption by raising up groups of people who memorize it, study it, and spread it among mankind until the end of the period of religious responsibility.
Others said that the intended preservation is that if anyone attempted to alter even a single letter or diacritical mark, the people throughout the world would immediately say, ‘This is falsehood and an alteration of the Word of Allah.’ Indeed, if even a venerable elder were to make a slip in reciting a single letter of the Book of Allah, children themselves would correct him, saying, ‘You have erred, Shaykh; the correct reading is such-and-such.’ This is the meaning of Allah’s statement: ‘Indeed, We will surely preserve it.’
Know that no other scripture has ever enjoyed such preservation. Every other book has been affected by scribal errors, alterations, or corruptions, whether to a great or small extent. That this Book has remained protected from every form of distortion despite the persistent efforts of heretics, Jews, and Christians to invalidate or corrupt it is among the greatest of miracles.”
Tafsīr al-Rāzī (19/160–161).
These remarks succinctly capture the reality of the Qur’an’s preservation. Allah did not make the safeguarding of His Book dependent upon a particular manuscript or a particular individual. Rather, He preserved it through numerous means: its miraculous nature, its widespread transmission throughout the Muslim community, the vast number of those who memorized it, and its continuous transmission from generation to generation. As a result, altering even a single letter became something that could not escape the notice of even Muslim children, let alone the scholars.
Whoever reflects upon the condition of the Muslim community from the era of the Companions until the present day will recognize the fulfillment of this divine promise. The Qur’an is recited across the east and west of the world in the same wording. It has been memorized by millions of men and women, young and old alike. If a reciter errs in even a single letter or vowel, there are immediately those who will correct him. This is among the clearest manifestations of Allah’s preservation of His Book.
Third: Allah Himself Guaranteed the Preservation of the Qur’an, Unlike the Previous Scriptures
Among the greatest distinctions between the Qur’an and the previous revealed scriptures is that Allah did not entrust its preservation to mankind. Rather, He Himself guaranteed its preservation. Consequently, it has remained exactly as it was revealed without any addition or omission.
This divine preservation began from the very first moment of revelation.
Allah, Exalted is He, says:
Do not move your tongue with it in haste. Indeed, upon Us rests its collection and its recitation. So when We have recited it, then follow its recitation. Then indeed, upon Us rests its clarification. (Qur’an 75:16–19)
Ibn Kathīr commented:
This is instruction from Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, to His Messenger ﷺ concerning how he should receive revelation from the angel. The Prophet ﷺ would hasten to receive it, reciting along with the angel. Therefore, Allah commanded him that whenever the angel brought revelation, he should listen attentively. Allah guaranteed that He would gather it in his heart, enable him to recite it exactly as it had been conveyed to him, and explain its meaning to him and make it clear. Thus, the first stage was gathering it in his heart, the second was its recitation, and the third was its explanation and clarification.
Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr (14/196).
The first manifestation of Allah’s preservation, therefore, was His guarantee that the Qur’an would be gathered securely within the heart of His Messenger ﷺ. He did not leave this to the Prophet’s own efforts but explicitly declared:
Indeed, upon Us rests its collection and its recitation.
Allah also guaranteed something further: that His Messenger ﷺ would not forget anything that he had been commanded to convey.
Allah says:
We shall make you recite, and you will not forget except what Allah wills. (Qur’an 87:6–7)
The scholars differed regarding the meaning of the exception. The interpretation most relevant to the present discussion and the one preferred by Imām al-Ṭabarī is that it refers to whatever Allah willed to abrogate and remove during the lifetime of the Prophet ﷺ.
Muḥammad ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī said:
The view that I consider most correct is that the meaning is: ‘You will not forget except what We will that you should forget through its abrogation and removal.’ We consider this interpretation strongest because it is the most apparent meaning of the verse.
Tafsīr al-Ṭabarī (15/154).
This demonstrates that whatever Allah removed from the Qur’an was removed solely by His revelation and His will not through an accidental event, the loss of a manuscript, or the consumption of a page by a domesticated animal. The two matters are fundamentally different.
Third Response: Allah Personally Guaranteed the Preservation of the Qur’an, Whereas the Previous Scriptures Were Entrusted to Their Followers
A complete response to this objection also requires recognizing that the Noble Qur’an is unlike the previous revealed scriptures. Allah granted it a unique distinction by personally guaranteeing its preservation. He did not entrust its safeguarding to human beings or leave it to the scholars and religious authorities. By contrast, the previous scriptures were entrusted to their custodians, who failed in that trust, resulting in alteration and distortion.
Allah says:
Indeed, it is We who sent down the Reminder, and indeed, We will surely preserve it. (Qur’an 15:9)
Regarding the Torah, however, Allah says:
Indeed, We sent down the Torah, containing guidance and light. By it the prophets who submitted judged for the Jews, as did the rabbis and scholars, by that with which they had been entrusted from the Book of Allah. (Qur’an 5:44)
Allah also says:
They distort words from their proper places. (Qur’an 5:13)
The distinction between these passages is unmistakable.
Concerning the Qur’an, Allah declares that He Himself has undertaken its preservation:
Indeed, we will surely preserve it.
Regarding the Torah, however, He states that the rabbis and scholars were entrusted with its preservation. When they neglected that trust, the distortions described by Allah in numerous verses followed.
One of the clearest historical examples is what occurred among the Jews concerning the punishment of stoning.
Ibn Kathīr wrote:
It has been said that this verse was revealed concerning a group of Jews who killed a man and said, ‘Let us refer our dispute to Muḥammad. If he rules that blood money is due, then accept his judgment; but if he rules in favor of legal retaliation, then do not listen to him.’ The correct view, however, is that it was revealed concerning the two Jewish adulterers. The Jews had altered the Book of Allah that was in their possession by replacing the ruling of stoning for married adulterers. They substituted it with one hundred lashes, blackening the faces, and parading the offenders backwards upon a donkey. When this incident occurred after the Prophet’s migration to Madinah, they said among themselves: ‘Let us take our case to him. If he rules with flogging and blackening, then accept his judgment and use it as evidence before Allah, for one of Allah’s prophets will have judged accordingly. But if he rules with stoning, then do not follow him in that ruling.
Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr (5/219–220).
This is a practical example of the distortion that Allah describes in the previous scriptures. The alteration became so extensive that an explicit ruling of the Torah was replaced, and they even sought the Prophet’s ﷺ approval for that alteration.
Nothing comparable ever occurred with the Qur’an. Allah did not entrust its preservation to mankind; rather, He personally guaranteed it. Consequently, it has remained exactly as it was revealed. No one has ever been able to add a single letter to it or remove a single letter from it and have such a change accepted by the Muslim community.
Among the finest reports illustrating this reality is what Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Qurṭubī narrated with his chain of transmission from Yaḥyā ibn Aktham, who said:
Al-Maʾmūn who was then the ruler held a gathering for scholarly discussion. Among those present was a Jewish man, well-dressed, handsome, and pleasant in fragrance. He spoke eloquently and expressed himself remarkably well. When the gathering concluded, al-Maʾmūn summoned him and asked, ‘Are you an Israelite?’ He replied, ‘Yes.’ Al-Maʾmūn said, ‘Accept Islam, and I will honor you and bestow favors upon you,’ making him various promises. The man replied, ‘My religion is the religion of my forefathers,’ and departed.
A year later, the same man returned as a Muslim. He then spoke on matters of jurisprudence with great excellence. After the gathering ended, al-Maʾmūn called him and asked, ‘Are you not the same man who was here last year?’ He replied, ‘Indeed I am.’ Al-Maʾmūn then asked, ‘What led you to embrace Islam?’
The man replied: ‘After leaving your gathering, I decided to test these religions. As you can see, I possess fine handwriting. I began with the Torah and produced three copies, deliberately adding to it and omitting from it. I then brought them to the synagogue, and they purchased them from me. Next, I did the same with the Gospel, producing three altered copies, which I took to the church, and they likewise purchased them. Then I turned to the Qur’an. I produced three copies, intentionally inserting additions and omissions, and brought them to the booksellers. They examined the manuscripts, and as soon as they discovered the alterations, they discarded them and refused to purchase them. At that moment I realized that this is a Book that has been preserved. That was the reason for my embracing Islam.’
Yaḥyā ibn Aktham continued: ‘That same year I performed the pilgrimage and met Sufyān ibn ʿUyaynah. I related this incident to him, and he said to me, “The proof of this is found in the Book of Allah.”
I asked, “Where?”
He replied, “It is in Allah’s statement concerning the Torah and the Gospel: because they were entrusted with the Book of Allah (Qur’an 5:44). Their preservation was entrusted to them, and they failed in that trust. But regarding the Qur’an, Allah said: ‘Indeed, it is We who sent down the Reminder, and indeed, We will surely preserve it. Thus Allah Himself preserved it for us, and it was never lost
Tafsīr al-Qurṭubī (10/10).
Although this report is not itself the foundation of the argument, it vividly illustrates the difference between the Qur’an and the previous scriptures. The man did not embrace Islam merely because he heard the claim that the Qur’an was preserved; rather, he tested the matter for himself. He observed that additions and omissions could pass undetected in copies of other scriptures, whereas with the Qur’an, the Muslim community as a whole functioned as its guardian. The moment the alterations were detected, the manuscripts were rejected outright. This corresponded precisely to Allah’s promise to preserve His Book, as understood by Imām Sufyān ibn ʿUyaynah from the Qur’an itself.
Conclusion
After examining the evidence, it becomes clear that this objection rests upon no sound scholarly foundation. Rather, it is built upon two assumptions, both of which are false.
The first assumption is the appeal to the narration of the domesticated animal. As has been shown, the disputed addition upon which the objection depends revolves entirely around Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq, who contradicted narrators more reliable and more precise than himself. Furthermore, a number of leading scholars either declared this addition weak or demonstrated the invalidity of deriving such a conclusion from it.
The second assumption is that even if the narration were authentic it proves that part of the Qur’an was lost. This claim likewise collapses for numerous reasons. The Qur’an was never preserved in a single manuscript. Rather, it was memorized by the Companions, written in numerous manuscripts, and preserved by Allah Himself. He gathered it in the heart of His Messenger ﷺ, guaranteed that he would not forget anything except what Allah Himself chose to abrogate during his lifetime, and then caused it to be transmitted by the Muslims through uninterrupted mass transmission from generation to generation until it has remained exactly as it was revealed.
It has likewise become evident that there is a fundamental distinction between the Qur’an and the previous revealed scriptures. The earlier scriptures were entrusted to their followers, who failed in that trust, resulting in alteration and corruption. The Qur’an, however, was personally guaranteed by Allah Himself. His promise has been fulfilled, and His Book has remained protected from addition, omission, and distortion until the Day of Resurrection.
A Final Reminder for Muslims
Among the greatest principles that every Muslim should hold firmly to when confronted with doubts and objections is that definitive and unequivocal evidence is never overturned by speculative reports or narrations whose authenticity or interpretation is disputed.
Whenever a report appears to conflict with a definitive principle established by the Qur’an, the mutawātir Sunnah, or the consensus of the Muslim community, it is impermissible to treat that report as the controlling authority by which the definitive texts are reinterpreted. Rather, the report itself must be understood in light of those definitive sources. If it accords with them, it is accepted; if it appears to conflict with them, then the deficiency lies either in its authenticity or in the interpretation that has been imposed upon it.
This has always been the methodology of the scholars, both early and later. They interpret the ambiguous in light of the clear, the speculative in light of the definitive, and reconcile the evidence rather than setting them against one another. Consequently, the existence of a disputed narration has never been regarded as grounds for undermining a definitive principle established by the Qur’an and transmitted by the Muslim community generation after generation.
If the door were opened to challenging definitive doctrines on the basis of every ambiguous report or every mistaken interpretation of the texts, no principle of the religion would remain beyond doubt. Such is not the path of the scholars. Rather, they make the unequivocal texts the foundation to which everything else is referred, in accordance with Allah’s statement:
It is He who has sent down to you the Book. In it are verses that are precise they are the foundation of the Book and others that are ambiguous (Qur’an 3:7)
Whoever follows this methodology will be protected from deviation and, by Allah’s permission, safeguarded from confusion whenever doubts and objections arise. Allah alone grants success and guides to the straight path.
