A Narrative on the Placement of Surah Anfal and Surah Tawbah in the ‘Uthmanic Collection of the Qur’an

I. Introduction

A narrative informs us that ‘Uthmān (rta) exercised his own judgement in placing Sūrah Anfāl (8) and Sūrah Tawbah / Barā’ah (9)  together when the Qur’ān was written in his times; since he had no guidance regarding this from the Prophet (sws), he considered them to be a single sūrah because of similarity of the topics of both sūrahs.1

In this article, an analysis of this narrative shall be attempted.

II. A Typical Text

Following is a typical text of the narrative:

حدثنا محمد بن بشار حدثنا يحيى بن سعيد ومحمد بن جعفر وبن أبي عدي وسهل بن يوسف قالوا حدثنا عوف بن أبي جميلة حدثنا يزيد الفارسي حدثنا بن عباس قال قلت لعثمان بن عفان ما حملكم أن عمدتم إلى الأنفال وهي من المثاني وإلى براءة وهي من المئين فقرنتم بينهما و لم تكتبوا بينهما سطر بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم و وضعتموها في السبع الطول ما حملكم على ذلك فقال عثمان كان رسول الله ما يأتي عليه الزمان و هو تنزل عليه السور ذوات العدد فكان إذا نزل عليه الشيء دعا بعض من كان يكتب فيقول ضعوا هؤلاء الآيات في السورة التي يذكر فيها كذا و كذا وإذا نزلت عليه الآية فيقول ضعوا هذه الآية في السورة التي يذكر فيها كذا وكذا وكانت الأنفال من أوائل ما أنزلت بالمدينة وكانت براءة من آخر القرآن وكانت قصتها شبيهة بقصتها فظننت أنها منها فقبض رسول الله e ولم يبين لنا أنها منها فمن أجل ذلك قرنت بينهما ولم أكتب بينهما سطر بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم فوضعتها في السبع الطول قال أبو عيسى هذا حديث حسن صحيح لا نعرفه إلا من حديث عوف عن يزيد الفارسي عن بن عباس ويزيد الفارسي قد روى عن بن عباس غير حديث ويقال هو يزيد بن هرمز ويزيد الرقاشي هو يزيد بن أبان الرقاشي ولم يدرك بن عباس إنما روى عن أنس بن مالك وكلاهما من أهل البصرة ويزيد الفارسي أقدم من يزيد الرقاشي

Muhammad ibn Bashshār narrated to us; he said that Yahyā ibn Sa‘īd and Muhammad ibn Ja‘far and Ibn Abī ‘Adi and Sahl ibn Yūsuf said that ‘Awf ibn Abī Jamīlah narrated to us; he said that Yazīd al-Fārisī narrated to us from Ibn ‘Abbās: “I asked ‘Uthmān: ‘What made you position together Sūrah Anfāl which is among the mathānī and Surah Barā’ah which is among the mi’ūn and not write the basmalah between them and you placed the two among the sab‘ tuwal. What induced you to do this?’ ‘Uthmān replied: ‘There were times in the life of the Prophet (sws) when many sūrahs would be simultaneously revealed to him. When something would be revealed to him, he would call some of those who used to write [in front of him] and say: “Place this [section of verses] in the sūrah in which such and such an incident is mentioned,” and [similarly] when [a single] verse would be revealed, he would say: “Place it in the sūrah in which such and such an incident is mentioned.” Sūrah Anfāl was among the first sūrahs revealed in Madīnah, and Sūrah Barā’ah was the last sūrah revealed and both mentioned the same topic. So I thought that Sūrah Barā’a was part of Sūrah Anfāl and the Prophet (sws) died without specifying this. So, because of this, I positioned them together and did not write the basmalah and placed the two among the sab‘ tuwal.’” Abū ‘Īsā said: This narrative is hasanūn sahīhun; we only know it through ‘Awf who reports it from Yazīd al-Fārisī who reports it from ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Abbās. And Yazīd al-Fārisī has more than one narrative from Ibn ‘Abbās and it has been said that he is Yazīd ibn Hurmuz and Yazīd al-Raqqāshī is in fact Yazīd ibn Abān al-Raqqāshī, and he has not met Ibn ‘Abbās. He has narrated from Anas ibn Mālik and both of them belong to Basrah and Yazīd al-Fārisī lived much earlier than Yazīd al-Raqqāshī.2

III. Criticism and Analysis

A. Criticism on the Text and its Analysis

1. Internal Contradiction

According to Rahmānī3, there exists a strong internal contradiction within the narrative.

The narrative clearly says two things:

i. When verses which would be part of some sūrah would be revealed to the Prophet (sws), he would have them written in it.

ii. Sūrah Barā’ah which was revealed later was not made part of Sūrah Anfāl which was revealed earlier.

These two premises when combined clearly show that Sūrah Barā’ah was not part of Sūrah Anfāl. If this is the case, then how could ‘Uthmān (rta) have argued from the fact that since the two sūrahs had a similar topic, he had placed them together. It is highly unlikely, in fact, impossible for ‘Uthmān (rta) to have said this when he already had clearly said that the two sūrahs were revealed at different times and the Prophet (sws) never told the Companions (rta) that they were part of each other. The absence of any such specification by the Prophet (sws) obviously means that the two are not part of one another.

As far as the similarity of the topic itself is concerned, Rahmānī says that two things need to be understood:

i. There are many sūrahs of the Qur’ān in which this similarity exists.

ii. This similarity could have been of some use had the Prophet (sws) himself not decided about the placement of the two sūrahs. When he did not combine them and even gave them two distinct names, this similarity is of no consequence at all.

____________

This seems to be a valid objection raised by Rahmānī.

2. Sūrah Tawbah and Sūrah Anfāl are Distinct Sūrahs

Al-Tahāwī, while analyzing this narrative,4 says that it shows that in the opinion of ‘Uthmān (rta), Sūrah Anfāl and Sūrah Tawbah were a single sūrah while Ibn ‘Abbās (rta) was of the opinion that the two were distinct sūrahs. He goes on to conclude that the opinion of Ibn ‘Abbās (rta) is correct. Some of the main reasons he cites in this regard are the following:

i. The Companions (rta) would divide the Qur’ān in seven portions. When once they were asked by Aws ibn Hudhayfah about this division, they replied:

نُحَزِّبُهُ ثَلاَثَ سُوَرٍ وَخَمْسَ سُوَرٍ وَسَبْعَ سُوَرٍ وَتِسْعَ سُوَرٍ وَإِحْدَى عَشْرَةَ سُورَةً وَثَلاَثَ عَشْرَةَ سُورَةً وَحِزْبَ ما بين الْمُفَصَّلِ وَأَسْفَلَ

We divide it into [seven portions thus:] three sūrahs, five sūrahs, seven sūrahs, nine sūrahs, eleven sūrahs, thirteen sūrahs and then the last portion which extends from the mufassal to the end.5

While referring to the above narrative, al-Tahāwī says that only if Sūrah Anfāl and Sūrah Tawbah are considered to be two distinct sūrahs does the scheme of sūrahs spelled out in the above narrative hold good.

ii. The fact that Sūrah Anfāl and Sūrah Tawbah were revealed at different times shows that they are distinct sūrahs. While the former was revealed at the time of the battle of Badr6 and the latter was the last complete sūrah to be revealed:

حدثنا فَهْدٌ قال ثنا أبو الْوَلِيدِ الطَّيَالِسِيُّ قال ثنا شُعْبَةُ قال ثنا أبو إِسْحَاقَ سمعت الْبَرَاءَ يقول آخِرُ آيَةٍ نَزَلَتْ يَسْتَفْتُونَكَ قُلْ اللَّهُ يُفْتِيكُمْ في الْكَلاَلَةِ وَآخِرُ سُورَةٍ نَزَلَتْ بَرَاءَةٌ

Abū Ishāq said: “I heard Barā ibn ‘Āzib say: ‘The last verse to be revealed was [َيسْتَفْتُونَكَ قُل اللهُ يُفْتِيْكُم فِي الكَلَالةَ] and the last sūrah revealed was Sūrah Barā.’”7

iii. The following narrative shows that the Qur’ān has been arranged in a specific manner:

حدثنا يَزِيدُ بن سِنَانٍ قال ثنا أبو دَاوُد الطَّيَالِسِيُّ قال ثنا عِمْرَانُ الْقَطَّانُ عن قَتَادَةَ عن أبي الْمَلِيحِ الْهُذَلِيِّ عن وَاثِلَةَ بن الأَسْقَعِ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ  صلى الله عليه وسلم  قال أُعْطِيتُ مَكَانَ التَّوْرَاةِ السَّبْعَ وَأُعْطِيتُ مَكَانَ الزَّبُورِ الْمَئِينِ وَأُعْطِيتُ مَكَانَ الإِنْجِيلِ الْمَثَانِيَ وَفُضِّلْت بِالْمُفَصَّلِ

Wāthilah ibn al-Asqa‘ says that the Prophet (sws) said: “I have been given the sab‘ in place of the Torah, the mi’īn in place of the Psalms and the mathānī in place of the Injīl and have been further given the mufassal.”8

Now the fact that Sūrah Anfāl belongs to the mathānī sūrahs and Sūrah Tawbah belongs to the tiwāl sūrahs itself shows that they are two distinct sūrahs.

Rahmānī9 besides presenting some of the narratives10 quoted above to support the view that Sūrah Anfāl and Sūrah Tawbah are two distinct sūrahs, also refers to the following narratives for this purpose:

i.

وأخرج الطبراني في الأوسط عن علي رضي الله عنه قال  قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم المنافق لا يحفظ سورة هود وبراءة ويس والدخان وعم يتسألون

It is recorded in the al-Awsat of al-Tabarānī that the Prophet (sws) said: “A hypocrite can never learn Sūrah Hūd, Sūrah Barā’ah, Sūrah Yāsīn, Sūrah Dukhān and Sūrah ‘Amma Yatasā’alūn.”11

ii.

 وأخرج سعيد بن منصور والحاكم وصححه والبيهقي في سننه عن أبي ذر رضي الله عنه قال دخلت المسجد يوم الجمعة والنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يخطب فجلست قريبا من أبي بن كعب رضي الله عنه فقرأ النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم سورة براءة

Abū Dharr (rta) said: “I entered the mosque on a Friday when Muhammad (sws) was delivering the sermon. I went and sat near Ubayy (rta). The Prophet recited Sūrah Barā’ah.”12

iii.

وأخرج أبو عبيد وسعيد بن منصور وأبو الشيخ والبيهقي في الشعب عن أبي عطية الهمداني قال  كتب عمر بن الخطاب رضي الله تعالى عنه تعلموا سورة براءة وعلموا نساءكم سورة النور

‘Umar ibn Khattāb (rta) had written the directive: “Learn Sūrah Barā’ah and teach your women Sūrah Nūr.”13

Rahmānī concludes that all the above quoted narratives show that Sūrah Barā’ah and Sūrah Anfāl were distinct and well-defined sūrahs in the time of the Prophet (sws). They were not part of one another and the Companions fully knew it. Even the question asked by Ibn ‘Abbās (rta) in the narrative under discussion also shows that they were two distinct sūrahs. Rahmānī says that in the presence of all this evidence and all these reports, this narrative cannot be accepted.

___________

This point shows that the two sūrahs were distinct entities and it is unlikely that ‘Uthmān (rta) had not known this fact.

B. Criticism on the Chain

1. Suspect Narrators

It is pointed out that Yazīd al-Fārisī and ‘Awf ibn Abī Jamīlah who exist in all the variants of the narrative are suspect. Following are the details.

i. Yazīd al-Fārisī

Rahmānī14 and Ahmad Shākir15 say that according to reports of the rijāl authorities, the personality of Yazīd al-Fārisī, the sole narrator from Ibn ‘Abbās (rta), is suspect. Following are these reports.

Al-Bukhārī records:

قال لي على قال عبد الرحمن يزيد الفارسي هو بن هرمز قال فذكرته ليحيى فلم يعرفه

Alī [ibn al-Madīnī] told me: “ ‘Abd al-Rahmān [ibn al-Mahdī] said that Yazīd al-Fārisī is Yazīd ibn Hurmuz.” I mentioned this fact to Yahyā [ibn Sa‘īd al-Qattān], and he did not corroborate it.16

Ibn Hajar records:

وقال بن أبي حاتم اختلفوا هل هو يزيد الفارسي أو غيره فقال بن مهدي وأحمد هو بن هرمز وأنكر يحيى بن سعيد القطان أن يكونا واحدا وسمعت أبي يقول يزيد بن هرمز هذا ليس بيزيد الفارسي هو سواه

Ibn Abī Hātim said: “People have differed whether [Yazīd ibn Hurmuz] is Yazīd al-Farisi or someone else. Ibn Mahdī and Ahmad say that he is Ibn Hurmuz, while Yahyā ibn Sa‘īd al-Qattan has rejected the fact that these two are the same. And I have heard my father say that Yazīd ibn Hurmuz is not Yazīd al-Fārisī; he is a different person. Ibn Hurmuz is the father of ‘Abdullāh ibn Yazīd ibn Hurmuz.”17

Al-Bukhārī has mentioned Yazīd ibn Hurmuz in his Al-Du‘afā’ al-saghīr.18

Shākir and Rahmānī conclude from the above data that Yazīd al-Fārisi is not a well known person and authorities like Ibn al-Mahdī, Ahmad ibn Hanbal and al-Bukhārī are not certain whether he is Yazīd ibn Hurmuz or someone else. They go on to say that with such weakness, this narrative stands rejected especially when it casts doubts on an established fact which is known through tawātur.

Rahmānī19 further points out that very little information is found about Yazīd al-Fārisī in rijāl books; the only thing known is that he narrates from Ibn ‘Abbās (rta) and that Abū Hātim comments about him are: lā ba’sa bihī. Moreover, Imām al-Bukhārī and Imām Muslim have not taken any narrative from him. He finally concludes by askingt how can such a narrative be then accepted especially when it negates established facts.

ii. ‘Awf ibn Abī Jamīlah

Rahmānī20 says that though the muhaddithūn have generally regarded ‘Awf ibn Abī Jamīlah to be a trustworthy person, however, we find the following details about him:

وحكى العقيلي عن بن المبارك قال والله ما رضي عوف ببدعة واحدة حتى كانت فيه بدعتان قدري شيعي وقال الأنصاري رأيت داود بن أبي هند يضرب عوفا ويقول ويلك يا قدري وقال في الميزان قال بندار وهو يقرأ لهم حديث عوف لقد كان قدريا رافضيا شيطانا

Al-‘Uqaylī narrates from Ibn Mubārak: “He did not restrict himself to a single religious innovation: instead he was afflicted with two of them: He believed in determinism and was a Shiite.” And al-Ansārī said: “I saw Dā’ūd ibn Abī Hind beating ‘Awf and saying: ‘Cursed be you, O Believer of Determinism!’” And it is reported in Mīzām al-i‘tidāl that Bundār while narrating the Hadīth of ‘Awf told people that he believes in determinism, is a rāfidī and a devil. 21

Rahmānī also refers to the fact that Imām Muslim in the introduction to his al-Jāmi‘ al-sahīh has regarded ‘Awf as trustworthy, but at the same time has said that the narratives reported by him are not as sound as the ones reported by some other of his contemporaries.

Rahmānī goes on to assert that since from this narrative the view of the masses of the Shiites22 (as opposed to their scholars) receives support and since the only person to report this narrative from Ibn ‘Abbās (rta) is a Shiite, hence in accordance with the principle23 coined by Hadīth authorities, this narrative shall not be accepted especially when it is against authentic Ahādīth and established facts.

___________

Before I analyze the information presented on the two suspect narrators ‘Awf and Yazīd by Rahmānī and Shākir, consider the following additional information on these two narrators.

i. The claim that Yazīd al-Farisī is present in the chains of narration of all the variant texts is not accurate. The texts quoted by al-Tahāwī in his Sharh ma‘ānī al-āthār,24 al-Bayhaqī in his Dalā’il al-nubuwwah25 and by the author of Kitāb al-mabānī26 have the name Yazīd al-Raqqāshī instead in their chains of narration.

Regarding the existence of Yazīd al-Raqqāshī in the chain of narration, the following comments of al-Tirmidhī have already been referred to:

ويزيد الفارسي قد روى عن بن عباس غير حديث ويقال هو يزيد بن هرمز ويزيد الرقاشي هو يزيد بن أبان الرقاشي ولم يدرك بن عباس إنما روى عن أنس بن مالك وكلاهما من أهل البصرة ويزيد الفارسي أقدم من يزيد الرقاشي

And Yazīd al-Fārisī has narrated some narratives from Ibn ‘Abbās and it has been said that he is Yazīd ibn Hurmuz and Yazīd al-Raqqāshī is in fact Yazīd ibn Abān al-Raqqāshi, and he has not met Ibn ‘Abbās. He has narrated from Anas ibn Mālik and both of them belong to Basrah and Yazīd al-Fārisī lived much earlier than Yazīd al-Raqqāshī.27

In other words, according to al-Tirmidhī, the name of Yazīd al-Raqqāshī has been erroneously placed here by some narrators. The person who does exist in the chain is Yazīd al-Fārisī.28

ii. As far as ‘Awf ibn Jamīlah is concerned, besides the jarh quoted on him by Rahmānī, here is some more from other sources:

Abū Zur‘ah and al-‘Uqaylī have mentioned him in their respective books both titlled al-Du‘afā’.29

Al-Hākim records:

قلت فعوف بن أبي جميلة قال ليس بذاك

I asked: “[What about] ‘Awf ibn Abī Jamīlah?” He [al-Dāraqutnī] replied: “laysa bi dhaka.”30

Al-Juzjānī records:

عوف بن أبي جميلة  الأعرابي يتناول بيمينه ويساره من رأي البصرة والكوفة

‘Awf ibn Abī Jamīlah al-A‘rābī would [carelessly] accept narratives from his right and left from the opinion of the [people of] Basrah and Kūfah.31

Al-Mizzī records:

قال بعضهم يرفع أمره إنه ليجيء عن الحسن بشيء ما يجيء به أحد

Some of them are of the opinion that he is not trustworthy. He narrates from al-Hasan what no one else ever has.32

iii. Yazīd al-Fārisī

Ibn Hajar records:

    Yazīd al-Fārisī al-Basrī is maqbūl.33

iv. Yazīd ibn Hurmuz

Besides al-Bukhārī, (as referred to earlier), Abū Hātim also regards Yazīd ibn Hurmuz to be a suspect narrator:

يزيد بن هرمز  المدني الفقيه كذا سماه أبو حاتم و قال ليس بقوي

Abū Hātim has called Yazīd ibn Hurmuz a Madinite jurist and said that he is laysa bi qawī.34

However, among those who regard him to be trustworthy are Yahyā ibn Ma‘īn, Abū Zur‘ah, Ibn Sa‘d, Ibn Hibbān and al-‘Ijlī.35

On the basis of the above information, we now analyze the credibility of ‘Awf and Yazīd:

i. ‘Awf ibn Abī Jamīlah

The overall jarh on ‘Awf seems to be strong.

ii. Yazīd

There can be three possibilities regarding who Yazīd is:

a. Yazīd al-Raqqāshī

b. Yazīd al-Fārisī

c. Yazīd ibn Hurmuz

It is highly unlikely that he is Yazīd al-Raqqāshī as pointed out earlier by al-Tirmidhī. Moreover, if anyone does insist on his name, then a vast number of rijāl authorities have regarded him to be a suspect narrator as pointed out earlier.

If Yazīd al-Fārisī is Yazīd ibn Hurmuz as contended by some authorities,36 then since Yazīd ibn Hurmuz has been regarded suspect by al-Bukhārī and Abū Hātim (see above), two very respectable Hadīth authorities, the jarh on him seems strong even though authorities like Ibn Sa‘d, Abū Zur‘ah and Yahyā ibn Ma‘īn have regarded him as trustworthy.

If Yazīd al-Fārisī is distinct from Yazīd ibn Hurmuz,37 then the weakness in Yazīd al-Fārisī, as pointed out by Rahmānī, lies in the fact that muhaddithūn like al-Bukhārī and Muslim have not accepted narratives from him. Ibn Hajar has used the word maqbūl. 38 Ahmad Shākir and Dr Qal‘ajī say that he is majhūl.39

One can conclude on the basis of the above analysis that the weakness of the two narrators: ‘Awf and Yazīd seems to be reasonably established. 

Al-Bānī, without citing any reasons has classed the narrative as da‘īf.40

Another point worthy of note is that Ahmad Shākir also points out that in the Bulāq edition of al-Tirmidhī (2:182-183), the words quoted by al-Tirmidhī are hasanun sahīhun and says that the addition sahīhun is incorrectly attributed to al-Tirmidhī because in the authentic editions and manuscripts of al-Tirmidhī41 these words are not found. He also refers to the fact that al-Suyūtī,42 al-Mundhirī43 and the text of al-Tirmidhī found in ‘Abd al-Rahmān Muhaddith Mubārakpurī’s commentary on Sahīh al-Tirmidhī 44 have only recorded the word hasanun.45

Others who have pointed out this anonymity of Yazīd al-Farisī include al-Zurqānī, Qattān, Shu‘ayb al-Urna’ūt and Dr ‘Abd al-Mu‘tī.46

IV. Further Criticism

Following is a shortened schematic illustration of the chain of narration of the narrative:

 ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Abbās (rta)

Yazīd al-Fārisī

 ‘Awf ibn Abī Jamīlah

According to al-Tirmidhī,47 this narrative is solely reported by one individual each after Ibn ‘Abbās (rta). In other words, the narrative is technically gharīb.

A gharīb narrative on such an important issue of the Qur’ān casts doubt on the authenticity of its contents.

Secondly, the narrative speaks of certain categories of sūrahs: the sab‘ tuwal, mi’īn and mathānī. Nowhere is this division defined by either the Qur’ān or by any sound narrative attributed to the Prophet (sws). While it can be concluded from the name mi’īn that it implies sūrahs which have about a hundred verses, there is nothing decisive on the basis of which one can conclude what mathānī sūrahs are.48 Thus, for example, in the opinion of al-Bayhaqī, they are sūrahs which have less than hundred verses, but more than those of the mufassal sūrahs.49 According to al-Farrā’, they are called mathānī because they are read more than the tuwal and the mi’īn sūrahs.50 Al-Suyūtī has recorded another opinion about the reason for them being called mathānī: they form a pair to the mi’īn sūrahs.51 In the opinion of al-Nikzāwī,52 they are called so because in them anecdotes are repeated for the sake of teaching a lesson and for informing us. In Jamāl al-Qurrā’,53 mathānī are sūrahs in which anecdotes are repeated. Still another opinion recorded by al-Suyūtī54 is that mathānī is a name applied to the Qur’ān as a whole and also to Sūrah Fātihah.

Authorities also differ about the connotation of sab‘ tuwal (the seven long sūrahs). According to al-Suyūtī55, one group believes that the first of these is Sūrah Baqarah and the last is Sūrah Barā’ah.56 Another opinion recorded by al-Suyūtī is that a narrative from Ibn ‘Abbās (rta) reported by al-Hākim and al-Nasā’ī says that the sab‘ tuwal are: Baqarah, Āl-i ‘Imrān, Nisā’, Mā’idah, An‘ām, A‘rāf. The narrator forgot the seventh.57 In a narrative from Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr58 reported by Ibn Abī Hātim and others and in a narrative from Ibn ‘Abbās (rta),59 the seventh is Sūrah Yūnus, while according to a narrative in the book of al-Hakīm, it is Sūrah Kahf.60

V. Conclusion

The objections on the text and chain of the narrative do not render it worthy of any consideration.

_____________

1. This narrative is one of the reasons on the basis of which some scholars believe that the arrangement of the sūrahs of the Qur’ān is not divine. See, for example: Qādī Abū Bakr ibn Tayyib al-Bāqilānī, Al-Intisār li al-Qur’ān, 1st ed. vol. 1 (Beirut: Dār Ibn Hazm, 2001), 278-282.

2. Abū ‘I%sā Muhammad ibn ‘I%sā al-Tirmidhī, Al-Jāmi‘ al-kabīr. 2nd ed., vol.5 (Beirut: Dār al-gharb al-islāmī, 1998), 272, (no. 3086). See, for example, also: Abū Dā’ūd Sulymān ibn al-Ash‘ath al-Sajistānī, Sunan, vol. 1 (n.p.: Dār al-fikr, n.d.), 208, (no, 786); Abū ‘Abd al-Rahmān Ahmad ibn Shu‘ayb al-Nasā’ī, Al-Sunan al-kubrā, 1st ed., vol. 5, (Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-‘ilmiyyah, 1991), 10, (no. 8007); Abū ‘Abd al-Rahmān Ahmad ibn Shu‘ayb al-Nasā’ī, Fadā’il al-Qur’ān, 2nd ed. (Beirut: Dār baydā’, 1992), 84-85; Abū ‘Abdullāh Ahmad ibn Hanbal al-Shaybānī, Musnad, vol. 1 (Mu’assasah al-Qurtubah, n.d.), 57, (no. 399); Ibid., vol. 1, 69, (no. 499); Abū Hātim Muhammad ibn Hibbān al-Bustī, Sahīh, 2nd ed., vol. 1 (Beirut: Mu’assasah al-risālah, 1993), 230-231, (no. 43); Abū Bakr Ahmad ibn al-Husayn al-Bayhaqī, Al-Sunan al-kubrā, vol. 2 (Makkah: Maktabah dār al-Bāz, 1994), 42, (no. 2205); Abū ‘Abdullāh Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullāh al-Hākim, Al-Mustadrak ‘alā al-sahīhayn, 1st ed., vol. 2 (Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-‘ilmiyyah, 1990), 241, (no. 2875); Ibid., vol. 2, 360, (no. 3272); Abū al-Qāsim Sulaymān ibn Ahmad al-Tabarānī, Al-Mu‘jam al-awsat, vol. 7 (Cairo: Dār al-Haramayn, 1415 AH), 328, (no. 7638); Abū Ja‘far Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Salāmah al-Tahāwī, Sharh ma‘ānī al-āthār. 1st ed. vol. 1 (Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-‘ilmiyyah, 1399 AH), 201, (no. 1096); Abū Ja‘far Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Salāmah al-Tahāwī, Sharh mushkil al-āthār, 1st ed., vol. 1 (Beirut: Mu’assasah al-risālah, 1987), 120-121; Ibid., vol. 3, 403; Abū Bakr ‘Abdullāh ibn Muhammad ibn Abī Shaybah, Al-Musannaf fī al-hadīth wa al-athār. 1st ed., vol. 7 (Riyād: Maktabah al-rushd, 1409 AH), 267, (no. 35953); Abū ‘Abdullāh Muhammad ibn Ismā‘īl al-Bukhārī, Al-Tārīkh al-kabīr, vol. 8 (n.p.: Dār al-fikr, n.d.), 367.

3. ‘Abd al-Latīf Rahmānī, Tārīkh al-Qur’ān, 1sted. (Lahore: Suffah Publications, 2001), 112-113.

4. Al-

Tahāwī, Sharh mushkil al-āthār, vol. 3, 399-410.

5. Al-

Tahāwī, Sharh mushkil al-āthār, vol. 3, 399. See also: Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 4, 9, (no. 16211).

6. Al-Tahāwī refers to a narrative from Ibn ‘Abbās (rta) which says that the sūrah was revealed at the time of the battle of Badr. For another variant of this narrative, see, for example: Abū ‘Abdullāh Muhammad ibn Ismā‘īl al-Bukhārī, Al-Jāmi‘ al-sahīh,

3rd ed., vol. 4 (Beirut: Dār Ibn Kathīr, 1987), 1703, (no. 4368).

7. Al-

Tahāwī, Sharh mushkil al-āthār, vol. 3, 405. See also ٍAl-Bukhārī, al-Jāmi‘ al-sahīh, vol. 4, 1586, (no. 4106).

8. Al-Tahāwī, Sharh mushkil al-āthār, vol. 3, 409-410.

9. Rahmānī, Tārīkh al-Qur’ān, 108-111.

10. To be precise, the narratives of Aws ibn Hudhayfah, Barā ibn ‘Āzib and Wāthilah ibn al-Asqa‘ referred to above.

11.

Jalāl al-Dīn ‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn Kamāl al-Dīn Abī Bakr ibn Muhammad ibn Sābiq al-Dīn al-Suyūtī, Al-Durr al-manthūr, vol. 4 (Beirut: Dār al-fikr, 1993), 120.

12. Ibid., vol. 4, 121.

13. Ibid., vol. 4, 120.

14.

Rahmānī, Tārīkh al-Qur’ān, 106.

15. Ahmad Muhammad Shākir, Sharh musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, 1st ed., vol. 1 (Cairo: Dār al-hadīth, 1995), 332-334.

16. Al-

Bukhārī, Al-Tārikh al-kabīr, vol. 8, 367.This excerpt is quoted by Ahmad Shākir.

17.

Abū al-Fadl Ahmad ibn ‘Alī bn Hajar al-‘Asqalānī, Tahdhīb al-tahdhīb, 1st ed. vol., 11 (Beirut: Dār al-fikr, 1984.), 323. This excerpt is quoted by Ahmad Shākir and referred to by Rahmānī.

18. Abū ‘Abdullāh Muhammad ibn Ismā‘īl al-Bukhārī, Al-Du‘afā’ al-saghīr, 1st ed., vol. 1 (Halab: Dār al-wa‘y, 1396 AH), 122. This is referred to by Ahmad Shākir.

19.

Rahmānī, Tārikh al-Qur’ān, 107.

20. Ibid.,

106.

21. I

bn Hajar, Tahdhīb al-tahdhīb, vol. 8, 148.

22. That there has been some tahrīf in the arrangement of verses and sūrahs of the Qur’ān by the Companions (rta).

23. A narrative which lends support to the beliefs of a person guilty of religious innovation shall not be accepted. See, for example: Ahmad ibn ‘Alī ibn Thābit al-Khatīb al-Baghdādī, Al-Kifāyah fī ‘ilm al-riwayah (Madīnah: Al-Maktabah al-‘ilmiyyah, n.d.), 46.

24. Al-

Tahāwī, Sharh ma‘ānī al-āthār, vol. 1, 201.

25.

Abū Bakr Ahmad ibn al-Husayn al-Bayhaqī’s Dalā’il al-nubuwwah, 2nd ed., vol. 7 (Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-‘ilmiyyah, 2002), 152-154.

26.

Arthur Jeffery, ed., Muqaddimatān, 1st ed., (Cairo: Maktbah al-khaniji, 1954), 40-41.

27. Al-

Tirmidhī, Sunan, vol. 5, 272, (no. 3086).

28. It might also be of some interest to note here that many authoriti

es have regarded Yazīd al-Raqqāshī to be a very weak and untrustworthy narrator. See, for example: Abū Muhammad ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Adī, Al-Kāmil fī al-du‘afā’ al-rijāl, 3rd ed., vol. 7 (Beirut: Dār al-fikr, 1998), 257; Abū Hātim Muhammad ibn Hibbān al-Bustī, Al-Majrūhīn min al-muhaddithin wa al-du‘afā’ wa al-matrūkīn., 1st ed., (Halab: Dār al-wa‘y, 1396 AH, vol. 3), 98; Abū ‘Abd al-Rahmān Ahmad ibn Shu‘ayb al-Nasā’ī, Al-Du‘afā’ wa al-matrūkīn (Halab: Dār al-wa‘y, 1396 AH), 110; Ibn Hajar, Tahdhīb al-tahdhīb, vol. 11, 270.

29. Abū Zur‘ah ‘Ubaydullāh ibn ‘Abd al-Karīm al-Rāzī, Kitāb al-du‘afā’, 1st ed. (Madīnah: Al-Jami‘ah al-islāmiyyah, 1982), 659; ‘Uqaylī, Al-Du‘afā’, vol. 3, 429.

30.

Abū al-Hasan ‘Alī ibn ‘Umar al-Dāraqutanī, Su’ālāt al-Hākim, 1st ed. (Riyād: Maktabah al-ma‘ārif, 1984), 261.

31. Abū Ishāq Ibrāhīm ibn Ya‘qūb a

l-Juzjānī, Ahwāl al-rijāl, 1st ed. (Beirut: Mu’assasah al-risālah, 140), 114.

32.

Abū al-Hajjāj Yūsuf ibn al-Zakī al-Mizzī, Tahdhīb al-kamāl, 1st ed., vol. 22 (Beirut: Mu’assasah al-risālah, 1980), 240.

33.

Abū al-Fadl Ahmad ibn ‘Alī ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalānī, Taqrīb al-tahdhīb, 1st ed. (Syria: Dār al-rashīd, 1986), 606.

34.

Abū ‘Abdullāh Shams al-Dīn Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn ‘Uthmān ibn Qāyamaz ibn ‘Abdullāh al-Dhahabī, Mīzān al-i‘tidāl, 1st ed., vol. 7 (8 vols. Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-‘ilmiyyah, 1995), 263.

35. For details, see for example:

Abū al-Fadl Ahmad ibn ‘Alī ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalānī, Lisān al-mizān, vol. 7 (Beirut: Mu’assasah al-a‘lamī li al-matbū‘āt, 1986), 444; Al-‘Ijlī , Ma‘rifah al-thiqāt, 1st ed., vol. 2 (Madīnah: Maktabah al-dār, 1985.), 370; Ibn Hajar, Tahdhīb al-tahdhīb, vol. 11, 323.

36. This is the opinion of Ahmad ibn Hanbal and ‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn al-Mahdī as referred to earlier. It may be noted that al-Khatīb al-Baghdādī is of the opinion that Abū Mūsā Muhammad ibn al-Muthannā and Ibn Sa‘d also subscribe to this view. See: Ahmad ibn ‘Alī ibn Thābit al-Khatīb al-Baghdādī, Muwaddih awhām al-jam‘ wa al-tafrīq, 1st ed., vol. 1 (Beirut: Dār al-ma‘rifah, 1407 AH), 338.

37. This is the opinion of Yahyā ibn Sa‘īd al-Qattān and Abū# Hātim as referred to earlier. It may be pertinent to mention here that al-Khatīb al-Baghdādī adds the name of Yahyā ibn Ma‘īn and ‘Amr ibn ‘Alī to this list.

See: Al-Khatīb Al-Baghdādī, Muwaddih awhām al-jam‘ wa al-tafrīq, vol. 1, 339. Moreover, al-Mizzī also regards the two to be distinct. See: Al-Mizzī, Tahdhīb al-kamāl, vol. 32, 287. Among scholars of current times, Bashshār ‘Awwād Ma‘rūf also holds this opinión. See: Abū ‘Īsā Muhammad ibn ‘Īsa al-Tirmidhī, Al-Jāmi‘ al-kabīr, ed. Bashshār ‘Awwād Ma‘rūf, 2nd ed. vol. 5 (Beirut: Dār al-gharb al-islāmī, 1998), 167.

38. Ibn Hajar places the narrator who is called maqbūl in the sixth tabaqah and describes him thus: He narrates very few narratives and there is nothing concrete that rejects his narratives. If a narrative reported by him is corroborated by some other narrator as well, then he is termed maqbūl and if this corroboration does not exist, then he is called layyin al-hadīth. See: Ibn Hajar, Taqrīb al-tahdhīb, 73.

39. Ahmad Shākir, Sharh musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, vol. 1, 332; Abū Bakr Ahmad ibn al-Husayn

al-Bayhaqī, Dalā’il al-nubuwwah, ed. Dr ‘Abd al-Mu‘tī al-Qala‘jī, 2nd ed., vol. 7 (Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-‘ilmiyyah, 2002), 154.

40.

See: Abū ‘Abd al-Rahmān Muhammad Nāsir al-Dīn ibn Nūh ibn Najātī ibn Ādam al-Bānī, Da‘īf sunan Abī Dā’ūd, 2nd ed., (Riyād: Maktabah al-ma‘ārif li al-nashr wa al-tawzī‘, 2000), 66.

41. In this regard, Ahmad Shākir refers to the editions edited by a Madīnan authority of Hadīth, Muhammad ‘Ābid al-Sindī. It may also be noted that Bashshār ‘Awwād Ma‘rūf has pointed out the absence of this addition in the following three texts of al-Tirmidhī: i. Al-Mizzī’s Tuhfah al-ashrāf, ii. the text published in Lucknow, India in 1892 and iii. the text published in Delhi, India from 1341-1353 AH.

See: Al-Tirmidhī, Al-Jāmi‘ al-kabīr, ed. Bashshār ‘Awwād Ma‘rūf, vol. 5, 167.

42. Al-

Suyūtī, Al-Durr al-manthūr, vol. 4, 119.

43.

Abū Muhammad ‘Abd al-Azīm ibn ‘Abd al-Qawī al-Mundhirī, Mukhtasar Abī Dā’ūd, 1st ed., vol. 1 (Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-‘ilmiyyah, 2001), 279.

44. This refers to the text published in Delhi, India from 1341-1353 AH, as pointed out above.

45. For details, see: Ahmad Shākir, Sharh musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, vol. 1, 332.

46.

See: Muhammad ‘Abd al-‘Azīm al-Zurqānī, Manāhil al-‘irfān fī ‘ulūm al-Qur’ān, 2nd ed., vol. 1 (Beirut: Dār ihyā’ al-turāth al-‘arabī, 1998.), 254; Mannā‘ al-Qattān, Mabāhith fī ‘ulūm al-Qur’ān, 2nd ed. (Riyād: Maktabah al-ma‘ārif li al-nashr wa al-tawzī‘, 1996), 144; Al-Tahāwī, Sharh mushkil al-āthār, vol. 3, 403-404; Al-Bayhaqī, Dalā’il al-nubuwwah, ed. Dr ‘Abd al-Mu‘tī al-Qala‘jī, vol. 7, 153-154.

47. The words are: قال أبو عيسى هذا حديث حسن صحيح لا نعرفه إلا من حديث عوف عن يزيد الفارسي عن بن عباس. Al-Tirmidhī, Sunan, vol. 5, 272.

48. It has already been observed in chapter five that according to Ibn Ashtah’s Kitāb al-Masāhif, the mathānī sūrahs in the mushaf of Ibn Mas‘ūd begin with Sūrah Ahzāb, the thirty third sūrah in the current sequence. See:

Jalāl al-Dīn ‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn Kamāl al-Dīn Abī Bakr ibn Muhammad ibn Sābiq al-Dīn Al-Suyūtī Al-Itqān fī ‘ulūm al-Qur’ān, 1st ed., vol. 1 (Baydār: Manshūrāt al-radī, 1349 AH), 224.

49.

Abū Bakr Ahmad ibn al-Husayn al-Bayhaqī, Shu‘ab al-īmān, 1st ed., vol. 2 (Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-‘ilmiyyah, 1410 AH), 466. According to al-Suyūtī, mufassal sūrahs are called so since there are a lot of divisions between the sūrahs because of the basmalah. They are placed after the mathānī sūrahs. According to one opinion cited by al-Suyūtī, the mufassal sūrahs begin with Sūrah Qāf and end with Sūrah Nās. See: Al-Suyūtī, Al-Itqān, vol. 1, 221. It has already been observed in chapter five that according to Ibn Ashtah’s Kitāb al-Masāhif, the mufassal sūrahs in the mushaf of Ibn Mas‘ūd begin with Sūrah Rahmān, the fifty fifth sūrah in the current sequence. See: Al-Suyūtī, Al-Itqān, vol. 1, 224

50. Al-Suyūtī, Al-Itqān, vol. 1, 220.

51. Ibid.

52. Ibid.

53. Ibid.

54. Ibid.

55. Al-Suyūtī, Al-Itqān, vol. 1, 220.

56. Obviously, this group would be treating Sūrah Barā’a and Sūrah Anfāl to be one, otherwise the count would come out to be eight. Thus we do find a reference to this scheme by al-Qurtubī. See:

Abū ‘Abdullāh Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Abū Bakr al-Qurtubī, Jāmi‘ al-ahkām al-Qur’ān, vol. 10 (Cairo: Dār al-shu‘ab, n.d.), 55.

57. Abū Ja‘far Muhammad ibn Jarīr al-Tabarī, Jāmi‘ al-bayān, 1st ed., vol. 14 (Beirut Dār ihyā’ al-turāth al-‘arabī, 2001), 52.

58. Ibid.

59. Al-Suyutī, Al-Durr al-manthūr, vol. 5, 96.

60. Ibid.