Page:Maulana Muhammad Ali Quran.djvu/87

Rh the report relating to acts of suckling and attributed to 'Ayesha is a clear fabrication. As we have seen, such a verse should have been one of the most well known of all verses. Up to the death of the Holy Prophet, 'Ayesha had heard it recited generally. Six months after this, her father, Abu Bakr, ordered the collection of the Holy Qur-án, and no such verse was brought to his notice or that of Zaid. 'Ayesha herself never told the collectors that any such verse existed. Even at the time when 'Us̲man made transcripts, 'Ayesha was still living, and no such verse was pointed out even then by her. How was it that she spoke of such a verse to 'Urwa years afterwards and had nothing to say of it to her own father when a collection of the Holy Qur-án was being made under his orders? How was it, again, that no one besides 'Ayesha knew anything of such a verse? As in the case of the report already discussed, there is further evidence in the report recorded by Muslim himself that no such verse was ever known to any of the companions of the Holy Prophet. 'Ayesha and other reporters are represented as giving expression to reports according to which the Holy Prophet was on different occasions asked as to whether one or two acts of suckling were effective in marriage prohibitions. Had there existed a verse plainly stating that ten or five acts of suckling had such an effect, the question would never have been asked. Nor can it be supposed that the verse was revealed on such questions being asked, for in such a case the report would have clearly stated that such and such a revelation was received by the Holy Prophet on the question being asked. Therefore all considerations point to the fabrication of the report we are discussing.

The third report that remains may now be disposed of in a few words. The conclusion which is drawn from the words of 'Umar is that a passage regarding the punishment of adulterers and adulteresses was known to 'Umar and the other companions to be a part of the Qur-án, but that it was not met with in the Qur-án. 'Umar is said to have also related that that passage was recited and kept in memory and understood, and that the Holy Prophet acted upon it and so did his successors after him. Now, it may be asked—'Umar himself being the man who had the greatest hand in the collection of the Qur-án, and the copy made being in his possession during his caliphate—what was it that led to the omission of the passage? With regard to the passage in question there can be only two propositions: (l) 'Umar and the other companions agreed that the passage was a part of the Qur-án; (2) 'Umar held the opinion that it was a part of the Qur-án, but the other companions rejected his View. Now, if they all agreed that the passage was a part of the Qur-án, who withheld them from placing it in the Holy Book? The first proposition is, therefore, evidently absurd. As regards the second proposition, there is no evidence at all that 'Umar's statement was contradicted by any of the companions. But if it were actually contradicted, 'Umar must himself have been convinced of his error by not finding any support from any of the other companions. Thus either the report must be rejected as having been wrongly attributed to 'Umar or it should be taken that there was a misconception on the part of 'Umar. Possibly there can be a third explanation, that the words "Book of God" as used in the report do not indicate the Qur-án, but simply an ordinance of God, as in the Holy Qur-án, 4:24, where Kitáb-Alláh-i 'alaikum means Allah's ordinance to you.

It will be seen from the above that no reliability can be attached to all these reports. But it will be asked, How was it that fabricated reports derogatory to Islam found a currency among the Muslims and were embodied in their collections by some well-known collectors? It should