where is the rest of Surat Al-Ahzab

 We always hear this sterile doubt from Christians:

Where is the rest of Surat Al-Ahzab?

The Christian says:

quote

Surat Al-Ahzab is equal to Surat Al-Baqarah:

1- It was narrated on the authority of Aisha: “Surat Al-Ahzab was recited in the time of the Prophet (PBUH) 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.

2- It was narrated on the authority of Umar, Ubayy ibn Ka’b, and Ikrimah, the freed slave of Ibn Abbas: “Surat al-Ahzab was close to Surat 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.

3- It was narrated on the authority of Hudhayfah: “I recited Surat Al-Ahzab to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and I forgot seventy verses of it that I did not find.” - Al-Durr Al-Manthur 6:559.

As for the first narration from Lady Aisha, may God be pleased with her, it is weak due to the weakness of Ibn Lahi’ah.

quote

It was narrated on the authority of Aisha: “Surat Al-Ahzab was recited in the time of the Prophet (PBUH) 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.

Sayings of the men of criticism and modification about Ibn Lahi’ah

quote

Al-Hafiz said in Tahdhib al-Tahdhib 5/377:
Al-Hakim said: Muslim cited it as evidence in two places.
Al-Bukhari said: Yahya bin Saeed abandoned it.
Ibn Mahdi said: I do not carry anything from him.
Ibn Khuzaymah said in his Sahih: I am not among those whose hadith I included in this book if he was alone, but I only included it because Jabir bin Ismail was with him.
Abdul-Ghani bin Saeed al-Azdi said: If the Abdallahs narrated from Ibn Lahi’ah, then it is authentic:
Ibn al-Mubarak, Ibn Wahb, and al-Muqri’.
Al-Saji and others mentioned something similar.
Ibn Abdul-Barr narrated that what is in al-Muwatta’: On the authority of Malik, on the authority of the trustworthy one in his view, on the authority of Amr
bin Shuaib, on the authority of his father, on the authority of his grandfather in the Arabs, is Ibn Lahi’ah.
It is said that Ibn Wahb narrated it to him, on his authority.
Yahya bin Hassan said: I saw with some people a part that they heard from Ibn Lahi'ah, so I looked and saw that it was not
from his hadith, so I went to him and he said: What should I do? They bring me a book and say: This is from your hadith, so I narrate it to them.
Ibn Qutaybah said: He used to read to him things that were not from his hadith - meaning that he became weak because of that.
Al-Saji narrated on the authority of Ahmad bin Salih: Ibn Lahi'ah was trustworthy, except that if he was prompted to
something, he would narrate it.
Ibn Al-Madini said: Bishr bin Al-Sarri told me: If you had seen Ibn Lahi'ah, you would not have transmitted it from him.
Abdul Karim bin Abdul Rahman 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. Whoever wanted to say to him: Narrate to us.
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-Khatib said: Hence, the many strange things in his narrations are due to his leniency.
Ibn Shaheen said: Ahmad ibn Salih said: Ibn Lahi'ah is trustworthy, and the hadiths narrated from him are mixed up, so that confusion is rejected.
Mas'ud said, on the authority of al-Hakim: He did not intend to lie, but he narrated from memory after his books were burned ,
so he made a mistake.
Al-Jawzajani said: His hadith should not be relied upon, and it is not appropriate to use him as evidence, and
his narration should not be deceived.
Ibn Abi Hatim said: I asked my father and Abu Zur'ah about al-Ifriqi and Ibn Lahi'ah: Which of them do you prefer? They said: They are both weak, and Ibn Lahi'ah is confused, so his hadith should be written down
based on consideration.
Abd al-Rahman said: I said to my father: If someone narrates from Ibn Lahi'ah like Ibn al-Mubarak, can Ibn Lahi'ah be used as evidence? He said: No.
Abu Zur'ah said: He was not accurate.
Ibn 'Adi said: His hadith seems to be forgotten, and he is one of those whose hadith should be written down.
Muhammad ibn Sa`d said: He was weak, and those who heard from him at the beginning of his life were in a better state in his narration than those who heard from him at the end.
Muslim said in “Al-Kuna”: Ibn Mahdi, Yahya ibn Sa`id, and Wakee` abandoned him.
Al-Hakim Abu Ahmad said: His hadith is lost.
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. So it is obligatory
to avoid the narrations of those who came before him before his books were burned, because of what they contain of concealed narrations from
those who were abandoned, and it is obligatory to stop using the narrations of those who came after his books were burned, because of what they contain of what is
It is not from his hadith.
Abu Ja`far al-Tabari said in Tahdhib al-Athar: His mind became confused at the end of his life. End quote.
And 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 `A’ishah, who said: The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and his family and grant them peace, died
of pleurisy. End quote.
This is one of the things that proves its invalidity, as it is proven in al-Sahih that he 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 in it is from Ibn Lahi`ah, as if he had inserted a hadith into a hadith. End quote. His rank according to Ibn Hajar: Truthful
, he got confused after his books were burned and the narrations of Ibn al-Mubarak and Ibn Wahb from him are more just than others. His rank according to al-Dhahabi: Weak ... I said: The work is to weaken his hadith.

http://www.islamww.com/booksww/details_name.php?id=3570

As for the third novel

quote

On the authority of Hudhayfah: “I read Surat Al-Ahzab to the Prophet (PBUH) and I forgot seventy verses of it that I did not find.” - Al-Durr Al-Manthur 6:559.

Its source is the Great History of Al-Bukhari:


Muhammad Abu Yahya told me, on the authority of Muhammad bin Sulayman bin Habib Al-Asadi, on the authority of Abdullah bin Al-Zubayr Abu Abi Ahmad Al-Zubayri Al-Asadi, on the authority of Abdullah bin Sharik Al-Amiri, on the authority of his father: I heard Hudhayfah recite Surat Al-Ahzab to the Prophet, and I forgot seventy verses of it. I did not find them, and he was the son of Artah Al-Kalabi, and Ali had it revealed to him


. The narration includes Abdullah bin Sharik Al-Amiri, and he is disputed over. Some have deemed him trustworthy, while others have accused him of lying and abandoned him. It is said that he was inclined towards Shi’ism.

quote

Al-Jarh wa Al-Ta’deel:
Al-Mizzi said in Tahdheeb Al-Kamal:
(PBUH): Abdullah bin Sharik Al-Amiri Al-Kufi. End quote.
Al-Mizzi said:
Ali bin Al-Madini said, on the authority of Sufyan: We sat with Abdullah bin Sharik, and he was one hundred years old, and among those who came to Muhammad bin Al-Hanafiyyah was Abu Abdullah Al- Jadali.
Ibrahim bin Muhammad bin Arara said, on the authority of Sufyan bin Uyaynah: He was Mukhtari. And he did not
narrate from him.
Ibn Arara also said: Abd Al-Rahman bin Mahdi had stopped narrating from him.
Abu Talib said on the authority of Ahmad bin Hanbal, and Ishaq bin Mansour on the authority of Yahya bin Ma’een,
and Abu Zur’ah: 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 is a liar.
Ibn Hibban mentioned him in the book “Al-Thiqat.”
Abu Jaafar Al-Uqayli said: Abdullah bin Sharik Al-Asadi from Kufa, he was one of those who exaggerated.
Al-Nasa’i narrated a hadith from him in “Khasais Ali” which we mentioned in the biography of Al-Harith bin Malik
and Abdullah bin Al-Raqim. End quote. Al-Hafiz said in Tahdhib Al
-
Tahdhib 5/253:
Al-Nasa’i said in “Khasais Ali”: He is not that.
Al-Barqani said, on the authority of Al-Daraqutni: There is nothing wrong with him, he heard from Ibn Umar and Ibn Al-Zubayr.
Ibn Hibban said in “Al-Du’afa”: He was an extremist in Shi’ism, he narrated from reliable narrators what did not
resemble the hadith of trustworthy narrators.
And when he mentioned him in “Al-Thiqat” he said: He is counted among the people of Kufa, he narrated from Ibn Umar,
Al-Thawri narrated from him.
So it seems that he thought he was someone else.
And Abu Al-Fath Al-Azdi said: He is from the companions of Al-Mukhtar, his hadith is not written. And Ibn Adi said
: Al-Mukhtar, from Kufa, and he has only a few hadiths.
And Yaqub bin Sufyan said: He is trustworthy, from the great people of Kufa, he tends towards Shi’ism. End quote. His rank according to Ibn Hajar: Truthful, Shi’ite. Al-Jawzajani exaggerated and called him a liar.
His rank according to Al-Dhahabi: He was trusted by several, but Al-Nasa’i weakened him.

http://www.islamww.com/booksww/details_name.php?id=3391

Therefore, the narration does not constitute evidence to prove the abrogation or loss of the Qur’an.

The second

quote

It was narrated on the authority of Umar, Ubayy ibn Ka’b, and Ikrimah, the freed slave of Ibn Abbas: “Surat al-Ahzab was close to Surat al-Baqarah, or it was 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-Kashshaf 3:518, Manahil al-Irfan 2:111, Al-Durr al-Manthur 6:559

It is a collection of several narrations.

As for what was narrated from Omar bin Al-Khattab, may God be pleased with him, it is about the verse of stoning and is not as long as Surat Al-Ahzab.
Let us postpone discussing the verse of stoning for a little while, God willing.

As for what was narrated from Abi bin Kaab, may God be pleased with him, it is
from Abi bin Kaab who said: How many verses do you count in Surat Al-Ahzab? We said: Seventy-three verses. He said: If we were to equate it with Surat Al-Baqarah, at the end of it is the verse of stoning: The old man and the old woman, so stone them.
Narrator: Zar Al-Muhaddith: Ibn Jarir Al-Tabari - Source: Musnad Omar - Page or number: 2/872
Summary of the degree: Its chain of narration is authentic

and most scholars are of the opinion that this narration is authentic.



The narration of Ikrimah, the freed slave of Ibn Abbas, in Al-Durar Al-Manthur, Vol. 5, p. 180, by Imam Jalal Al-Din Al-Suyuti.
Ibn Al-Durais narrated from Ikrimah who said: Surat Al-Ahzab was like Surat Al-Baqarah or longer, and it contained the verse of stoning.

Hadith of Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) was weakened by some scholars

- I met Abu Bakr ibn Ka'b and said to him: Ibn Mas'ud used to erase the two Mu'awwidhatayn from the copies of the Qur'an and say: They are not from the Qur'an, so do not include in it what is not from it. Abu Bakr said: It was said to the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), and he said to us: So we say, how many verses do you count in Surat al-Ahzab? He said: I said: Seventy-three verses. Abu Bakr said: By the One by Whom he swears, it is equal to Surat al-Baqarah, and we recited in it the verse of stoning: The old man and the old woman, if they commit adultery, stone them both. It is a punishment from Allah. Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.
Narrator: Abu Bakr Narrator: Al-Haythami - Source: Mawarid ath-Thamaan - Page or number: 2/786
Summary of the narrator's ruling: In its chain of transmission is Asim ibn Abi al-Najud, and he was weakened.

They quoted from
http://www.hurras.org/vb/showthread.php?t=3509

quote

Question:

May the peace, mercy, and blessings of Allah be upon you.

I would like to know the authenticity of this hadith regarding Surat Al-Ahzab being the same length as Surat Al-Baqarah before abrogation. I have searched for it and verified its authenticity on this link
: http://www.sonnh.com/Takhreg.aspx?HadithID=152184.

All that remains is to determine whether it is authentic or not, and was the abrogation really this abundant??

I hope I have not burdened you, and Allah is the Grantor of success.

Reply:

My brother Dr. Hisham.

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, who is Abu Abdullah Al-Kufi, a client of Abdullah ibn Al-Harith ibn Nawfal. Ibn Ma'in said: He is weak in hadith. Ahmad ibn Hanbal said: He was not a hafiz. He said in another place: His hadith is not that good. 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. Shu'bah said: He was elevated. Al-Dhahabi said: He is truthful, knowledgeable, understanding, Shi'i, poor in memory, he was not abandoned. Ibn Hajar said: He is weak.



As for the second, he is also weak; in its chain of transmission is Asim ibn Bahdalah, he is the son of 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. Ibn Ma'in said: He is okay. Abu Zur'ah said: He is trustworthy. Al-'Ajli said: He is a man of the Sunnah and recitation of the Qur'an, a leader in recitation. 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.



This narration of Asim was also narrated by An-Nasa’i in “Al-Sunan”, Ibn Hibban in “Al-Sahih”, Al-Hakim in “Al-Mustadrak”, At-Tabari in “Tahdhib Al-Athar”, Al-Bayhaqi in “Al-Sunan”, At-Tayalisi in “Al-Musnad”, Abd Al-Razzaq in “Al-Musannaf”, At-Tabarani in “Al-Awsat”, Ibn Sallam in “Fada’il Al-Quran”, Abu Nu’aym in “Tarikh Isfahan”, and Al-Asbahani in “Tabaqat Al-Muhaddithin”.

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.

Written by Abu Anas Al-Azhari
http://www.sonnh.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=373&PN=1

quote

Sheikh Shuaib Al-Arnaout's comment on the two narrations...

The first hadith: which includes "Asim bin Abi Al-Najoud"...

The Sheikh said:
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.

The second hadith: which includes "Yazid bin Abi Ziyad",

the Sheikh said: 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, may Allah bless him and grant him peace...)

(From Musnad Al-Imam Ahmad... Commentary by Sheikh Shuaib Al-Arnaout and others)

Even if we accept the authenticity of the hadith,
it is possible that the meaning is not the disappearance of two hundred verses from Surat al-Ahzab
, but the revelation of more verses in Surat al-Baqarah

, meaning that at the time of revelation
both surahs were about seventy verses
, and Surat al-Ahzab remained as it was,
and many verses were revealed in Surat al-Baqarah.

So there is no evidence from the hadith of the loss or abrogation of any verses from Surat al-Ahzab,
while postponing the discussion of the doubt about the verse of stoning.

As for the hadith of the Mother of the Believers Aisha, it is weak due to the presence of Ibn Lahi’ah,
and the hadith of Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, is related to the verse of stoning only
, and the hadith of Ubayy ibn Ka’b, may Allah be pleased with him, and what Ikrimah mentioned, it is based on abrogation, abrogation of recitation.

Imam al-Suyuti, may Allah have mercy on him, mentioned the hadith of Ubayy, may Allah be pleased with him, in the chapter on abrogation of recitation:

((The third type: What was abrogated in recitation but not in ruling : Some of them brought up a question about it, which is: What is the wisdom in removing the recitation while the ruling remains? Why did not the recitation remain so that the action with its ruling and the reward of its recitation could be combined?

The author of al-Funun answered: That is to show the extent of the obedience of this nation in hastening to sacrifice souls by way of conjecture without inquiry in order to seek a sure path, so they hasten with the easiest thing, as Abraham hastened to slaughter his son in a dream, and a dream is the lowest path to revelation.

And examples of this type are many.

He said: Ismail ibn Ja’far told us , on the authority of al-Mubarak ibn Fadala , on the authority of Asim ibn Abi al-Najud , on the authority of Zur ibn Hubaish , who said: He said to me Abi bin Kaab : How long is Surat Al-Ahzab? I said: Seventy-two verses or seventy-three verses. He said: It would be equal to Surat 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 not from Allah. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.)

Source: Al-Itqan fi Ulum Al-Quran by Al-Suyuti, the forty-seventh type in its abrogating and abrogated verses.

I mentioned, my dear brother, that this narration was authenticated by many imams.

If the verses are abrogated, and his saying “we used to recite” means before the abrogation, then this is a phrase that indicates abrogation

. It is like other phrases that indicate abrogation: (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 mean abrogation of recitation

. The evidence for this is Abi bin Kaab’s mention of the verse of stoning. It is known that the verse of stoning was among what was abrogated in recitation from the Holy Quran.


1691 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, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, that Allah sent Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, with the truth and revealed the Book to him. Among what was revealed to him was the verse of the stoning. We recited it . We became aware of it and understood it, so the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, 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. Abu Bakr ibn Abi Shaybah, Zuhair ibn Harb, and Ibn Abi Umar narrated it to us .They said: Sufyan told us on the authority of Al-Zuhri with this chain of transmission

. Sahih Muslim,Bookof Punishments,Chapter on Stoning a Married Woman for Adultery.



This indicates that the verse on stoning was among the abrogated verses in Surat Al-Ahzab

. This is exactly what Ikrimah, may God have mercy on him, mentioned in the hadith that I quoted:

Ibn Al-Durais narrated on the authority of Ikrimah, who said: Surat Al-Ahzab was like Surat Al-Baqarah or longer, and it contained the verse of stoning.

These verses were abrogated in recitation, and the evidence is their association with the abrogated verse of stoning .

Imam al-Suyuti mentioned them as abrogated in his book, Al-Itqan fi Ulum al-Quran.

Some scholars have said that it is not. It is permissible to abrogate the recitation while the ruling remains, as is the case with the verse on stoning, because the Qur’an is transmitted by continuous narration, and the Qur’anic nature of a word cannot be proven through individual narrations.
For example, it is stated in (Al-Bahr Al-Muhit) by Imam Al-Zarkashi in (The Book of Abrogation):

quote

Shams al-A'immah al-Sarakhsi asserted that 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 Qur'an is not established by such a thing, for whoever denies a verse of the Qur'an is an unbeliever, and such a thing does not make him an unbeliever. So if it is not established that it is the Qur'an, how can it be claimed that it was abrogated? Stoning is not known by this, [ p. 255] but by the hadith of Ma'iz . Likewise the hadith of 'A'ishah , for the Qur'an is not established by a single report, so the recitation of what is from the Qur'an and its ruling together cannot be established by it, for we do not understand that it is abrogated until we understand that it is the Qur'an, and its being from the Qur'an is not established by a single report. This objection is in both sections, I mean in the abrogation of recitation without the ruling and vice versa. For this reason 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, and so is the abrogation of both of them .

Ibn Hajar, may God have mercy on him, said in Fath Al-Bari about the abrogation of the verse on breastfeeding:

quote

Also, Aisha’s statement, “ Ten known breastfeedings, then they were abrogated by five known breastfeedings, and the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, 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 Qur’an is not proven except by continuous transmission, and the narrator narrated
this as Qur’an, not as a report, so it was not proven that it was Qur’an, nor did the narrator mention that it was a report for his statement to be accepted in it, and God knows best.

As for the verse of stoning, many scholars have said that it was a verse and was abrogated
, but some scholars have also denied this.

Al-Nahhas said in “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 Qur’an that was transmitted by the group from the group, but it is an established Sunnah. A person may say: I used to recite such-and-such for something other than the Qur’an, and the evidence for this is that he said: If it were not for the fact that I hate it to be said: ‘Umar added to the Qur’an,’ I would have added it.” So it is not from the Qur’an, yes; it is a ruling established for him, but there is evidence from outside that prevents its being established in the “Mushaf.” If it were the Qur’an, Umar would have rushed and not paid attention to what people said, because what people said at that time is not a valid deterrent.”