By: Hamza A. Bajwa
A dead horse has been resurrected and mercilessly flogged in recent times by certain Christian Missionaries desperately searching for that elusive disproof against the Muslim’s evidential conviction in the absolute preservation of the Qur’an. The horse was famously saddled and ridden by the Protestant and professor of Semitic languages Arthur Jeffery, who edited and published in 1937 ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Dawood’s (d.316AH (After Hijri)/ 928CE) classical work Kitab al-Masahif as part of his Materials for the History of the Text of the Holy Qur’an. In it, he attempted to impugn the good character of some of Prophet Muhammad’s (upon whom be peace) Companions, as well as cast aspersions over Caliph ‘Uthman’s efforts in ordering the final compilation of the Qur’an, which “was completed in the year 646 CE”, as the Textus Receptusof the Muslim community. He suggested that there existed a number of divergent and competing codices which prompted ‘Uthman towards “establishing a ‘standard text for the whole empire’ by canonizing the Madinan Codex [mus-haf] and suppressing all others”. This line of reasoning has been incorporated and built upon in recent times by a number of Christian proselytisers and apologists, including those behind the Christian website Answering-Islam.
But this constrained dependency on Jeffery’s Materials has also led to the repetition of his mistakes and blunders, which is what this paper will explore in detail.
The subject of codices, including the aforementioned Companions in possession of such manuscripts, is not something neglected by the early scholars of Islam. Qadhi states:
“Some authors have mentioned at least ten scholars of the first four centuries of the hijrah who had written specific tracts on this topic, amongst them, al-Kisaa’ee (d.189 A.H.), and al-Farraa’ (d.207 A.H.). Unfortunately, the only book that remains of these classical works is the work authored by ‘Abdullaah ibn Abee Daawood (d.316 A.H.), the son of the famous scholar of hadeeth, Aboo Daawood (d.275 A.H.), which he entitled Kitaab al-Masaahif.”
A significant point to note from the outset is that, to date, the first and only person to have edited and published this work of Ibn Abi Dawood is Jeffery:
“Jeffery’s own work is an almost four-hundred page long compilation of the different recitations of certain Companions and Successors who were known to have written mus-hafs. He compiled information regarding fifteen codexes [sic] from the Companions, and thirteen from the Successors…. Jeffery divides the work based on each codex, and under each codex, he lists, in order, all the verses where a different recitation occurs. The most important and longest of them are the codexes [sic] of Ibn Mas’ood and Ubay ibn Ka’ab.
“Jeffery compiled this information from over thirty classical Islaamic texts, some authentic and some not. The sources range from classical lexicons, to the famous works of tafseer, to the works on the qira’aat. Unfortunately, for each variant recitation, he did not list the exact reference work that it was obtained from,” Qadhi summarises.
The damning point to grasp here is that Jeffery fails to provide references. Qadhi continues:
“More importantly - and this is the greatest flaw of the book - the authenticity of these recitations has to be established. In other words, how can the reader be assured that these recitations were actually recited?”
Worse still, Qadhi adds:
“From a Muslim standpoint, we have recourse to the isnaad. Jeffery, however, believes the isnaads to hold very little, if any, value. Due to this opinion, he does not quote isnaads, for each variant reading.” 
The authority of ones work and research is strengthened by responsibly citing the sources used, and is generally considered a form of professional academic honesty from which this responsibility stems. In fact, many would consider the list of cited references as the single most valuable part of their research. Not so Jeffery.
Mohar Ali sums up Jeffery’s plight succinctly:
“…serious scholarship demands that each and every report attributing a certain variant reading to a particular authority should be thoroughly looked into and its authenticity or otherwise be ascertained before hazarding a drastic conclusion on the basis of that reading. The fact remains that Jeffery has not done anything of that sort. And in view of the fact that the popular Qur’an commentaries contain many uncorroborated and inauthentic reports and that many interested groups had readily had recourse to fabrication of reports, the majority of the variant readings listed by Jeffery are suspect and are unworthy of credence.”
The consequence of this, as Qadhi mentions, is as follows:
“Therefore, in order to find the authenticity of a certain reading, it is necessary to go back to the thirty works from which Jeffery compiled his work, verify which one of them mentions this reading, and then check its isnaad for authenticity. (This is supposing that the original work even mentions an isnaad, for some of these recitations are merely referenced in later works without any isnaad.).”
In a court of law, such evidence (or lack thereof) would be deemed inadmissible. In the Christian court of Answering-Islam, however, the failure of tabulating source references warrants no mention whatsoever of Jeffery’s unscholarly approach, unless of course the shoe is on the other foot and involves the Christian apocryphal sources, which in turn raises the question of double-standards.
In any case, both Mohar Ali and Qadhi quote verbatim Jeffery’s paradoxical uncertainty over the authenticity of the said readings:
“In some cases it must be confessed there is a suspicion of readings later invented by the grammarians and theologians being fathered on these early authorities in order to gain the prestige of their name. This suspicion is perhaps strongest in the case of distinctively Shi’a readings that are attributed to Ibn Mas’ud, and in readings attributed to the wives of the Prophet...” 
This is all well and good for Jeffery, who apparently had the isnaad (a chain of narration that determines the authenticity of a religious attribution to a Muslim, pl. asaneed) and source books to hand, but it is useless for anyone else wishing to determine its authenticity – unless you are the indifferent lot of Answering-Islam.
In light of the above and with all things being equal, the Muslims would and should move to dismiss such assertions for lack of corroborative evidence while retorting with the general rule of proof: the burden is upon the claimant. To put it another way, those who attempt to argue against the Qur’an by way of a given variant reading must firstly prove its authenticity through its isnaad. Alas, all things in this respect are not equal since, in keeping with western methods of historical verification, a number of western scholars uncritically reject the isnaad system.
Any Muslim well acquainted with Islam will quickly be able to discern, among other dishonest characteristics, the habitual use of sophistry and exaggeration in much of the discourse and diatribe published on Answering-Islam’s website. An example of this can be gleaned from a series of articles written by the South African evangelist John Gilchrist titled: Jam’ Al-Qur’an: The Codification of the Qur’an Text. This paper will be a response to the chapter from this booklet: Codices of Ibn Mas’ud and Ubayy Ibn Ka’b. 
FOREMOST AUTHORITY ON THE QUR’AN
In quoting a well known hadith (pl. ahadith), Gilchrist sets his stall out in the very first paragraph with a straw man that ‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ud “was regarded by Muhammad himself as one of the foremost authorities on the Qur'an, if not the foremost”. The aforementioned hadith reads:
“Narrated Masruq: Abdullah bin Mas’ud was mentioned before Abdullah bin ‘Amr who said, ‘That is a man I still love, as I heard the Prophet (saw) saying: Learn the recitation of the Qur’an from four: from Abdullah bin Mas’ud - he started with him - Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa, Mu’adh bin Jabal and Ubai bin Ka’b.’ (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 5, p.96).”
It should be noted that this straw man argument has been adopted almost universally by other Christian missionaries when debating this topic with Muslims.
Gilchrist uses this and other hadith to hyperbolise the credentials of Ibn Mas’ud in order to portray that “Muhammad regarded Ibn Mas'ud and Ubayy ibn Ka’b as far better read in the Qur'an than him [Zaid ibn Thabit]”. This is crucial towards supporting Gilchrist’s final conclusion that seeks to cast doubt over the universally accepted claim from antiquity of the Textus Receptus being unanimously supported and received by all the Companions.
The narrative that Gilchrist manufactures alleges that the “foremost authority on the Qur’an”, Ibn Mas’ud, not only strongly opposed the Textus Receptus, but also reacted angrily towards “Uthman’s order that all codices of the Qur’an other than Zaid’s should be burnt” since he believed his personally compiled codex to have “as much claim to accuracy and completeness as any other” - including Zaids.
The most that can be deduced from the aforementioned hadith is that Ibn Mas’ud was one of the most accomplished reciters of the Qur’an (استقرئوا القرآن). It would be a false generalisation to adduce from this that ipso facto he must also be the chief authority in all other Qur’anic fields, such as, orthography, exegesis, or the process of scriptural collection and collation. Similarly, despite the above four being singled out on that occasion, it would be a fallacious extension to assume that no other contemporaneous teachers were around when evidence points to the contrary.
In the same way, it would be incorrect to infer from the following hadith narrated by Qatadah that only four collected the Qur’an when it is confirmed that other Companions, such as, Abu Bakr and Ibn Mas’ud, did likewise:
“I asked Anas ibn Maalik: ‘Who collected the Qur’an at the time of the Prophet?’ He replied: ‘Four, all of whom were from the Ansaar: Ubai bin Ka’b, Mu’adh ibn Jabal, Zaid ibn Thabit, Abu Zaid.’”
As a matter of fact, the hadith that immediately follows this in al-Bukhari’s magnum opus has the Companion Anas bin Malik also relaying: “When the Prophet died, none had collected the Qur’an but four persons: Abu Ad-Darda, Mu’adh bin Jabal, Zaid bin Thabit and Abu Zaid.” However, there is no contradiction here, as some missionaries have prematurely asserted, because Anas in both instances was responding to the competition that existed between the two main tribes of Madina - Al-Aws and Al-Khazraj – as mentioned by Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani:
“The purpose was affirming this quality to the tribe of Al-Khazraj in exclusion of Al-Aws. So, it does not exclude the Meccan migrants outside the two tribes because it was said in the context of competition between Al-Aws and Al-Khazraj as Ibn Jarir has related through the chain of Sa’eed Ibn ‘Aroubah on the authority of Qatada that Anas said: ‘The two tribes, Al-Aws and Al-Khazraj, competed. Al-Aws said, “There are four among us: Sa’d Ibn Mu’adh for whom the Throne trembled, Khuzaimah Ibn Thabit whose witness is equal to the witness of two men, Hanzalah ibn Abi ‘Amir whom the angels washed and ‘Asim ibn Abi Thabit whom the wasps protected”. Al-Khazraj said, “There are four among us who memorised the Qur’an in its entirety and none else did”’. And he mentioned their names.”
Additionally, Imam al-Maziri convincingly argued:
“It is not necessary from the saying of Anas that ‘none had memorised the Qur’an in its entirety but four people’ is the reality of the matter because it actually indicates that he did not know that anyone else had memorised it in its entirety; and how could he know this despite the abundant number of the Companions and their dispersal to different countries? This could not be accomplished unless he met each and every one of them and Anas was told that he did not memorise the Qur’an in its entirety during the Prophet’s lifetime. This is extremely unusual. So, if the reference is his personal knowledge, then it is not necessary that it is identical to the reality. Some infidels have stuck to that report of Anas, but they have no right to do so for we do not hold its external meaning. Even if we held it, then how could they be sure that it is identical to the reality? Even if we accepted it as such, it does not require of this huge number that did not memorise the Qur’an in its entirety that they all did not memorise the whole Qur’an. It is not a condition of Tawatur that everyone memorises it completely, but if they all memorised the entirety even in parts, it is sufficient.”
These ahadith, of course, make specific mention of Zaid ibn Thabit who, along with collecting the Qur’an, was also one of tens of other Qur’anic scribes at the service of the Prophet (upon whom be peace). According to Muhammad Mustafa al-Azami, there were “approximately sixty-five Companions who functioned as scribes for the Prophet at one time or another…: Aban b. Sa’id, Abu Umama, Abu Ayyub al-Ansari, Abu Bakr as-Siddiq, Abu Hudhaifa, Abu Sufyan, Abu Salama, Abu ‘Abas, Ubayy b. Ka’b, al-Arqam, Usaid b. al-Hudair, Aus, Buraida, Bashir, Thabit b. Qais, Ja’far b. Abi Talib, Jahm b. Sa’d, Juhaim, Hatib, Hudhaifa, Husain, Hanzala, Huwaitib, Khalid b. Sa’id, Khalid b. al-Walid, az-Zubair b. al-‘Awwam, Zubair b. Arqam, Zaid b. Thabit, Sa’d b. ar-Rabi’, Sa’d b. ‘Ubada, Sa’id b. Sa’id, Shurahbil b. Hasna, Talha, ‘Amir b. Fuhaira, ‘Abbas, ‘Abdullah b. al-Arqam, ‘Abdullah b. Abi Bakr, ‘Abdullah b. Rawaha, ‘Abdullah b. Zaid, ‘Abdullah b. Sa’d, ‘Abdullah b. ‘Abdullah, ‘Abdullah b. ‘Amr, ‘Uthman b. ‘Affan, ‘Uqba, al-‘Ala’ al-Hadrami, al-‘Ala’ b. ‘Uqba, ‘Ali b. Abi Talib, ‘Umar b. al-Khattab, ‘Amr b. al-‘As, Muhammad b. Maslama, Mu’adh b. Jabal, Mu’awiya, Ma’n b. ‘Adi, Mu’aiqib, Mughira, Mundhir, Muhajir and Yazid b. Abi Sufyan.” 
KATIB AN-NABI – ZAID IBN THABIT
What leaps out from this list is the glaring absence of Gilchrist’s supposed foremost authority on the Qur’an: ‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ud. This identification, of course, is not a besmirchment of Ibn Mas’ud’s high standing as a leading authority on Islam, but a necessary acknowledgement of the obvious: he was not an expert in all facets of the Qur’anic sciences.
As to the question of who was most qualified to take on the monumental task of compiling the Qur’an, then a cursory examination of the essential qualities required for such an undertaking noticeably pointed to a man possessed of such attributes making him stand out above all others as the obvious choice. His all-round credentials in this field of expertise were such that it warranted him being exclusively selected and commissioned during the reign of Abu Bakr and ‘Uthman, respectively, as head of the Qur’an compilation committee. Known by the soubriquets: Scribe of the Prophet “Katib al-Nabiyy” and “the well-known Scribe of the Revelation (Katib al-Wahy al-Mashhur)”, he was the companion from the tribe of Khazraj: Zaid ibn Thabit.
A summation of Zaid’s appointment and status in comparison to Ibn Mas’ud is aptly stated by Abu Bakr al-Anbari:
“The fact that Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman chose Zaid in the matter of collecting the Qur’an does not mean that they were putting him over ‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ud. ‘Abdullah was better than Zaid, older in Islam, had attended more battles and possessed more virtues. Zaid, however, knew more of the Qur’an than ‘Abdullah (إلا لأن زيدا كان أحفظ للقرآن من عبد الله) since he had memorised it all during the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah (upon whom be peace), whereas ‘Abdullah had only memorised about seventy chapters while the Messenger of Allah (upon whom be peace) was alive and learned the rest after his death. The one who knew the entire Qur’an and memorised it while the Messenger of Allah (upon whom be peace) was alive was more entitled to compile the Qur’an and to be preferred and chosen to do so. No ignorant person should suppose that this is an attack on ‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ud since the fact that Zaid had the better memory of the Qur’an of the two (لأن زيدا إذا كان أحفظ للقرآن منه) does not mean that he should be preferred to him in general terms because Zaid also knew more Qur’an than Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, and he was certainly not better than them or equal to them in virtue.”
Zaid himself testified of his appointment as follows:
“Abu Bakr sent for me at a time when the Yamama battles had witnessed the martyrdom of numerous Companions. I found ‘Umar bin al-Khattab with him. Abu Bakr began, ‘Umar has just come to me and said, “In the Yamama battles death has dealt most severely with the qurra”, and I fear it will deal with them with equal severity in other theatres of war. As a result much of the Qur’an will be gone (يذهب القران). I am therefore of the opinion that you should command the Qur’an be collected.’ Abu Bakr continued, ‘I said to ‘Umar, “How can we embark on what the Prophet never did?” “Umar replied that it was a good deed regardless, and he did not cease replying to my scruples until Allah reconciled me to the undertaking, and I became of the same mind as him. Zaid, you are young and intelligent, you used to record the revelations for the Prophet, and we know nothing to your discredit. So pursue the Qur’an and collect it together.”’.” 
Both Bilal Philips and al-Azami provide a summary of Zaid’s credentials. Al-Azami states that “in his early twenties at the time, Zaid had been privileged enough to live in the Prophet's neighbourhood and serve as one of his most visible scribes. He was also among the huffaz, and the breadth of these credentials made him an outstanding choice for this task. Abu Bakr as-Siddiq listed his qualifications in the narration above:
1. Zaid’s youth (indicating vitality and energy).
2. His irreproachable morals. Abu Bakr specifically said (لا نتهمك): “We do not accuse you of any wrongdoing.”
3. His intelligence (indicating the necessary competence and awareness).
4. His prior experience with recording the wahy.
While Philips adds:
1. “He was one of the best reciters of the Qur’aan.
2. He was one of the few who had memorized the whole Qur’aan during the lifetime of the Prophet (saw).
Moreover, in an authentic narration cited by Ibn Hajar as reported in Al-Masahif, Caliph ‘Uthman consulted the Muslims over who the most well-read was of the people (من أكتب الناس) and who the most eloquent was (فأى الناس أعرب وفى رواية أفصح) in terms of the language of the Qur’an. Of the former “they replied: Scribe of the Messenger (upon whom be peace) Zaid ibn Thabit (قالوا كاتب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم زيد بن ثابت)”. Of the latter, they replied: “Sa’id ibn al-‘Aas.”
Qadhi further highlights Zaid’s multifaceted legacy:
“Sulayman ibn Yasaar (d. 100A.H.) said, ‘Neither ‘Umar nor ‘Uthmaan preferred anyone over Zayd ibn Thaabit when it came to the laws of inheritance…and the recitation of the Qur’aan.’ ‘Aamir ibn Sharaheel ash-Sha’bee (d.103 A.H.) said, ‘Zayd ibn Thaabit overwhelmed and conquered the people with his knowledge of the recitation (of the Qur’aan), and his knowledge of the laws of inheritance.’ Such was his stature among the companions that ‘Umar, ‘Uthmaan and ‘Alee all appointed Zayd to be one of the main judges and reciters of Madeenah, and he remained in this post until he passed away in 45 A.H.” 
IBN MAS’UD’S CREDENTIALS
To foster “further evidence of Ibn Mas’ud’s prominence in respect to his knowledge of the Qur’an”, Gilchrist quotes Ibn Mas’ud as saying:
“By Allah other than Whom none has the right to be worshipped! There is no Sura revealed in Allah’s Book but I know at what place it was revealed; and there is no verse revealed in Allah’s Book but I know about whom it was revealed. And if I know that there is somebody who knows Allah’s Book better than I, and he is at a place that camels can reach, I would go to him. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.488).”
What Gilchrist conveniently overlooks here is that Ibn Mas’ud specifically qualifies his proclamation with the important proviso: “And if I know that there is somebody who knows Allah’s Book better than I, and he is at a place that camels can reach, I would go to him.” This is verified by an authentic narration in which Ibn Mas’ud readily acknowledged the superiority of one whose interpretational knowledge of the Qur’an (tafsir) surpassed his very own: “If Ibn ‘Abbaas was from our era/ age, then ten men would not be equal to him (in knowledge) (قال عبد الله هو ابن مسعود أما إن ابن عباس لو أدرك أسناننا ما عاشره منا أحد).” Ibn Taymiyyah expounded: “Meaning: (they) did not reach a tenth of his (knowledge) (أي ما بلغ عشره).” Ibn Mas’ud’s admission is extraordinary when one considers the young age of Ibn ‘Abbaas, and thus, the relatively little time he would have enjoyed, in contrast to his senior colleague, in the company of the Prophet (upon whom be peace) while accompanying him on expeditions, battles, etc. Ibn Mas’ud also said of his younger colleague: “What a blessed commentator of the Qur’an is Ibn ‘Abbaas”.
Moreover, if Ibn Mas’ud’s reminder of his lofty credentials is the premise upon which Gilchrist argues his superiority over all others (which it seems it is), then such an argument must also be equally valid for all similar situations, including the following sermon given by ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib: “Ask me about the Book of God! For by God, there is no verse but that I know whether it was sent down during the day or night, on a plain or mountaintop. (Suyuti, II, p.187).” Based on this argument, how would Gilchrist reconcile between the two?
Following this hadith from Al-Bukhari, Gilchrist then alleges that Ibn Mas’ud proclaims “in a similar tradition… that he had recited more than seventy surahs of the Qur’an in Muhammad’s presence, alleging that all Muhammad’s companions were aware that no one knew the Qur’an better than he did, to which Shaqiq, sitting by, added ‘I sat in the company of the Companions of Muhammad (may peace be upon him) but I did not hear anyone having rejected that (that is, his recitation) or finding fault with it’ (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 4, p.1312)”. In contrast, however, when the two traditions in Al-Bukhari and Muslim are closely examined, the clause that ‘all’ of “Muhammad’s Companions were aware that no one knew the Qur’an better than he did” is absent - perhaps explaining why Gilchrist suitably chose not to cite it verbatim. The relevant part in Muslim reads:
“‘I recited before Allah’s Messenger (upon whom be peace) more than seventy chapters of the Qur’an and the Companions of Allah’s Messenger (upon whom be peace) know that I have better understanding of the Book of Allah (than they do), and if I were to know that someone had better understanding than I, I would have gone to him.’ Shaqiq said: I sat in the company of the Companions of Muhammad (upon whom be peace), but I did not hear anyone having rejected that or having found fault with it.”
Al-Bukhari’s account varies slightly:
“Once ‘Abdullah bin Mas’ud delivered a sermon before us and said, ‘By Allah! I learnt over seventy chapters direct from Allah’s Messenger. By Allah! The Companions of the Prophet came to know that I have more knowledge of the Book of Allah than them, though I am not the best of them (والله لقد علم أصحاب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أني من أعلمهم بكتاب الله وما أنا بخيرهم).’ Shaqiq added: I sat in his religious gathering and I did not hear anybody opposing him (in his speech).”
The importance of this final remark from the narrator Shaqiq cannot be understated for it opens up the question of whether this includes “all [of] Muhammad’s companions” as Gilchrist has audaciously surmised.
In his examination of this tradition, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani cites an additional narration from Ibn Shihab (az-Zuhri) in which Shaqiq maintains: “When he descended the pulpit, I sat down in the study circle and no one objected to what he said (فَلَمَّا نَزَلَ عَنْ الْمِنْبَر جَلَسْت فِي الْحَلَق فَمَا أَحَد يُنْكِر مَا قَالَ).” But Ibn Hajar confines its apparent generality by rightly concluding: “And this restricts his (Ibn Shaqiq’s) general statement: ‘The Companions of Muhammad (upon whom be peace),’ (to mean) that whoever was from them in Kufah did not object to that (وَهَذَا يُخَصِّص عُمُوم قَوْله 'أَصْحَاب مُحَمَّد صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ' بِمَنْ كَانَ مِنْهُمْ بِالْكُوفَةِ وَلَا يُعَارِض ذَلِكَ).”
Furthermore, when discussing the narration attributed to az-Zuhri, Ibn Hajar again clarifies that the Companions Shaqiq bore witness of were those residing in Kufah (الَّذِينَ شَاهَدَهُمْ شَقِيق بِالْكُوفَةِ). This, of course, is entirely consistent with the fact that not only were there Companions just as knowledgeable as Ibn Mas’ud, as he himself acknowledges of Ibn ‘Abbaas, but more significantly, it is impossible to imagine let alone verify whether the Companions in toto heard of and silently accepted Ibn Mas’ud’s proclamation.
What is more, Ibn Hajar also records an additional wording to the above tradition in which Ibn Mas’ud adds: “And I learnt the rest (of the Qur’an) from the other Companions (وَأَخَذْت بَقِيَّة الْقُرْآن عَنْ أَصْحَابه).” Al-Qurtubi even provides a name of one of those Companions: “Abu Ishaq said that ‘Abdullah [ibn Mas’ud] learned the rest of the Qur’an from Mujammi’ ibn Jariya al-Ansari (وتعلم عبد الله بقية القرآن من مجمع بن جارية الأنصاري).” As mentioned earlier, Zaid knew the whole Qur’an before the Prophet (upon whom be peace) passed away.
When this, and all of the above, is taken into account, it serves as nothing except a death knell to the inane and hackneyed blanket claim that Ibn Mas’ud was “the best teacher of the Quran”.
IBN MAS’UD vs. ZAID
In the second section of this chapter: ‘Ibn Mas’ud’s Reaction to Uthman’s Decree’, Gilchrist devises a fantasy-driven narrative that diverges from recorded history. He uses a reductionist approach that seeks to subvert the near complete support of the Companions towards the compilation of the Textus Receptus. This is attempted by firstly alleging that a rivalry existed between certain Companions over whose personal copy of the Qur’an had the right of being chosen as the Textus Receptus, and then seeking to whittle that rivalry down to two people: Ibn Mas’ud and Zaid ibn Thabit.
Thus, writes Gilchrist:
“Muslim writers resort to such strange reasonings solely because they are determined to maintain the declared textual perfection of the Qur'an as it stands today to the last dot and letter. As this text is only a revision and reproduction of the codex of just one man, Zaid ibn Thabit, they have to circumvent the fact that other equally authoritative codices of single Companions existed and that all of them, Zaid’s included, differed in many key respects.”
And because the Textus Receptus is merely said to be a redaction of Zaid’s personal codex that has been “elevated to ‘official’ status right from the time of its compilation, [while] the other texts have been downgraded to the status of ‘personal notebooks’”, Ibn Mas’ud takes exception to this decision “precisely because the great companion of Muhammad considered his own text to be superior to and more authentic than Zaid’s that he was angered at Uthman's decree”.
Notice the cunning use of language which seeks to devalue the combined help and assistance of the Companions towards the compilation of the Textus Receptus in order to reduce the effort to “just one man, Zaid ibn Thabit”. The aim here is to suggest that his codex was one of several “other equally authoritative codices of single Companions”; but which eventually “came into prominence and was decreed to be the official text during Uthman’s reign”.
Similar to the approach of his predecessor Jeffery, this reductionist approach is again crucial for Gilchrist’s final assault which seeks to prove that not only was Zaid’s codex “arbitrarily chosen” as the Textus Receptus over the rest, but that all of these competing codices allegedly contained “vast differences in the texts”. It is Gilchrist (and not Muslim writers) who “resort[s] to such strange reasonings” with another straw man intending to show that “the differences in reading were not confined to forms of dialect in pronunciation but in the actual contents of the text itself”. It follows from his argument that since Ibn Mas’ud “sincerely believed that his text of the Qur’an, gained firsthand from Muhammad himself, was more authentic than the text of Zaid”, and said to differ textually, this renders the universally “declared textual perfection of the Qur’an as it stands today to the last dot and letter” to be false.
IBN MAS’UD’S FLEETING DISAGREEMENT
Before tackling this argument, it is necessary to establish which opinion vis-à-vis the seven divinely instantiated ahruf has been opted for and why. Qadhi explicates:
“Therefore, it is concluded that the seven ahruf represent variations based upon, but not limited to, the most fluent Arab tribes of that time. These variations occurred in words, letters, and pronunciations, such that all these variations made it easier for the Companions to memorise the Qur’aan.”
Qadhi quotes: “Ibn al-Jazaree (d. 832 A.H.) [who] writes, ‘The majority of the scholars of the salaf and the later generations are of the opinion that the ‘Uthmaanic mus-hafs contains of the seven ahruf only that which its script allows. (What is preserved) are the recitations that the Prophet (saw) recited to Jibra’eel (during the last year of his life). The present mus-haf contains all this reading, and not a single letter from it is missing.’” Thus, this majority view “seems to be the strongest one…” and explains why “the scriptural differences are not accidental, but rather intentional. The Prophet (saw) used to recite the Qur’aan in all of these ways….”
At this point, a clarification could also be helpful in dispelling any potential misunderstandings arising for those unfamiliar with this subject vis-à-vis the above opinion and those narrations stating that the Qur’an was revealed in the language of the Quraish. Ahmad Ali al-Imam forwards a plausible explanation:
“‘Uthman said: ‘The Qur’an has been revealed in the language of the Quraysh.’ But this can mean no more than the fact the Qur’an is mainly in the Qurayshi dialect, for it contains features from other dialects, such as the retention of hamzah, which generally disappears in the Hijazi dialect.... It might be reasonable to assume that the Qur’an was initially revealed in the dialect of the Quraysh tribe and its neighbors, and that later on the other Arab tribes were permitted to recite it in their own dialects, regardless of how much it differed from the Qurayshi dialect. Thus they were not told to abandon their dialects in favor of that of the Quraysh, for it would have been hard for them to have done so and because they tried to cling strongly to their dialects.”
This allowance, of course, would then have to conform to the final reading that Muhammad (upon whom be peace) recited twice to angel Jibra’eel during the last few month’s of his life. It would be this final reading which would later be utilised by Zaid to compile the Textus Receptus. Furthermore, in the unlikely event of a difference arising over the spelling of a word, a condition was stipulated by ‘Uthman that it be spelt according to the Quraishi dialect (لسان).
There was some initial reticence on Ibn Mas’ud’s part when he came to learn of ‘Uthman’s decision to standardise the Qur’an in order to obviate any further disputes over the claims of dialectical superiority; though not as Gilchrist chimerically paints. Al-Azami makes it clear that these disagreements were relayed to Caliph ‘Uthman by his commander-in-chief Hudhaifa bin al-Yaman following his return from the outlying provinces of the Islamic state. It seems, however, that the problem escalated to such an extent that it eventually culminated in Caliph ‘Uthman resolving to end the disputes following Hudhaifa’s warning in 25 A.H.
“Assembling the people, he explained the problem and sought their opinion on recital in different dialects, keeping in mind that some might claim a particular dialect as superior based on their tribal affiliations. When asked for his own opinion he replied (as narrated by ‘Ali bin Abi Talib),
نري أن نجمع الناس على مصحف واحد فلا تكون فرقة و لا يكون اختلاف. قلنا: فنعم ما رأيت
Reading Gilchrist’s account, one may be inveigled to the supposition that these Companions were teaching in their respective provinces autonomously and independently of their leader’s control. Gilchrist portrays:
“In fact it is well known that Ibn Mas’ud’s codex, far from being for his personal use only, was widely used in the region where he was based and, just as Ubayy ibn Ka’b’s codex became the standard text Syria before Uthman’s recension, so Ibn Mas’ud’s likewise became the standard text for the Muslim ummah in and around Kufa in Iraq (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab, p. 13).”
It should be noted, however, that these teachers were appointed by their respective leaders to teach the Qur’an according to the manner in which they had been taught by their Prophet (upon whom be peace). To say that Ibn Mas’ud’s codex was not for personal use is, therefore, a moot point. Indeed, if Ibn Mas’ud was officially appointed to his respective province, would it not be impossible for him to teach if his codex was “for his personal use only”.
Mohar Ali elaborates:
“It needs to be pointed out that the persons mentioned did not find their way to the different provincial centres on their own accord but were appointed as administrators at those places by the khalifas [Caliphs] ‘Umar and ‘Uthman, with instructions to teach the people the Qur’an… The persons mentioned were all well-known Qur’an readers (teachers) and both ‘Umar and ‘Uthman, of all persons, were well aware of the existence of copies of Qur’an texts with them. Had these copies contained divergent and different types of text they would never have been appointed to their respective places for administration and teaching of the Qur’an.”
Conversely, it is known that Caliph Abu Bakr had the first “compilation of the Qur’an made on a meticulous comparison of the written copies of the text with the memorized text”  after his announcement that any and all written records of the Qur’an be submitted (a key point to be elaborated on shortly). It is highly unlikely that the Qur’anic experts of the compilation committee headed by Zaid could have missed these potentially disastrous differences. Had these really existed, the committee would have been compelled to raise this as a matter of unprecedented urgency to the attention of their Caliph for swift remedial action. Historically speaking, no such report - authentic or otherwise – exists.
It is, therefore, apparent that what Mohar Ali understands by “divergent and different texts” is diametrically opposed to Gilchrist’s understanding. For what Mohar Ali means by this is certainly separate to and distinct from the textual differences generated by the divinely instantiated “variant recitations in the provinces. The differences were dialectical and in the manners of vocalization; and this is what the reporter, Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman, who was sent on a campaign to Adharbyjan [Azerbaijan] and noticed the variations on his return march, stressed in his report to the khalifah ”.
Gilchrist, on the other hand, derives the most inexplicable of straw man arguments to lend weight to his underlying assertion that all the variant codices contained “vast differences in the texts”. He claims:
“Modern writers… maintain that the only differences between the recitations of the text and the reading of each companion (qira’at) were in pronunciations and dialectal expressions, yet it is once again obvious that what Hudhayfah had in mind was the elimination of the actual written codices being used by Abdullah ibn Mas’ud and the others - you cannot drown a verbal recitation - and it was this proposal which so angered Ibn Mas’ud and which proves that the differences in reading were in the texts themselves.”
This assertion is either down to Gilchrist’s ignorance over the fundamental difference between the ahruf and qira’aat, including their interrelationship vis-à-vis Textus Receptus, or, as I suspect, his intentional disregard of their correct understanding so as to support his spurious arguments. Whatever the case, Gilchrist’s approach is consistent with and no less obfuscatory than his fellow faithful Jeffery, who, according to Qadhi, “absolutely ignores the concept of the ahruf and qira’aat”. Gilchrist traverses his predecessor’s footsteps and exposes his ignorance in this subject by stating that Zaid’s “qira’at became standardised as the only readings allowable in the Muslim world and copies of his codex were distributed to replace the others in popular use purely to establish a uniform reading of the Qur’an text”.
Firstly, even a neophytic student of the Qur’anic sciences will be able to spot the glaring error here. If Zaid’s qira’ah was the de facto standard that superseded all others, how and why were the ten mutawaatir qira’aat of Nafi’ al-Madani, Ibn Kathir al-Makki, Abu ‘Amr al-Basri, Ibn ‘Aamir ash-Shaami, ‘Aasim al-Kufi, Hamza al-Kufi, Al-Kisaa’i, Abu Ja’far al-Madani, Ya’qub al-Basri, and Khalaf preserved for posterity and used for teaching and learning?
Secondly, it is simply untrue to say that the differences of reading resulting from the qira’aat (“reading of each companion”) and/ or the ahruf (which Gilchrist oddly refers to as “dialectical expressions”) do not lead to textual differences. As elaborated above, the opposite is well known to be true.
Gilchrist’s confusion, therefore, emanates from a combination of him ignoring any differences between the ahruf and the qira’aat, including the relevant differences of opinion, and his drive to twist and misrepresent the evidence to support his vacuous conclusions. What, then, is the most consistent explanation for Ibn Mas’ud’s initial reticence resulting in him laying the blame at the feet of Zaid, whom he judged to be unqualified for the task, in light of what has preceded? Was Ibn Mas’ud, as Gilchrist imagines, “angered at Uthman’s decree” to destroy all extant codices (including his own) while choosing Zaids as the Textus Receptus because Ibn Mas’ud held his own to be “more authentic than the text of Zaid” and “regarded Zaid's knowledge of the Qur'an, and therefore his written codex of the text, as inferior to his”?
This oft-repeated notion of Companions believing their personal codices, which were a product of what they had personally learned directly from the Prophet (upon whom be peace), to be superior than their rivals, are not in any way historically supported or borne out of the facts. Those who argue this case invariably commit a non sequitur where inferences do not follow from the evidences.
The first question that arises is: how can codices compiled upon a particular dialect (harf) out of the seven, all of which were divinely revealed and taught by the Prophet (upon whom be peace), be deemed superior or inferior? Since it has been shown that all the authentic textual differences, which emanated from the seven ahruf, were of divine origin (making them all legitimate for teaching, which will be examined later in greater detail), and that “not a single reading actually contradicts another one in meaning. No verse is added, no ruling contradicted, no law repealed”, one could not have been superior over another since they were all equally the Uncreated Speech of God. This is precisely what Ibn Mas’ud articulated to his students in Kufah:
“People ran alarmed and scared to Abdullah ibn Mas’ud regarding the issue of the manuscripts (المصاحف), so we went to him and one man said to him: We did not come to visit you, but we came when we heard the news (of Uthman’s decision regarding the manuscripts). He (Ibn Mas’ud) said: ‘The Qur’an has been revealed to your Prophet from seven doors in seven ahruf, and the book before you was revealed from one door in one harf - their meaning is one’ (إن القرآن أنزل على نبيكم من سبعة أبواب على سبعة أحرف و إن الكتاب الأول كان ينزل من باب واحد - على حرف واحد).”
It is this universally accepted understanding that ipso facto leads ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib to issue the stern warning:
“فقد بلغني أن بعضهم يقول إن قراءتي خير من قراءتك ، وهذا يكاد أن يكون كفرا - It has been brought to my attention that some of them say, ‘My reading is superior to yours.’ And this is close to being disbelief.”
Hence, it is not a case of superiority, but a case of legitimacy and allowance.
As mentioned earlier, once there was certainty over the Qur’an’s preservation in toto, a decision was made down the line, and supported by all the Companions, that it only be taught and transmitted according to the Qur’an authorised by Angel Jibra’eel during that final reading with Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace), which mainly conformed to the dialect of Quraish.
Having tackled Gilchrist’s wholly implausible and inconsistent suppositions, what remains is to ascertain the reasons behind Ibn Mas’ud’s temporary disagreement, as well as attempting to determine what led him to adopt a position in contradistinction to the rest of the Companions.
What follows is an explanation that accurately fits the facts and is consistent with all that has been discussed so far, and that is: Ibn Mas’ud initially contested ‘Uthman’s decision to terminate the teaching and transmission of the Qur’an in any dialect that opposed the said final reading.
Gilchrist alludes to this, albeit unintentionally, when citing a sermon Ibn Mas’ud is reported to have delivered in Kufa declaring:
“The people have been guilty of deceit in the reading of the Qur’an. I like it better to read according to the recitation of him (Prophet) whom I love more than that of Zayd Ibn Thabit…. (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p.444).”
Aside from the fact that the word “deceit” is not to be found in the original Arabic as cited by Gilchrist, this account is supported by other narrations including the following in Fath al-Bari wherein Ibn Mas’ud declares:
“Shackle up your codices (masaahif)! How can you order me to recite like Zaid ibn Thabit when I learned directly from the Messenger of Allaah as he did?”
While Al-Qurtubi quotes:
“Ibn Shihab said that he was told by ‘Ubaydullah ibn ‘Abdullah that ‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ud disliked Zaid ibn Thabit copying out the Qur’an and said: ‘O company of Muslims! I am exempted from copying the manuscript while it is entrusted to a man [Zaid ibn Thabit] (يا معشر المسلمين أعزل عن نسخ المصاحف ويتولاه رجل)! By Allah, I became Muslim while he was in the loins of an unbelieving father!’ Meaning: Zaid ibn Thabit. That is why ‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ud said: ‘O people of Iraq! Conceal the copies of the Qur’an (masaahif) you have and conceal them, for Allah says: “Those who misappropriate will arrive on the Day of Rising with what they have misappropriated.” [Qur’an 3:161] Meet Allah with the copies of the Qur’an.’”
However, an account recorded by At-Tirmidhi contains an additional word which yields an altogether different, and perhaps, more accurate understanding of what Ibn Mas’ud meant here. It reads:
“I am exempted from copying the writing (كتابة) of the manuscript while it is entrusted to a man [Zaid ibn Thabit] (يا معشر المسلمين أعزل عن نسخ كتابة المصحف ويتولاها رجل)!”
This further lends weight to the argument that, before coming to learn of the consensual agreement and support of all the Companions in this matter (leading to an overturning of his initial decision), Ibn Mas’ud did not oppose the seven divinely instantiated dialects, but the manner in which the Qur’an was to be standardised. As mentioned above, this standardisation would have led to the abrogation and loss of certain unique and peculiar features particular to each dialect. Hence, what Ibn Mas’ud was concerned with in this instance was the preservation of Hudhail’s dialectal features in its written form.
It also seems that Ibn Mas’ud “reportedly felt ignored or insulted when he was not asked to join this [Qur’an compilation] committee… As a result, he refused to surrender his personal copy to ‘Uthman and told his students to do the same” (a position supported, among others, by both Ibn Asaakir and Adh-Dhahabi). Dr Fahad ar-Rumi states:
“No opposition has been reported from the Sahaba for what ‘Uthman did, except what has been narrated from Ibn Mas’ud… his opposition was not due to any shortcoming or addition to the Mus-haf, rather it was because he was not included in that committee of collecting the Mus-haf, that’s why he said, ‘I will not give in my Mus-haf, for the one who has taken up this affair is a man who was still under the control of a disbeliever while I was a believer.”
While At-Tirmidhi reports with a chain from az-Zuhri who said: “I was told by many of the Companions that this is the reason Ibn Mas’ud disliked it.”
All this culminated in Ibn Mas’ud taking a more cautious approach towards the compilation; thus, his adoption of a position, which he later discarded, where he believed a more mature, experienced and qualified person be placed in charge of the job, namely himself, in order to ensure, among other things, the preservation of the Hudhail dialect in toto.
Before moving on to explore the possible reasons behind why Ibn Mas’ud adopted such a position, it is strikingly noticeable, although unsurprising, that Gilchrist is as guilty as Jeffery in remaining silent over the impermanency of Ibn Mas’ud’s decision. Mohar Ali’s exposition of Jeffery in this matter is revealing:
“It is only ‘Abd Allah and some of his followers who initially disliked it, but this immediate and temporary reaction of theirs soon passed away and they also accepted the ‘Uthmanic copy. Jeffery mentions this temporary opposition in such a way as to give the impression that it was permanent and persistent. His statement that ‘the Qurra’ were violently opposed to ‘Uthman because of this act’ is grossly wrong and is not borne out by the sources. While citing Ibn al-Athir’s work in support of his statement about ‘Abd Allah ibn Mas’ud’s disagreement Jeffery withholds form [sic] his readers the important fact mentioned by Ibn al-Athir in the same place that while ‘Abd Allah’s followers gathered round him and voiced their objection he shouted out to them saying: ‘Be quiet. This has been done under our eyes. And if I were to take over from him what ‘Uthman has taken charge of, I would surely have followed his way (فصاح و قال اسكت فعن ملأ منا فعل ذلك فلو وليت منه ما و لي عثمان لسلكت سبيله)’.” 
Gilchrist and many other Christians, including the crew of Answering-Islam, are quick to selectively quote from Ibn Abi Dawood’s Masahif via Jeffery’s Materials to support their vacuous arguments, yet, predictably turn a blind eye when the same source confirms Ibn Mas’ud’s change of heart. Qadhi states that “although there are some reports that initially ‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ood did not agree with ‘Uthmaan’s decision, it is also reported that he later changed his mind; cf. Ibn Abee Daawood, pps. 13-18. According to the famous historian, Ibn Katheer, ‘Uthmaan wrote to Ibn Mas’ood advising him to follow the consensus of the other companions, which he agreed to do; cf. al-Bidaayah wa an-Nihaayah, v. 7, p. 207”. 
Al-Qurtubi quotes Abu Bakr al-Anbari as saying:
“The objection which ‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ud made was done in anger and is not acted upon or accepted. There is no doubt that once he was no longer angry he was satisfied with the excellence of the decision of ‘Uthman and the companions of the Messenger of Allah (upon whom be peace) and concurred with their agreement and abandoned his opposition to them.”
Ibn Asaakir added:
“It was narrated that Ibn Mas’ud later agreed (i.e. to selecting Zaid for the committee) and adhered to and approved of Uthman’s decision and revised his previous position (وقد روي عن ابن مسعود أنه رضي بذلك وتابع ووافق رأي عثمان في ذلك وراجع وذلك).”
As the following shows, Mohar Ali continues to reinforce the idea of Ibn Mas’ud’s complete acquiescence:
“Qurtubi in fact mentions ‘Abd Allah ibn Mas’ud’s attitude as his immediate reaction and points out that soon he revised his opinion and accepted the opinion of the other Companions of the Prophet in respect of the wisdom of ‘Uthman’s act. Al-Dhahabi also mentions the same thing about ‘Abd Allah ibn Mas’ud and states: ‘It has been reported that Ibn Mas’ud agreed and followed ‘Uthman (... و قد ورد أن ابن مسعود رضي و تابع عثمان). In fact ‘Abd Allah soon afterwards returned to Madina, lived in close association with ‘Uthman, and died there in 32/33 H. and was buried in the Baqi’ graveyard.”
Hence, Gilchrist’s allegation that “Ibn Mas’ud was eventually compelled to hand his [codex] over for elimination” makes no sense whatsoever if he revised his opinion and accepted the opinion of the other Companions.
As a side note, the above also serves as further evidence against the reliability of an account cited by Rev. Edward Sell in his book: The Recensions of the Qur'an (reproduced by Answering-Islam), which alleges that “the Khalifa [‘Uthman] ordered him [Ibn Mas’ud] to be beaten, from the effects of which he died”. Ibn Taymiyyah asserts complete unanimity among the scholars in recognising this story to be fabricated:
“وأما قول: 'إنه لما حكم ضرب ابن مسعود حتى مات' فهذا كذب باتفاق أهل العلم - And as for the statement: ‘Truly when he (i.e. ‘Uthman) ruled that he had Ibn Mas’ud beaten unto death.’ Then this is a lie according to the consensus of the people of knowledge.”
THE ALL IMPORTANT: WHY?
Finally, then, what were the underlying reasons behind why Ibn Mas’ud reacted the way he did? The first could be the same reason that initially affected Abu Bakr and Zaid ibn Thabit, respectively, when they were immediately confronted by the potential theological ramifications and impact, as well as the sheer enormity and importance of the task, of compiling and standardising the Qur’an, i.e. their initial concerns over its orthodoxical legitimacy before being persuaded otherwise.
The second could be what Ibn Hajar outlines as a possibility: “Ibn Mas’ud was in Kufah when ‘Uthman appointed the committee.” Ibn Mas’ud would have been occupied with teaching the Qur’an and Islam far off in Kufah (as he was originally assigned to do). However, the issue here is not so much Ibn Mas’ud’s inaccessibility, but his relative isolation from the rest of the Companions. Unlike Abu Bakr and ‘Uthman, who would readily turn to the large network of Companions in the vicinity for consultation during important decision making moments, Ibn Mas’ud’s relative isolation from the main body of Companions could have factored significantly in him reaching this atypical judgment.
To elaborate, one is well aware of Caliph Abu Bakr’s response to ‘Umar’s appeal of collecting the Qur’an following the death of a large number of prominent Qur’an memorisers at the battle of al-Yamama.
Abu Bakr recalls:
“I said to ‘Umar, ‘How can we embark on what the Prophet never did?’ ‘Umar replied that it was a good deed regardless, and he did not cease replying to my scruples until Allah reconciled me to the undertaking, and I became of the same mind as him.” The narration continues and records Zaid ibn Thabit’s reaction when asked by his Caliph Abu Bakr to take on such an historically momentous task: “By Allah, had they asked me to move a mountain it could not have been weightier than what they requested of me now. I asked them how they could undertake what the Prophet had never done, but Abu Bakr and ‘Umar insisted that it was permissible and good. They did not cease replying to my scruples until Allah reconciled me to the undertaking, the way Allah had already reconciled Abu Bakr and ‘Umar.”
Abu Bakr and Zaid ibn Thabit were only swayed towards the desirability of collecting the Qur’an after receiving consultative assistance. Similarly, Tafsir al-Qurtubi makes mention of ‘Uthman’s “command” (أمر) to burn all extraneous Qur’anic manuscripts following the completion of the Textus Receptus “after gathering the Muhajirun, Ansar and a group of Muslims, and consulting them in that matter (وكان هذا من عثمان رضي الله عنه بعد ان جمع المهاجرين والأنصار وجلة أهل الإسلام وشاورهم في ذلك). They agreed to collect what was sound and firm of the well-known readings from the Prophet (upon whom be peace) and discard anything else. They thought that what he decided was right and correct (سديدا موفقا). May Allah have mercy on him and all of them”.
In contrast, Ibn Mas’ud’s initial reaction is, therefore, not altogether unforeseeable considering that while he was the foremost authority in the region, there were very few Companions of a similar calibre, if any at all, for him to turn to for consultative purposes.
We have already seen that proving the authenticity of a given variant reading from Ibn Abi Dawood’s al-Masahif is not part of some of the Missionary methods of judicious scholarly research; it is simply assumed as such. Likewise, they are known to selectively quote what suits their argument, such as their consistent failure in citing Ibn Mas’ud’s change of mind. A further example of them playing fast and loose with Kitab al-Masahif is in their attempt to lay blame on ‘Uthman for ordering the burning of all extraneous manuscripts and codices in some seemingly conspiratorial attempt to cover up the so-called “variant readings”.
In this context, the reductionist approach is again utilised to single out and isolate ‘Uthman from the rest of the Companions. For this reason, the narration of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib in al-Masahif, wherein he expresses complete support of ‘Uthman’s decision, is predictably ignored:
“O People! Do not say evil of ‘Uthmaan, but only say good about him. Concerning the burning of the mus-hafs, I swear by Allaah, he only did this after he had called all of us. He asked us, ‘What do you think (should be done) concerning these recitations (in Azerbaijan)? For it has reached me that each party is claiming that their recitation is better, and this (attitude) might lead to disbelief. [فقد بلغني أن بعضهم يقول إن قراءتي خير من قراءتك ، وهذا يكاد أن يكون كفرا]’ We asked him, ‘What do you suggest we do?’ He responded, ‘I think we should consolidate the Muslims on one mus-haf, so that there not be any disagreements or disunity.’ We said, ‘Verily, this idea of yours is an excellent idea.’” 
The Companions’ immediate agreement towards and emphatic support for the Textus Receptus’ codification creates a vicious backlash against Gilchrist’s entire line of argumentation. Begin by taking the following explanation of Mohar Ali as a primer:
“All the sources unanimously state that ‘Uthman, on receipt of Hudhayfah’s report, immediately consulted his principal colleagues, borrowed the master copy of the Qur’an prepared by ‘Abu Bakr and then in the custody of Umm al-Mu’mineen Hafsah, had copies of it made by a committee and sent these copies to the different provinces, with instructions to destroy and put into disuse the extant incomplete and uncorroborated copies. This prompt measure was adopted to preserve the integrity of the Qur’anic text and to prevent any divergent and extraneous elements being introduced into it. That is why all the surviving Companions of the Prophet, including those who had in their possession their personal ‘codexes’ [sic] supported and welcomed ‘Uthman’s action.… Of the three other members of the [Zaid’s] committee ‘Abd Allah ibn Zubayr himself possessed his personal codex. Similarly the holders of other codexes [sic] like Miqdad ibn al-‘Aswad, Abu Musa al-‘Ash’ari, and Ubay ibn Ka’b welcomed and accepted ‘Uthman’s measure.”
Even Ubay ibn Ka’b, whom Gilchrist singles out in an attempt to prove the existence of variant readings, “was alive and present at the time of the collection made by Zayd and accepted and approved of it”.
Now consider how the preceding explanation contradicts Gilchrist’s thesis and exposes the inherent inconsistencies of his argument. Recall that Gilchrist infers the Textus Receptus to be the reproduction of “just one man, Zaid ibn Thabit”. Although the “other equally authoritative codices of single companions existed and that all of them, Zaid’s included, differed in many key respects”, Zaid’s copy was “elevated to ‘official’ status right from the time of its compilation, [while] the other texts have been downgraded to the status of ‘personal notebooks’”. If, for arguments sake, Ibn Mas’ud was indeed angered by ‘Uthman’s decision because he believed his codex to be superior, as Gilchrist surmises, the question that naturally follows is: why was Ibn Mas’ud the only one to take exception to ‘Uthman having “arbitrarily” overlooked his codex? If these other equally authoritative codices were downgraded, why did their owners, amongst them the aforementioned ‘Abd Allah ibn Zubayr, Miqdad ibn al-‘Aswad, Abu Musa al-‘Ash’ari, and Ubay ibn Ka’b, not question the arbitrary nature of this pick ‘n’ mix choice instead of idly standing by? There is no historical account of any of the four disputing ‘Uthman’s decision. The absurd implications borne out of Gilchrist’s bizarre reasoning is that these Companions silently accepted the decision despite each codex being just as authoritative as the next.
Let us take another example in this context. It is known that Hafsah, the daughter of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab, was incredibly protective of the master copy bequeathed to her by her father, which was collected and collated by Zaid ibn Thabit and his committee during the caliphate of Abu Bakr and by his order. In fact, she was so protective of it that after Caliph ‘Ali’s death, the governor of Madinah, Marwan ibn al-Hakam “had to wait until Hafsah passed away in 41 A.H. before destroying the mus-haf. He said, ‘The only reason I did this was because all that is in this mus-haf (of Aboo Bakr) has been written and preserved by the mus-haf (of ‘Uthmaan)…’”. She only acquiesced to let Zaid borrow the master copy for cross checking during the compilation of the Textus Receptus after ‘Uthman’s reassurance of its prompt return - intact and undamaged. If the elevation of Zaid’s mus-haf meant the downgrading of all others, why did Hafsah not raise an objection to Zaid’s codex being preferred ahead of the archetypal codex as she had when faced with the threat of seeing it materially discarded?
A further problem for Gilchrist to contend with is how to reconcile between ‘Uthman’s arbitrary choice of a codex and his implicit agreement to the superiority of the master copy in preparation of the Textus Receptus. After all, if this master copy was important enough to be considered the de facto archetypal yardstick, which, to my knowledge, no Companion objected to (not even Ibn Mas’ud), it should have been the obvious choice. The question which follows is: what good reason could there have been for ‘Uthman to “arbitrarily” choose from the other seemingly inferior codices, and thus risk exacerbating the friction Hudhaifah had witnessed over the variant dialects? Hypothetically, if ‘Uthman had “arbitrarily” chosen the master copy, it is reasonable to assume that just as no Companion had raised any hint of an objection against its compilation, no objections would have been raised to it being “elevated to official status”.
These quagmires are the resultant end of Gilchrist’s confusions.
THE ‘VARIANT READINGS’ OF IBN MAS’UD
What remains is an examination of the so-called variant readings of Ibn Mas’ud. As with Arthur Jeffery’s thesis, these alleged variations are the basis for Gilchrist’s main allegation, which is that “far from the Qur’an being universally accepted in a standard form there were, on the contrary, vast differences in the texts”; thus, the Qur’an has not, as claimed by the Muslims, been flawlessly collected, transmitted and preserved from antiquity. Mohar Ali observes a similar line of reasoning from Jeffery:
“There ‘were wide divergences between the collections’… and that ‘Uthman’s solution was ‘no mere matter of removing dialectical peculiarities’ but establishing a ‘standard text for the whole empire’ by canonizing the Madinan Codex and suppressing all others. ‘There can be little doubt that the text canonized by ‘Uthman was only one among several types of text in existence at the time.’”
Gilchrist’s reductionist approach in restricting the competition of the variant codices to Ibn Mas’ud and Zaid allows him to postulate a straw man claim that the “hundreds of variant readings between the [two] texts… were not purely dialectal or confined to the pronunciation of the text… but rather radically affected the contents of the text itself”. Like Jeffery before him, and as stated earlier, this absurdity results from Gilchrist disregarding the correct understanding of the ahruf and qira’at. Qadhi notes of Jeffery:
“Obviously, Jeffery absolutely ignores the concept of the ahruf and qira’aat, for if he were to take this into account, then these readings would be explained without recourse to his theory that the Qur’aan is incomplete.”
Similarly, what Qadhi says of Jeffery is equally true of Gilchrist. Jeffery’s “work is an example of an Orientalist taking a concept (the concept of the ahruf and qira’aat), distorting it, and then presenting it in a sinister light in order to cast doubts upon Islaam. Had he only understood the correct interpretation of this concept - an interpretation that is claimed by him to be ‘largely fictitious’ without any explanation why - it would have saved him the trouble of compiling his work”. If Gilchrist was not averse to critical, accurate and impartial representation of the proofs and evidences, he would have arrived at the same conclusion as Qadhi that the “scriptural differences are not accidental, but rather intentional. The Prophet (saw) used to recite the Qur’aan in all of these ways…”. For indeed, the correct interpretation of this concept would inexorably lead any sincere and objective academic to the conclusion that these textual differences are a sine qua non for the completeness of the divinely revealed text of the Qur’an.
Thus, although it is true to say that “the majority of variants… relate to consonantal variants in individual words or different forms of these words”, it is sheer folly to conclude from this that the “hundreds of variant readings between the texts of Ibn Mas’ud and Zaid” is proof that the Qur’an was not “universally accepted in a standard form”. Gilchrist’s attempts, however, to prove these textual differences by turning exclusively to Jeffery’s Materials only exposes his double-standards. In his reproach of the Muslim apologist, Desai, Gilchrist bemoans:
“One of the great deficiencies in Desai's booklet is the almost total lack of documentation in respect of the factual allegations the author makes. Virtually nowhere do we find a reference to the traditional chapter and verse. The reader is expected to presume that the facts he alleges are well-founded. Desai leaves no room in his booklet for references by which a student can check whether the contents are factually reliable.”
The irony here, of course, is that Desai’s alleged misdemeanour is also “one of the great deficiencies” of Jeffery’s Materials. As mentioned earlier, Jeffery too “leaves no room in his booklet for references by which a student can check whether the contents are factually reliable”. And although Gilchrist has no qualms in readily citing Materials, which he boasts “fill up no less than three hundred and fifty pages”, he is swift to condemn Desai. Gilchrist’s best friend, thus, turns out to be his worst enemy, of whom Qadhi observes:
“This clear double standard on Jeffery’s part is not surprising; whenever an Orientalist finds some information that he feels can be used to discredit Islaam and cast doubts on it, then he will use it, no matter what the context, authenticity or actual implications of the text may be.”
And so in true predictable fashion, Gilchrist cites specific examples of Jeffery’s unsubstantiated variant readings, which “consisted of the inclusion of extra words or clauses not found in Zaid’s codex”. But, as has been shown, “the variant readings that he [Jeffery] has tabulated from the Qur’an commentaries and Arabic Lexicographical works and are reported to be derived from the various codices do not, however, prove his thesis that these codices were ‘divergent’, ‘several’ or ‘rival types of text.’ All that appears from the list of variants is that they relate to a very small number ayahs [sic] in the Qur’an and are then mostly synonyms or explanatory expressions on the words in the ‘Uthmanic text. The most important question is, however, the authenticity of the reports that ascribe the readings to the various old codices”. This can only be answered once the specific references are made available, which in this case lies with the claimant, viz. Jeffery, Gilchrist, and Answering-Islam, et al.
Although there are “literally thousands of differences mentioned in this book [Jeffery’s Materials], each one of which merely rephrases a certain verse of the Qur’aan”, Qadhi unequivocally states that he “looked over most of the entries in the book, and could only find one instance where the variant ‘reading’ clearly goes against the beliefs of Muslim [sic]. The ‘verse’ in question occurs as an addition to 26:215, and mentions that the true believers are only from the family of the Prophet (saw). This is obviously a Shee’ite forgery, as Jeffery himself hints. cf. p. 189 of the book”.
Jeffery likewise concedes:
“The question arises, of course, as to the authenticity of the readings ascribed to these Old Codices. In some cases it must be confessed there is a suspicion of readings later invented by grammarians and theologians being fathered on these early authorities in order to gain prestige of their name. This suspicion is strongest in the case of distinctively Shi’a readings that are attributed to Ibn Mas’ud, and in readings attributed to the wives of the Prophet.” Yet, Jeffery paradoxically claims to “feel confident that the majority of readings quoted from any Reader really goes back to early authority”.
Insofar as the variant readings are concerned, then, despite Jeffery’s open contempt of the isnad in the science of hadith verificationism, he again concedes that the “orthodoxy” would almost certainly have raised questions over their authenticity.
“Much of the material given by Ibn Abee Daawood regarding the history of the text of the Qur’aan, though extremely unorthodox, yet agrees so closely with conclusions one had reached from quite other directions that one feels confident in making use of it, however weak orthodoxy may consider its isnaad to be.”
Thus does Qadhi conclude that “from a Muslim’s perspective, Jeffery’s collection is only useful insofar as it lists many of the variant readings - the authentic and inauthentic ones. A critical analysis of the authenticity of each and every variant reading must be established before the book can be of any great value”. 
In summary then, let us quote Mohar Ali:
“The variant readings from the Old Codices, even if the reports regarding these readings be considered reliable, do not make out a case for rival and divergent texts. Neither did ‘Uthman ‘canonize’ only one of many existing texts, nor did the written copies of Qur’anic texts possessed by individual Companions of the Prophet — the so-called ‘Old Codices’ - constitute divergent and rival texts.”
An interesting dilemma also materialises through Jeffery’s rejection of the isnad as expressed by Qadhi:
“If he [Jeffery] does not believe in the authenticity of the isnaad system, then from where are all of these readings obtained? After all, it is through isnaads that all of the readings of the Companions and Successors has [sic] been handed down to us. If Jeffery were to apply his standards and implement his belief of the isnaad system, all of these readings should be doubted, just like their hadeeth counterparts!”
This perplexing snag could also be a potential catch-22 for Gilchrist. If he has adopted this position, which would not be altogether surprising given his over dependency on Jeffery’s Materials, then how will he venture to prove the authenticity of a given divergent reading? Conversely, if he affirms the isnad, then it is upon him to validate his arguments by proving their authenticity.
Finally, there remains the alleged omission of certain chapters of the Qur’an by Ibn Mas’ud. This is perhaps Jeffery and Gilchrists’ most audacious allegation: Companions rejecting whole chapters as divinely revealed sections of the Qur’an. Gilchrist argues that Ibn Mas’ud “omitted the Suratul-Fatihah, the opening surah, and the mu’awwithatayni, the two short surahs with which the Qur'an ends (Surahs 113 and 114)”, respectively. He goes on to conclude that Ibn Mas’ud was either “unaware that Muhammad had expressly stated that they were part of the Qur’an text (as alleged by Ubayy) or, less probably, that Ibn Mas’ud had actually determined that they were not part of the actual kitabullah, the Book of Allah”.
It will help if an historical picture of the central role played by the Qur’an in the every day lives of the Companions, including the indomitably strong spirit of brotherhood and camaraderie forged by this Kitabullah, be accurately painted before any attempt at a response. This is necessary to obviate any false notions created by Jeffery and Gilchrists’ chimerical account of the Qur’an’s transmission and compilation.
“The process of memorization as well as writing down of the revelations had started right from the beginning of the Prophet’s mission, not ‘a little before’ his death,” as alluded to by Jeffery. There is also a third process that is seldom mentioned, but which is an indispensable part of the transmission and preservation process. The knowledge of divine revelation is the means by which a person can work towards the fulfilment of the purpose of existence: the true and correct worship of God. This requires a practical approach in adhering to a given code of law and set of instructions to the best of one’s ability in order to acquire salvation in the next life. What established the Companions as the beau ideal generation for all subsequent generations to measure themselves by, was learning this practical knowledge directly from the greatest role model sent to humankind: Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace). This direct teaching method developed in them a level of adherence to the Qur’an that would be impossible to reach by those acquiring this knowledge from a secondary, indirect and non-Prophetic source. Hence, the Companions’ devotion to the teaching, memorisation and transmission of the Qur’an was unparalleled, and many of them had “before his [Prophet Muhammad’s] death, learnt the whole Qur’an by heart, while many others had memorized a good deal of it. This dual process of preservation had the additional advantage of checking the one with the other”.  As for those who compiled their own personal copies, they “made their copies of the Qur’an texts during the life-time of the Prophet and at his dictation or listening to his recitation”.
The Qur’an was the absolute central authority around which the entire Muslim community revolved and was most often utilised for long recital periods during the obligatory and superogatory prayers, especially the night prayer (qiyam al-layl). “The prayer was the first obligation to be instituted in Islam after the testimony of faith,” and it is enough to mention the life transformative experience when “Allah obligated it [the five daily prayers] upon the Prophet (peace be upon him) directly, without any intermediary, by addressing him on the Night of Ascent” (al-Isra wal-Mi’raj). Its importance could not be depreciated knowing that “the prayer is the beginning as well as the furthest portion of Islam. The proofs for the great position that the prayer holds include the fact that it is most often mentioned in the Qur’aan…. Furthermore, the obligation of prayer is general to both men and women, to the slave and freeman, to the rich and poor, to the resident and traveller, and to the healthy and sick. The first action that will be judged on the Day of Judgment is the prayer and it is the last action to be lost before the servant’s religion is lost. It is the pillar of the religion such that the religion cannot be established without it…”. The community has been encouraged to pray in congregation as the Prophet (upon whom be peace) said: “The prayer of a person in congregation is twenty-seven times better than the prayer of the person individually.” Since “all Muslim scholars unanimously agree that performing the Five (Obligatory) Prayers at the mosque… [is] among the best means of drawing near to Allah. Rather, it is the greatest and most apparent of the rituals of Islam”, a strong deterrent was laid down early on by the Prophet (upon whom be peace): “The most difficult prayer for the hypocrites is the Fajr and the Isha prayers…,” to which he added:
“Certainly, I was about to order the prayer caller (muezzin) to pronounce the immediate prayer call (iqamah) and order a man to lead the prayer and then take a fire flame to burn all those who had not left their houses so far for the prayer, along with their homes.”
This admonition revealed two reprehensible points for any God-fearing Muslim: “First, the Prophet (PBUH) described those who did not attend it as hypocrites…. Second, the Prophet (PBUH) wished to punish those who abandoned it.”
It is for this reason that “for the believers at the early period of Islam, the obligation of the congregational prayer was a settled matter,” to the extent that Ibn Mas’ud revealingly said:
“‘I have seen the time when no one among us (i.e. the Companions) stayed away from prayer except a hypocrite, whose hypocrisy was well known. And it could happen that a man walk between two persons (i.e. with the help of two persons with one on each side until he stands in the row (of prayer)).’
This indicates that there was a kind of resolution (i.e. unanimous agreement), concerning its obligation, among the Companions of the Messenger (PBUH).”
In addition, the Companions were encouraged to learn, implement and teach the Qur’an, thus creating a daily cycle of communal learning and dissemination. Early on “the Prophet [pbuh]… used to proclaim the Islamic Faith and preach it openly with deep devotion and studious pursuit… [and] he took Dar Al-Arqam, in As-Safa mountain, in the fifth year of his mission, as a temporary centre to meet his followers secretly and instruct them in the Qur’ân and in the Islamic wisdom”. Generally, however, “‘Ubadah ibn al-Samit said: ‘When the Prophet became busy and someone migrated to him, he would ask one of us to teach him the Qur’an.’ He would also send teachers to distant places: ‘He sent Mu’adh and Abu Musa to Yemen and commanded them to teach the people the Qur’an.’”,  While the well-known Successor “Al-A’mash reported that Abu Wa’il reported Ibn Mas’ud as saying: ‘Whenever one of us learned ten verses of the Qur’an, he would not move on to other verses until he comprehended their meaning and started acting upon them in daily life.’” Indeed, when the Prophet’s (upon whom be peace) wife ‘A’isha was asked by Sa’d ibn Hisham: “Tell me about the character of the Prophet (upon whom be peace).” She replied: “His character was the Qur’an.”
This book was, therefore, not just a compendium of books attributed to numerous authors, known and unknown, yet said to be “God-breathed”; this was the Kitabullah; ispissima verba (the very words) of God Himself and His Uncreated Speech, which had instructed the followers of Muhammad (upon whom be peace) that “indeed in the Messenger of Allah you have the most beautiful example of conduct”. All this demonstrates that the Companions, with all sincerity and earnestness, internalised and actualised, lived and breathed, both individually and collectively, their Lord’s Book in adherence to His commandment: “Follow what has been revealed to you from your Lord. There is none worthy of worship in truth except He.” This historical outlook makes it highly improbable that any of the Companions, let alone the most knowledgeable of the Qur’an, could have remained oblivious of the fact that al-Fatihah and al-Mu’awwithatayn were divinely revealed parts of the Qur’an.
The majority of scholars have also asserted that al-Fatihah “was revealed in Mecca very early in the Prophet’s career”. The Prophet (upon whom be peace) said that the greatest chapter of the Qur’an, calling it the “Umm al-Qur’an - Mother of the Qur’an” and “As-Sab’al Mathani – the Seven Oft-repeated Verses”, was al-Fatihah. While many of the scholars, both past and present, have said that it was called “the Seven Oft-repeated Verses” as it is repeated in the prayers. Likewise, this chapter was “known as Fatihatul-Kitab (that is, the commencement of the Book). This is so because it is the first Surah to be recited in prayer.” In actual fact, the Prophet (upon whom be peace) stipulated: “There is no prayer for the one who does not read the ‘Mother of the Qur’an’ (al-Faatihah).” Based on this, Ibn Kathir concluded:
“There are many other Hadiths on this subject. Therefore, reciting the Opening of the Book, during the prayer by the Imam and those praying behind him, is required in every prayer, and in every Rak’ah [unit of prayer].”
Having seen the central importance of prayer, it is entirely inconceivable to think that Ibn Mas’ud - who would not move on to the next batch of ten verses of the Qur’an until he had memorised and acted upon the previous ten - was unaware that al-Fatihah was a divinely revealed chapter of the Qur’an. This altogether throws the spanner in the works of Gilchrist’s facile asseveration that the Qur’an’s foremost authority did not believe al-Fatihah to be part of the Qur’an, when Companions of a supposed lesser status would have necessarily known otherwise.
Further casting doubt over Gilchrist’s contention is the unique condition employed by Abu Bakr which “required the written text to be compared with the memorized text, and vice versa, and nothing was included in the compilation that did not meet this strict criterion”. With Abu Bakr making “a public announcement asking everyone who had with him any Qur’anic text, written or memorized, to submit it to either Zayd or ‘Umar who were asked to remain in attendance for the purpose at the Prophet’s Mosque”, Mohar Ali adds that “every effort was made to track down whatever anyone had in his possession of either a written or a memorized text. And as all the four principal Companions, Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman and ‘Ali, together with other Companions like ‘Abd Allah ibn Mas’ud, Salim, Ubay ibn Ka’b, ‘A’ishah, Abu Musa al-‘Ash’ari and others were all present at Madina and in close touch with the khalifah Abu Bakr in all his work, it is obvious that the written copies that they had with them were duly compared and taken into consideration”.
This creates two seemingly insurmountable problems for Gilchrist to scale if his story is to be taken seriously. Gilchrist has underestimated the implications of a high ranking companion, viz. Ibn Mas’ud, openly declaring his rejection of the said chapters and thereby going against the consensus. The consequences would have been unimaginably catastrophic when considering that open rejection of a single Qur’anic verse, let alone three whole chapters, is tantamount to the rejection of the Qur’an in toto. What is more, this understanding is traditionally categorised as a self-evident truth and said to be “known by necessity within the religion - ma’loom min ad-deen bid-darurah”. Under this res ipsa loquitur rule, any one guilty of the above crime would immediately be excommunicated from the religion without the burden of proof required. It would have been a religious duty for the community to severely censure and attempt to bring back into line anyone found to hold such a damning position.
In contradistinction, however, is the question of why Ibn Mas’ud silently accepted the completed compilation of Abu Bakr, which contained the three disputed chapters?
“It may also be pointed out that some other Companions had also made their personal copies of the texts which varied in contents and order of the surahs. For instance, Ali ibn Abi Talib had his own copy which he had made in the chronological order. But all these persons co-operated with, supervised and checked the collection made by Zayd and his colleagues, approved of it and accepted it.”
These personal copies were compiled over a period of some 23 years through a process of gradually accumulating revelatory material in a personal effort to learn the Qur’an. With this in mind, along with the absence of editing tools, a dearth of writing material and the relative learning capabilities of each compiler, it is entirely understandable why some codices differed in content. However, these compilers were “also memorizers of the Qur’an texts and it was understood that they would mainly teach the Qur'an orally through recitation”  – a mode of transmission used by both Angel Gabriel to teach their Prophet (upon whom be peace) and the Prophet (upon whom be peace) to teach them. Hence, since “the mus-hafs of the Companions were personal, and were not meant for others to read”, the variances had no deleterious effect whatsoever.
All things considered, such a storm of controversy would have been indelibly recorded in the annals of history through a plethora of reports and narrations. Qadhi ibn al-Baqillani stresses this point that “if Ibn Mas’ud denied these final two surahs, the resulting dispute with the Companions would have become widely known, since lesser quarrels have been reported to us”. And yet we find no evidence of such a quarrel.
As for the narrations attributed to Ibn Mas’ud in relation to the position he held, then they are either spurious and thus rejected, as some scholars have concluded, or authentic and thus demand explanation. Gilchrist does make mention of a difference of opinion existing among the early Muslim scholars over their reliability. The eminent scholars Imam an-Nawawi, Ibn Hazm, Fakhradin ar-Razi, Ibn al-Baqillani, et alia, have rejected the reports as inauthentic. However, the narrations recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari, Musnad Ahmed and others of Zirr ibn Hubaish’s allusion to Ibn Mas’ud’s differing position, coupled with Ibn Hajar’s disagreement with the aforementioned scholars along with his reconciliatory explanation, makes this more than likely to be an authentic account.
In this case, three plausible reasons exist. Gilchrist makes mention of two: Ibn Mas’ud was “unaware that Muhammad had expressly stated that they were part of the Qur’an text (as alleged by Ubayy) or, less probably, that Ibn Mas’ud had actually determined that they were not part of the actual kitabullah, the Book of Allah”.
In light of the historical milieu in which these three chapters were revealed, as delineated above, Gilchrist’s suggestion that “Ibn Mas’ud may have denied that these three surahs were a part of the Qur’an” is so far separated from reality as to warrant no serious consideration whatsoever. The same is equally true of the assertion that one of the most knowledgeable Companions remained ignorant that these were part of the Qur’an.
A third explanation, which seems to be entirely consistent with the historical facts, is the suggestion that, despite accepting these as divinely revealed chapters of the Qur’an, Ibn Mas’ud had reached the anomalous conclusion that these chapters were not to be included in the mus-haf in written form.
This is the conclusion that is preferred and supported by Ibn Hajar following a detailed examination of the tradition in which Zirr questions Ubay in regards to Ibn Mas’ud’s stance, which Gilchrist alludes to above.
“I asked Ubay bin Ka’b: ‘O Abu Al-Mundhir! Your brother, Ibn Mas’ud said so-and-so (كذا و كذا).’ Ubay said: ‘I asked the Messenger of Allah about them and he said: “They have been revealed to me, and I have recited them.”’ So Ubay added: ‘Thus we say as the Messenger of Allah has said.’”
Despite the narrator Sufyan having left what Ibn Mas’ud said as ambiguous (مُبْهَمًا) in this tradition, Ibn Hajar clarifies the meaning through other related narrations. One such narration states that “your brother (Ibn Mas’ud) removes them (the two chapters) from the mus-haf”; a second says that he “never used to write the mu’awwithatayn in his mus-haf (كَانَ لَا يَكْتُب الْمُعَوِّذَتَيْنِ فِي مُصْحَفه)”; whilst a third has it that Ibn Mas’ud said: “They are not from the Book of Allah (إِنَّهُمَا لَيْسَتَا مِنْ كِتَاب اللَّه),” and that “the Prophet was ordered only to seek refuge [in Allaah] with both of them (إِنَّمَا أُمِرَ النَّبِيّ صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَنْ يَتَعَوَّذ بِهِمَا)”. But, Ibn Hajar cautions: “Ibn Mas’ud was not followed (in this opinion) by anyone from the Companions (وَلَمْ يُتَابِع اِبْن مَسْعُود عَلَى ذَلِكَ أَحَدٌ مِنْ الصَّحَابَة)”. After citing a number of traditions in which the Prophet (upon whom be peace) encouraged reciting the Mu’awwithatayn in the prayer, Ibn Hajar quotes from Al-Qadhi Abu Bakr al-Baqillani’s book Al-Intisar:
“Ibn Mas’ud never rejected the fact that they were from the Qur’an. However, what he did question and reject was the permissibility of writing it in the mus-haf without the explicit permission of the Messenger of Allah, and maybe [at the time of this event] this permission never reached him.”
Ibn Hajar comments on this by saying:
“This explanation shows that Ibn Mas’ud never rejected that it was from the Qur’an, and this is a good explanation, except for the wording of a narration I mentioned earlier wherein he (Ibn Mas’ud) said: ‘They are not from the Book of Allah’. Yes, it is possible to understand the word ‘Book of Allah’ to mean ‘mus-haf’, and in that case conform to the aforementioned explanation (of al-Baqillani).”
Al-Baqillani’s reconciliatory interpretation not only plausibly fits the available evidence, but also accommodates the following authentic tradition, which strongly suggests that Ibn Mas’ud was not unaware of Al-Mu’awwithatayn being divinely revealed. On the authority of Ibn Mas’ud, the Prophet (upon whom be peace) said:
“There are some verses that have been revealed to me, the likes of which have never been revealed to me, [and they are the] Mu’awwithatayn (لقد أنزل على آيات لم ينزل على مثلهن المعوذتين).”
In this case, and an important one at that, what this essentially amounts to is merely a legitimate difference of opinion in an issue of fiqh (jurisprudence). Although there are dozens of other such differences known to have pervaded the lives of the Companions, the significant point to be noted is that this did not have any bearing on the core tenets of the religion (‘aqeedah). The divergent legal rulings arrived at by the Companions over the legitimacy of writing the last two chapters in the mus-haf was through a process of independent interpretation of the divine Islamic sources, which was relative to individual knowledge. Hence, Ubay made it clear that his ruling was based on an answer from the Prophet (upon whom be peace) specifically related to this matter. In doing so, his intimation was that any ruling established upon direct and definitive Prophetic knowledge was incontestable and ipso facto correct. Again, it should be born in mind that this must not be construed as a detraction of the high scholarly standing of Ibn Mas’ud. On the contrary, his eventual alignment with the consensus view over the compilation of the Textus Receptus is proof of his greatness.
As a side note, for those of an intransigent disposition who still insist that Ibn Mas’ud rejected the three chapters, the burden of proof also lies with them in providing a credible explanation as to why the reciters who learned their recitations (qira’aat) through a transmission chain leading directly back to Ibn Mas’ud did not omit Al-Fatihah and Al-Mu’awwithatayn when their teacher supposedly did.
In final conclusion, Gilchrist has endeavoured to disprove the accepted position of the Muslims from antiquity over the flawless transmission and complete preservation of the Qur’an. His argument of competing divergent codices is built on two main premises which, as we have seen, were developed on the false assumption that Ibn Mas’ud was the leading authority on the Qur’an.
The first premise attempts to claim that Caliph ‘Uthman’s decision in compiling the Textus Receptus was not universally supported by all the Companions. Using a reductionist approach, he constructs a fictitious historical backdrop from which he argues that Caliph ‘Uthman had arbitrarily chosen Zaid’s codex from among a number of textually divergent codices as the Textus Receptus of the Ummah. Having deceptively aggrandised the position of Ibn Mas’ud, Gilchrist then concludes that, being the leading authority on the Qur’an, Ibn Mas’ud’s anger was justified since his differing codex had a greater right of being chosen over Zaids. It has been conclusively shown that a consensus of support and backing from the Companions over the Textus Receptus’ compilation demolishes this premise.
As for the second premise, Gilchrist argues that Ibn Mas’ud disagreed with the elevation of Zaid’s codex because he believed his codex, gained directly from the Prophet (upon whom be peace), to be more authentic than his. We have disproved this erroneous claim by showing that these so-called divergent textual readings were not divergent at all, but rather authentic readings of divine origin revealed to facilitate the greatest ease with which to memorise, write and transmit the Qur’an. On this basis, Ibn Mas’ud’s disagreement would most conceivably have been over the manner in which the Textus Receptus was compiled, which in turn would render all extant personal codices of the Companions as extraneous and justified for disposal.
At this point, we posed a series of questions generated by the resultant absurdities arising from Gilchrist’s convoluted and contradictory arguments.
Finally, we examined Gilchrist’s boldest claim of all: the assertion that Ibn Mas’ud had either held the position that al-Fatihah and al-Mu’awwithatayn were not divinely revealed chapters of the Qur’an, or that they were, but were not allowed to be written in the mus-haf. In mentioning how necessitous al-Fatihah is to the Muslims’ routine of daily worship, it stands to reason that an erudite Companion of the Prophet (upon whom be peace) could not have been ignorant of it being part of the Qur’an. More importantly, the proof that the Companions all took part in the preparation of the first codification during Caliph Abu Bakr’s time without any controversy over the said chapters’ divine origin is positive proof against Gilchrist.
What, therefore, remained in regards to al-Mu’awwithatayn was the only plausible explanation, which had no bearing on the core tenets of this religion: Ibn Mas’ud initially held the view that these chapters were not to be written in the mus-haf despite their divine origin. Upon acquiring the additional knowledge known to Ubay and the rest of the Companions, he changed his opinion by fully accepting the Textus Receptus of the Ummah.
After firstly praising and thanking Allah for helping me complete this paper, I wish to thank the following people for their kind help and assistance in adherence to the tradition narrated on the authority of al-Ash’ath ibn Qays in which the Messenger of Allah (upon whom be peace) said: “Whoever does not thank the people has not thanked Allah.”
In no particular order, I wish to thank Muaawiyah Tucker (www.arabic-courses.com) for translating some long and complicated portions of Arabic text, as well as his sagacious suggestions. Thanks to Bassam Zawadi for his detailed analysis, critical feedback and assistance in research. Likewise, I am grateful to Isa Calliste for a very thorough proof-reading effort. Jazakumullah Khairan.
 A. A. B. Philips (1997), Usool at-Tafseer - The Methodology of Qur’aanic Explanation, (Sharjah, U.A.E: Dar al-Fatah), pg.155.
 The meaning of the word Textus Receptus throughout this paper must not be mistaken for the meaning understood by the Christians and applied to their scripture. Rather, what is meant here is: the received text compiled under the auspices of Caliph ‘Uthman.
As a side note, though no less important, since the Textus Receptus was approved by consensus of the elite of the companions, and by extension the whole Ummah, it would be more accurate to call it: the Ummah’s Textus Receptus as opposed to rendering ‘Uthman alone as the possessive noun that owns it. The historical facts perspicuously show that it was Hudhaifah ibnul Yamaan who brought to the attention of ‘Uthman the urgency of pre-empting any potential disagreements related to the reading of the Qur’an he had witnessed in the outlying provinces. After consulting his immediate advisors, ‘Uthman assembled a committee tasked with uniting the Ummah upon the final reading of the Prophet (upon whom be peace) to Angel Jibra’eel during the last year of his life. In short and to be further elaborated upon in this article, as is the case with the preserved transmission of the Qur’an, the Textus Receptus was the result of a combined effort of the Ummah, i.e., the companions en masse, and not just ‘Uthman or Zaid ibn Thabit as alluded to by Gilchrist and Co. Hence, calling it the Ummah’s Textus Receptus would be more factually accurate.
 M. M. Ali (2004), The Qur’an and the Orientalists (UK: Jam’iyat ‘Ihyaa Minhaaj al-Sunnah), p. 228 – quoting Jeffery.
 A. A. Y. Qadhi (2003), An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’aan, (UK: Al-Hidaayah Publishing and Distribution), p.148.
 Ibid., p.385
 Ibid., p.386
 M. M. Ali, op. cit., p.231
 A. A. Y. Qadhi, op. cit., p.386
 Ibid., p.386; M. M. Ali, op. cit., p.230
 http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=12qAj5qdLqs – Gilchrist can be seen here boasting of his efforts in responding to the da’wah of the late Ahmed Deedat (may Allah have mercy on him and forgive him his sins), which began in the 70s. The video is presented by another Christian evangelist: Jay Smith, who, like Answering-Islam, has acquired notoriety for his deceptive proselytising methods during his polemical exchanges with Muslims.
N.B. All unreferenced citations in this paper should be taken to be from Gilchrist’s booklet unless otherwise stated.
 Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 6, p. 488, no. 525
 Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 6, book 61, no. 526
 Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari bi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, book: “Virtues of the Qur’an”, 8/5004
 Al-Itqan, vol. 1, pp. 199- 200 on the authority of “Al-Mu’allem fe Sharh Sahih Muslim” by Al-Maziri (manuscript).
 Fn.8: For a detailed study, see, M.M. al-A'zami, Kuttab an-Nabi, 3rd edition, Riyad, 1401 (1981), pp. 83-89.
 M. M. al-Azami (2003), The History of the Qur’anic Text from Revelation to Compilation, (UK Islamic Academy), p. 68
 A. A. Al-Imam (2006), Variant Readings of the Qur'an: A Critical Study of Their Historical and Linguistic Origins, (UK: Biddles Limited, IIIT), p.14: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=R2iYf0bvYGwC&pg=PA14. See Fn.10, p.120: “Fath al-Bari, vol.9, p.22”: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=R2iYf0bvYGwC&pg=PA120
 Ibid., p.15: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=R2iYf0bvYGwC&pg=PA15. See Fn.22, p.120: “Fath al-Bari, vol.9, p.13”: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=R2iYf0bvYGwC&pg=PA120
 Tafsir al-Qurtubi, Chapter: The collection of the Qur'an and the reason ‘Uthman had copies of the Qur’an transcribed and burned the rest. The memorisation of the Qur’an by the Companions during the time of the Prophet (باب ذكر جمع القرآن وسبب كتب عثمان المصاحف وإحراقه ما سواها وذكر من حفظ القرآن من الصحابة), 1/85: http://www.islamww.com/booksww/book_search_results.php?bkid=3&id=15
Fn. 4: Qurra' [literally: reciters] is another term for the huffaz, those who had completely memorised the Qur'an. The qurra', in their piety, always fought in the front lines during combat and hence suffered greater losses than other soldiers.
 Fn. 5: Al-Bukhari, Sahih, Jam'i al-Qur'an, hadith no. 4986; see also Ibn Abi Dawud, al-Masahif, pp. 6-9.
 M. M. al-Azami, op. cit., p. 78
 Ibid., pp. 8.
 Fn. 8: Tahir al-Jaza’iri, at-Tibyan, p. 126; see also A. Jeffery (ed.), al-Mabani, p. 25.
 M. M. al-Azami, op. cit., pp. 78-79.
 Fn. 304: See al-Itqaan, vol. 1, p. 199.
 Fn. 305: Sahih al-Bukhari, vol.6, p.488, no.525.
 Fn. 307: As-Suyootee quotes al-Baghawee’s statement to that effect in Sharh as-Sunnah as well as a statement by Ibn Seereen that would support that, collected by Ibn Abee Shaybah in Kitaabah al-Masaahif. See al-Itqaan, vol. 1, p.142.
 A. A. B. Philips, op. cit., p. 152.
 Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari bi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, 9/19: http://www.islamww.com/booksww/book_search_results.php?bkid=2037&id=4989.
The account further states of Sa’id: “أن عربية القرآن أقيمت على لسان سعيد بن العاص.” Sa’id, of course, was one of four Quraishis appointed by ‘Uthman to assist Zaid during the preparation of the Textus Receptus.
 Fn. 250: All quotes taken from al-Hamad, p. 113.
 A. A. Y. Qadhi, op. cit., p. 133.
 Reported in Taareekh Ya'qoob bin Sufyaan, Fath al-Bari, vol.7, p.100; Al-Isaabah, vol.4, p.92.
 Taqi ud-Deen Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmu’ Fataawa Ibn Taymiyyah, 32/292: http://www.islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?bk_no=22&ID=3304&idfrom=5514&idto=5519&bookid=22&startno=1
 “Reported by Ibn Abee Shaybah, al-Musannaf, vol.12, pp.110-111, nos.12268, 12269; Ahmad, Fadaa’il us-Sahaabah, vol.2, p.957, nos.1860, 1861 and 1863…” (For a comprehensive list of references, see: A Study of the Tafseer of ‘Abdullaah ibn ‘Abbaas (radi Allaah ‘anhu) “Kufr doona kufr” (2008), p.19: http://www.salafimanhaj.com/pdf/SalafiManhaj_KufrDoonaKufr.pdf)
 M. M. Ayoub (1984), The Qur'an and its Interpreters, (State University of New York Press), p. 22: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=sIXpFtvp2JYC&pg=PA22.
It is also recorded in the introduction of al-Qurtubi’s Tafsir, 1/66: http://www.islamww.com/booksww/book_search_results.php?bkid=3&id=10; Ibn Hajr’s Fath al-Bari, 8/599: http://www.islamww.com/booksww/book_search_results.php?bkid=2037&id=4828; and Ibn Abdul Bar’s Jami' Bayan al-'Ilm wa Fadhlihi (no.726).
 Sahih Muslim, Book 31, Number 6022: http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=1&Rec=5779
 Sahih Al-Bukhari, 6.522: http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?hnum=4616
 Tafsir al-Qurtubi, op. cit.
 As posted on the blog ‘Answering Muslims’, a Christian Missionary site administrated by David Wood with contributions from his merry men. One such ignoramus by the name of Nabeel Qureshi, who claims to be a former-Qadiani, in following his Sheikh Gilchrist brazenly parrots: “We can safely infer that this hadith intends to convey Ibn Masud as the best teacher of the Quran.”: http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/02/failure-of-muslim-response-to-ibn-masud.html
 Ibid., p.179.
 Fn. 405: Ibn al-Jazaree, an-Nashr, v.1, p.31 with changes.
 A. A. Y. Qadhi, op. cit., p.180.
 Ibid., p.149.
 Fn. 68: Qurtubi, vol.1, p.44. There is another version attributed to ‘Umar in which he wrote to ‘Abd Allah ibn Mas’ud: “The Qur’an has been revealed in the language of the Quraysh, so do not recite to the people in the dialect of the Hudhayl.” See also al-Qastallani, Lata’if, vol.1, p.33. In some versions of these sayings, the name “Mudar” appears instead of “Quraysh,” but Ibn ‘Abd al-Bar says: “The authentic version is the first in which Quraysh was mentioned, because it is sound and came through the people of Madinah (Burhan, vol.1, pp.219-20). Also, some features of Mudari speech are anomalous and not allowed in reciting the Qur’an. As examples, the kashkashah of the Qays changes the feminine singular second person – ki – into shi in “Rabbuki Tahtaki” to read “Rabbushi Tahtashi” (19:24) and the tamtamah of the Tamim (e.g. changing sin to ta) so that al-nas reads al-nat (Qurtubi, vol.1, p.45; Burhan, vol.1, pp.219-20).
 Fn. 69: Qurtubi, vol.1, p.44, quoting Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr and al-Qadi ibn al-Tayyib, who state: “Allah Almighty says: ‘We have made it a Qur’an in Arabic’ (43:3, A. Y. Ali’s Translation, p.1342) and the Almighty did not say ‘Quranan Qurashiyyan.’” No one claims that only the Quraysh is meant here, because the name “Arab” covers all tribes.
 A. A. Al-Imam, op. cit., p.9: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=R2iYf0bvYGwC&pg=PA9
 A. A. B. Philips, op. cit., p. 168: “‘Uthman said, “Write it تابوت (taaboot), for verily, the Qur’aan was revealed according to the Qurayshee dialect.” Fn. 349 – Collected by at-Tirmithee, and authenticated by al-Albaanee in Saheeh Sunan at-Tirmithee, vol.3, pp.60, no.2480.
“اكتبوه التابوت فإنه نزل بلسان قريش”: http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=2&Rec=4915
 Fn. 3: See Ibn Abi Dawud, al-Masahif, p.22, Different dates have been given for this incident, ranging from 25-30 A.H. I have adopted Ibn Hajar’s stance. See as-Suyuti, al-Itqan, i:170.
 Fn. 4: Ibn Abi Dawud, al-Masahif, p. 22. See also Ibn Hajar, Fathul Bari, x:402.
 I say: This parenthetical text is not part of the original Arabic. The opinion that the Textus Receptus was standardised under one of the seven divinely instantiated ahruf (dialects) is a weak opinion, which shall be discussed shortly, insha’Allah (God-Willing).
 M. M. Al-Azami, op. cit., p.88.
 M. M. Ali, op. cit., p.228.
 Ibid., p.224.
 Fn. 3: Ibn al-Athir, Al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, Beirut, 1987, vol. III, p.8.
 M. M. Ali, op. cit., p.228.
 A. A. Y. Qadhi, op. cit., p.386.
 Narrated by at-Thahawi, 4/182; Ahmed, 1/445. Sheikh Al-Albaani declared: “This chain of narration is good (jayyid), connected (mawsool)”, as-Silsilah as-Saheehah, 2/134: http://www.salafi.ws/faris/athar-2.doc
 Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari: http://www.al-eman.com/hadeeth/viewchp.asp?BID=12&CID=433; also Ibn Abi Dawood. Ibn Hajar declared it authentic.
 Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari bi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, Par. 3: http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?hnum=4616
 Tafsir al-Qurtubi, op. cit.
See also: Ibn al-‘Arabi, Akhaam al-Qur’an, Vol.2, p.608: “(It is) authentic, but it is not known except via the tradition of az-Zuhri (صحيح لا يعرف إلا من حديث الزهري)”;
 Jami’ at-Tirmidhi, 3029, http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=2&Rec=4915
It is interesting to note that some Christians, viz. the good lot at David Wood’s blog and later approvingly linked to by James White (http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3150&catid=11), have cited the following errant translation of this hadith: “O you Muslim people! Avoid copying the Mushaf and recitation of this man.” (http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/02/ibn-masud-on-zaids-mushaf.html) It seems that the translator has hastily mistaken the word ‘يتولى’ for the word ‘recitation (تلاوة)’. In the end, of course, the difference in translation is significant in reaching an accurate and fair conclusion.
 A. A. Al-Imam, op. cit., p.18.
 Ibn Asaakir, Taareekh Dimashq, Vol.33, p.140: “…it bothered Abdullah that he (‘Uthman) did not choose him, for he had the benefit of his age (i.e. indicating experience) and instead chose someone who is considered to be like his son (i.e. Zaid).”
 Adh-Dhahabi, Siyar A’lam an-Nubala, Vol.1, no.498: “It was only difficult for Ibn Mas’ud [to accept the decision of ‘Uthman] because ‘Uthman never chose him instead, but rather chose someone who was young enough to be his son. (إنما شق على ابن مسعود لكون عثمان ما قدمه على كتابة المصحف، وقدم في ذلك من يصلح أن يكون ولده).”
 Tafsir al-Qurtubi, 1/52-3, and Jam’ al-Qur’an al-Karim by ar-Rumi.
 As-Sunan at-Tirmidhi, 5/285
 Fn. 2: Ibn al-Athir, op. cit., p. 9.
 M. M. Ali, op. cit., p.229.
 A. A. Al-Imam records the same conclusion but furnishes further references other than Al-Masaahif, op. cit., Fn. 45: Al-Masahif, p.18; Qurtubi, vol.1, pp. 52-53, p.121.
 A. A. Y. Qadhi, op. cit., Fn. 265, p.137.
 Tafsir al-Qurtubi, op. cit.
 Ibn Asaakir, op. cit.
 Fn. 2: Qurtubi, Tafsir, X, 7171 (cited in Al-Dhahabi, Siyar ‘A’lam al-Nubla’, ed. Shu’ayb al-Arna’ut and Husayn al-Asad, Vol. I, p. 485, n. 2.
 Fn. 3: Al-Dhahabi, op. cit. p.488.
 Fn. 4: Ibid., pp.498-499.
 M. M. Ali, op. cit., p.230.
 Rev. Edward Sell (1869-1932), The Recensions of the Qur'an, by Rev. Canon Sell, Christian Literature Society, Madras, 1909, p. 26: http://www.answering-islam.org/Books/Sell/Recensions/p08.htm, Fn. 1. This footnote cites “Shi’ite literature”, which is perhaps the origin of this fabricated account.
 Ibn Taymiyyah (1989), Dhun Nurayn: ‘Uthman ibn Affan (Possessor of the Two Lights: Uthman ibn Affan), (Online book with footnotes by Abu ‘Abdur-Rahman Muhammad Maal Allah), pp. 85-86.
A. A. Al-Imam, op. cit., p.18, Fn. 46: “Fath al-Bari, vol.9, p.19”, p. 121.
 Al-Bukhari, Sahih, Jam'i al-Qur'an, hadith no. 4986; see also Ibn Abi Dawood, al-Masahif, pp. 6-9.
 Tafsir al-Qurtubi, op. cit.
 Fn. 260: Ibn Abee Daawood, p.22.
 A. A. Y. Qadhi, op. cit., p. 136.
 Fn. 1: Ibid; also Bukhari, no. 4987
 Fn. 2: Ibn al-Athir, op. cit., p. 9
 M. M. Ali, op. cit., p.229.
 Ibid., p.215.
 A. A. Y. Qadhi, op. cit., p.150.
I say: Again, this is referenced to Ibn Abi Dawood by Qadhi; and again the question arises in connection with this debate: how many Christians and Missionaries mention this significant quote when citing from Al-Masaahif?
 Fn. 2: A. Jeffery, Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur’an The Old Codices, p. 8
 M. M. Ali, op. cit., p.228.
 Ibid., p. 387.
 Fn. 818: Jeffery, p. 5.
 A. A. Y. Qadhi, op. cit., p.388.
 Ibid., p. 149.
 Ibid., p. 386.
 M. M. Ali, op. cit., p.230.
 A. A. Y. Qadhi, op. cit., p.386 – Fn. 814.
 Arthur Jeffery, Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Qur'ân: The Old Codices, 1937, Leiden, E J Brill, p.15., as cited by: M S M Saifullah, M. Ahmad, M. Ghoniem & K. al-Khazarajî, http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Gilchrist/GilJeffery.html
 Examples of the “orthodoxy” making mention of some of the spurious narrations in Ibn Abi Dawood’s Kitab al-Masahif can be gleaned from the account of Hajjaj ibn Yusuf’s alleged changes made to the contents of the Qur’an. Islamic-Awareness have written a detailed article in this regard: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/hajjaj.html. A shorter and less detailed response can also be found on Muhammad S. al-Munajjid’s website: http://islam-qa.com/en/ref/23487/
 Jeffery, p. VII., as cited by A. A. Y. Qadhi, op. cit., p.387.
 M. M. Ali, op. cit., p.232.
 A. A. Y. Qadhi, op. cit., p.386.
 M. M. Ali, op. cit., p.223.
 Ibid., p.227.
 S. Ibn G. al-Sadlaan (2000), Congregational Prayer, (USA: Al-Basheer Company), pp.22-23.
 Sahih Muslim, Eng. Trans. 1/315 no. 1365.
 S. al-Fawzan (2005), A Summary of Islamic Jurisprudence Vol.1, (Riyadh: Al-Maiman Publishing House) p.189.
 Ibid., p.191; Endnotes 5: Al-Bukhari (657) [2/184] and Muslim (1480) [3/156], p.200.
 Ibid.. p.191.
 Ibid.. Endnotes 5: Muslim (1486) [3/158], p.200.
 Ibid., p.192.
 S. R. al-Mubarakpuri (2002), Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum (The Sealed Nectar) Memoirs of the Noble Prophet, (Maktaba Dar-us-Salam Publishers), pp.117-118: http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/SM_tsn/ch2s2.html#The%20House%20of%20Al-Arqam
 A. A. Al-Imam, op. cit., Fn. 181, p.125: Tartib al-Musnad, vol. 18, p.9: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=R2iYf0bvYGwC&pg=PA125
 Ibid., Fn. 182: Ibid., vol. 18, p.8.
 Ibid., pp.27-28: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=R2iYf0bvYGwC&pg=PA27
 M. N. Ar-Rifa’i (1996), Tafsir Ibn Kathir (abridged), Vol. 1, (London: Al-Firdous Ltd.), p.3.
 Musnad Ahmad, No. 24139.
 Al-Qur’an, Surah al-Ahzab, 33:21.
 Ibid., Surah al-An’am, 6:106.
 M. M. Ayoub, op. cit., p.41: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=sIXpFtvp2JYC&pg=PA41
 A. Jafri and S. N. Shah (1986-1996) The Alim, the World’s Most Useful Islamic Software, (ISL Software Corporation: Release 4.5): Sahih al-Bukhari 6.170; 6.226-227; 6:528.
 M. N. Ar-Rifa’i, op. cit., p.8.
 M. Ibn S. al-‘Uthaymeen (2006), The Cure, An Explanation of the Opening Chapter Soorah al-Faatihah, (Darasahaba Publications. Compiled and translated by Abdulilah bin Rabah Lahmami), p.51, Fn. 3: Saheeh al-Bukhaaree , Saheeh Muslim [872/873].
 M. M. Ali, op. cit., p.223.
 Fn.6: See supra, pp.200-201 (Fn. 6 on p.200: Al-Suyuti, Al-Itqan, I, p.166).
 M. M. Ali, op. cit., p.225.
 Ibid., pp.225-26.
 Ibid., p.215.
 Ibid., p.228.
 A. A. Y. Qadhi, op. cit., p.161.
 A. A. Al-Imam, op. cit., Fn.18, p.133: I’jaz al-Qur’an, pp.291-92: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=R2iYf0bvYGwC&pg=PA133
 Ibid., pp.51-2: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=R2iYf0bvYGwC&pg=PA51
 Sahih al-Bukhari, 4595; Fath al-Bari bi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari: http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?hnum=4595
 At-Tabarani in Al-Awsat with a good chain; Al-Haytami, Majma’ Az-Zawaa’id, 7/152, who said that the men in this chain are trustworthy; Imam Ash-Shawkaani said the same thing, Tuhfatil Dhaakireen, p.444.
 Collected by Ahmad; authenticated by Nasir ud-Deen al-Albani, As-Saheehah, no. 416