‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ud would scratch out al Mu’awwadhatayn from the mushaf

‘Aisha showed her freed slave Salim how Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam would perform wudu’
August 20, 2018
‘Ali searched for conciliation with Abu Bakr and pledging allegiance to him, whereas he did not want to give bay’ah
August 20, 2018

BACK Return to Table of contents

 

‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ud would scratch out al Mu’awwadhatayn from the mushaf

 

حدثنا عبد الله حدثني محمد بن الحسن بن أشكاب ثنا محمد بن أبي عبيدة بن معن ثنا أبي عن الأعمش عن أبي إسحاق عن عبد الرحمن بن يزيد قال كان عبد الله يحك المعوذتين من مصاحفه و يقول إنهما ليستا من كتاب الله

‘Abdullah narrated to us―Muhammad ibn al Hassan ibn Ashkab narrated to me―Muhammad ibn Abi ‘Ubaidah ibn Ma’n narrated to us―my father narrated to us from―al A’mash from―Abu Ishaq from―’Abdul Rahman ibn Yazid who reports:

‘Abdullah (ibn Mas’ud) would scratch out al Mu’awwadhatayn from his mushafs and say, “They are not part of the Book of Allah.”[1]

 

Ahmed narrated it in al Musnad and al Tabarani did in al Mujam al Kabir from the chain of Abu Ishaq al Subay’i and al A’mash, i.e. Sulaiman ibn Mahran. Both of them are reliable, but mudallis, and are narrators who appear in Sahih al Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. Al Subay’i lost his memory at the end. When they narrate with an (from), it becomes faulty.[2] This narration is defective due to it being narrated with an (from). It is reported about both of them that they had Shia inclinations.

Ibn Hazm, al Nawawi, and al Baqillani have denied the establishment of anything in this regard from Sayyidina Ibn Mas’ud radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Ibn Hazm has graded the narration da’if due to the authenticity of the qira’ah of ‘Asim from Zirr ibn Hubaysh from Sayyidina ‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ud radiya Llahu ‘anhu which contains Surah al Fatihah as well as al Mu’awwadhatayn.[3]

Al Nawawi announces:

 

أجمع المسلمون على أن المعوذتين و الفاتحة و سائر السور المكتوبة في المصحف قرآن و أن من جحد شيئا منه كفر و ما نقل عن ابن مسعود في الفاتحة و المعوذتين باطل ليس بصحيح عنه

The Muslims have unanimously agreed that al Mu’awwadhatayn, al Fatihah, and all the Surahs that are written in the mushaf are Qur’an and that whoever rejects anything from it has committed kufr. What has been reported from Ibn Mas’ud regarding al Fatihah and al Mu’awwadhatayn is false and is not authentic from him.[4]

 

Remember this, if hypothetically we agree to the authenticity of the narration from Ibn Mas’ud radiya Llahu ‘anhu then it is far less than the degree of authenticity of the mutawatir qira’ah of ‘Asim. Sayyidina Ibn Mas’ud’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu qira’ah from the chain of his students from the people of Kufah is mutawatir. ‘Asim learnt it from Zirr ibn Hubaysh who in turn learnt from Sayyidina Ibn Mas’ud radiya Llahu ‘anhu. This is the very qira’ah which Abu Bakr ibn ‘Ayyash reports from ‘Asim. Its tawatur has reached a level which cannot be contested.[5]

It appears in Sahih al Bukhari:

 

حدثنا علي بن عبد الله حدثنا سفيان حدثنا عبدة بن أبي لبابة عن زر بن حبيش و حدثنا عاصم عن زر قال سألت أبي بن كعب قلت يا أبا المنذر إن أخاك ابن مسعود يقول كذا و كذا فقال أبي سألت رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم فقال لي قيل لي قل فقلت قال فنحن نقول كما قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم

‘Ali ibn ‘Abdullah narrated to us―Sufyan narrated to us―’Abdah ibn Abi Lubabah narrated to us from―Zirr ibn Hubaysh AND ‘Asim narrated to us from―Zirr who relates:

I asked Ubay ibn Ka’b saying, “O Abu al Mundhir! Your brother Ibn Mas’ud says this and that.”

Ubay explained, “I asked Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam so he told me say, and accordingly I said. So we state as Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam stated.”

 

This is ambiguous, i.e. this and that.

 

The viewpoint of Hafiz Ibn Hajar:

 

Hafiz states in al Fath:

 

و قد تأول القاضي أبو بكر الباقلاني في كتاب الانتصار و تبعه عياض و غيره ما حكى عن ابن مسعود فقال لم ينكر ابن مسعود كونهما من القرآن و إنما أنكر إثباتهما في المصحف فإنه كان يرى أن لا يكتب في المصحف شيئا إلا إن كان النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم أذن في كتابه فيه و كأنه لم يبلغه الإذن في ذلك قال فهذا تأويل منه و ليس جحدا لكونهما قرآنا و هو تأويل حسن إلا أن الرواية الصحيحة الصريحة التي ذكرتها تدفع ذلك حيث جاء فيها و يقول أنهما ليستا من كتاب الله نعم يمكن حمل لفظ كتاب الله على المصحف فيتمشى التأويل المذكور

Qadi Abu Bakr al Baqillani in Kitab al Intisar interprets what has been reported from Ibn Mas’ud. ‘Iyad and others agreed with him. He explains, “Ibn Mas’ud did not reject them being part of the Qur’an. He only rejected their establishment in the mushaf. His view was that nothing should be written in the mushaf except what Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam gave permission to write therein. As if the permission in this regard did not reach him.”

This is his interpretation which shows that he did not reject them being part of the Qur’an. It is a good interpretation except that the sahih explicit narration which I mentioned conflicts it, i.e. the part that explains that he would say, “They are not from the Book of Allah.” Yes, it is possible for the phrase Book of Allah to refer to the mushaf then the above interpretation will be consistent.[6]

 

It has already appeared that the narration comes from the chain of Abu Ishaq al Subay’i and al A’mash and both of them are mudallis and their narrations have come with an (from). Had it come without ‘an, it would have been accepted. The ananah of a mudallis is a defect in the hadith, making it cumbersome to authenticate its sanad; forget it overpowering the mutawatir qira’ah from Sayyidina ‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ud radiya Llahu ‘anhu which includes al Mu’awwadhatayn.

If we hypothetically agree that the sanad to Sayyidina ‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ud radiya Llahu ‘anhu is authentic in his rejection of al Mu’awwadhatayn, there are few important interpretations to this:

  • This hypothetical sahih narration does not reach the level of the authenticity of the mutawatir qira’ah of ‘Asim from Sayyidina ‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ud radiya Llahu ‘anhu which includes al Mu’awwadhatayn and al Fatihah.
  • It is a well-known fact that the three qira’at are traced to many Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum. The qira’ah of Abu ‘Amr rahimahu Llah is traced back to the eminent Sahabi Sayyidina Ubay ibn Ka’b radiya Llahu ‘anhu. The qira’ah of ‘Asim is traced back to two eminent Sahabah viz. Sayyidina ‘Ali and Sayyidina Ibn Mas’ud radiya Llahu ‘anhuma. And the qira’ah of Ibn ‘Amir al Shami is traced back to two eminent Sahabah, viz. Sayyidina ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan and Sayyidina Abu al Darda’ radiya Llahu ‘anhuma.
  • This view of his lasted for a short period between the demise of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam until the completion of the compilation of Qur’an by the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum with consensus. Thereafter, nothing has been narrated from him of insisting upon this view. He would teach the Qur’an and give commentary of it to the people for the rest of his life after Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam until he passed away. After the compilation of Qur’an, no persistence or rejection has been narrated from him. Had he retained his stance, it would have reached us just as the insistence of other Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum reached us the likes of Sayyidina Ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhuma who supposed until the khilafah of Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu that nothing had been reported from Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam about the prohibition of Mut’ah of women.
  • This view of his was expressed when the unanimity of the Sahabah had not yet been established. If anyone contested after the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum had unanimously agreed upon it, this would be considered kufr. Following this, we decree the kufr of every one of the Rawafid who cast suspicions on the Qur’an after consensus has been reached upon the Qur’an which we have today.

Sayyidina ‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ud radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not claim what al Majlisi, al ‘Amili, and al Mufid claimed that the Qur’an has been adulterated in subject, speech, and irab (diacritics).

This further emphasises our ultimate stance that the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum were not infallible in their individual capacities. Yes, they were infallible in their unanimous capacity. And they never agreed on deviation.

What is the level of the Shia’s criticism of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu when they describe him as the door to the city of knowledge and explain that he took six months to compile the Qur’an? They believe that he became enraged at the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum and swore on oath that they will not see the Qur’an which he gathered. And the Qur’an up to this day has remained absent with the absent Imam.

What ludicrousness does this hold in front of the Shia’s claim after the termination of the Sahabah’s radiya Llahu ‘anhum era, that tahrif had taken place in this Qur’an we possess today and that the name of ‘Ali and the names of the Ahlul Bayt have been removed?

Whoever has reservations for this stance of Sayyidina Ibn Mas’ud radiya Llahu ‘anhu regarding two short Surahs will have greater reservations for something greater, i.e. the Rawafid’s declaration that it is apparent from Thiqat al Islam al Kulayni that he believed that there is tahrif and deficiency in the Book of Allah.[7]

Sayyidina ‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ud radiya Llahu ‘anhu held the view that al Mu’awwadhatayn are not part of the Qur’an. It was only a ruqyah which Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam would recite upon Hassan and Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhuma.

‘Ali ibn Babawayh has said, “Our scholars and majority of the Ahlus Sunnah have unanimously agreed that al Mu’awwadhatayn are part of the Grand Qur’an. It is reported from Ibn Mas’ud that they are not part of the Qur’an and they were revealed as an incantation for Hassan and Hussain; this has died out. Consensus has been established from the Shia and Ahlus Sunnah upon this.”[8]

In fact, the Rawafid acknowledge that Sayyidina ‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ud radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not negate them being part of the Qur’an. The only thing was that he did not allow himself to include anything in his personal mushaf except if Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam gave explicit permission for the same. Possibly, that permission did not reach him. Muhaqqiq al Bahrani says, “This is a good interpretation.”[9]

 

Next⇒  ‘Ali searched for conciliation with Abu Bakr and pledging allegiance to him, whereas he did not want to give bay’ah


[1][1] Musnad Ahmed vol. 5 pg. 1129; al Mujam al Kabir vol. 9 pg. 234.

[2] Al ‘Ilal.

[3] Al Muhalla vol. 1 pg. 13.

[4] Al Majmu’ Sharh al Muhadhab vol. 3 pg. 396.

[5] Al Duktur Ghassan ibn ‘Abdul Salam Hamdun: Kitab al Usul al Muqaranah li Qira’at Abi ‘Amr al Basri wa Ibn ‘Amir al Shami wa ‘Asim ibn Abi al Najud.

[6] Fath al Bari vol. 8 pg. 472.

[7] Muqaddamah Tafsir al Safi pg. 14, 47 (1399 Print).

[8] Al Shahid al Awwal: al Dhikra pg. 196; Bihar al Anwar vol. 82 pg. 42; Fiqh al Rida pg. 36; al Karki: Jami’ al Maqasid vol. 2 pg. 263; Muhaqqiq al Bahrani: al Hada’iq al Nadirah vol. 8 pg. 231.

[9] Al Hada’iq al Nadirah vol. 8 pg. 231.

Back to top