Objections and our Replies regarding Permissibility of Mutah- Part 2

There are some more laws, which change according to circumstances. It does not mean that a woman is not the wife if any of these conditions are not fulfilled.

For instance,

    If a person (Sunni) performs permanent marriage with a Jew or Christian woman, then also, the wife cannot inherit her Muslim husband. Similarly, if a wife kills her husband, she cannot inherit him. Nevertheless, not becoming an inheritor does not end her wifehood, while fulfillment of other obligatory conditions like Iddah are obligatory and she would be considered wife in all conditions.

Similarly, if according to some Shia scholars, if the woman taken in Mutah marriage cannot inherit her husband, how can it be proved that ‘since she cannot inherit, how can she be a wife’?

I have purposely used the phrase ‘some Shia scholars’ because a group of Shia scholars are of the opinion that a wife inherits the husband in Mutah also. Alamul Huda Syed Murtada (a.r.) writes in Kitabul Intesar:[1]

“Not receiving inheritance is not a proof that a woman is not a wife of a man because ‘dhimmiyyah wife’[2], ‘slave wife’ and husband’s murderer-wife are neither his inheritors nor is the husband their inheritor. However, they are wives without any doubt. Apart from this, according to our religion, inheritance is given in Mutah also provided that there is no condition of non-inheritance among the special conditions decided at the time of marriage.” 

[1] Pg. 63, 64; Iran
[2] Jew or Christians living in Muslim territories

If a wife is disobedient to her husband, her maintenance is not obligatory on the husband even though she may be a permanent wife. This is a uniform verdict among all the Muslims. However, non-obligation of maintenance does not affect her wifehood because inheritance and maintenance, both are not the essential elements of marriage. Similarly, if the maintenance of wife in Mutah is not necessary on the husband what effect does it have on her wifehood?
    There is no divorce in ‘limited marriage’ i.e. Mutah. The reason for this is already discussed above. As this marriage is dissolved automatically after a stipulated period, there is no need to quote some formula again to end it. While permanent marriage is for the whole life. Hence it is necessary to quote the formula of divorce in order to end it (if it needs be ended before death).

Except divorce, all issues applicable for the permanent wife like ‘Zihar’[1], ‘Liaan’[2] Eelaa[3] etc. are also applicable to the Mutah wife. There is no difference between them.

[1] Pre-Islamic form of divorce, consisting in the words of repudiation: You are to me like my mother’s back. (anti a’layyah ka-zahri ummi).
[2] Sworn allegation of adultery committed by either husband or wife
[3] Willful oath that one would not to go to ones wife

If the readers permit I would quote some paragraphs of our scholars, which would shed light on the terms and conditions described by me and those who are really involved in a misunderstanding about Mutah would be reassured. As for people like the Rizwan editor who purposely remain ignorant, their solution was not with even the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.).

    The Mutah of woman is that a woman marries one provided that there is no prohibited act in marriage according to the religion of Islam. That is, she must not be among the prohibited degree of relational prohibition as well as causal. She must not be in prohibited degree due to breast-feeding. She must not be already having a husband and not be in the Iddah of previous one and other religious prohibitions should not be present. For instance, she must not be the ex-wife of ones father or sister of a present wife etc. She must marry one in such a state for a fixed dower and period through recitation of marriage formula, which is based on Islamic law. After mutual agreement she must recite the formula of Mutah like in Nikah. Then mention the fixed dower and time (e.g. a day, a month, a year or some years etc.). One should immediately reply: ‘Qabiltu’ (I accept). It is permissible to have a representative (to pronounce the formula of Mutah) like it is done in other marriages. After this, the woman is one’s wife and he her husband till the stipulated period of time comes to an end.[1]

 A woman with whom Mutah is performed is also a lawful wife and a legal marriage is performed with her. As for sustenance, inheritance and distribution of nights, in which she does not have a share, all these are based on particular factors due to which a wife in Mutah is exempted from these general rules.[2]

    [1] Fusulul Muhimma, Pg. 54, 1347 A.H. Edition
    [2] Kitab-e-Madhkur, Pg. 60

 All the signs of wifehood are applied to a woman with whom Mutah is performed. All the rules are valid on her except some of those orders, which with definite evidences do not include a Mutah wife.[1]
    When the mutually fixed time ends, it is permissible for the husband to immediately tie a knot with her once again, and not wait for completion of Iddah (as it is permitted in permanent marriage to return during the Iddah of revocable divorce). However, no other man except her husband can marry her till the period of Iddah ends.[2]
    If conjugal relations were established, the woman would have to observe Iddah for two menstrual cycles after the Mutah ends. According to a narration, it could be observed for only one menstrual cycle, but it is not a reliable report. If a woman does not have menses and she has not reached menopause she must observe Iddah for 45 days. If the husband dies during the period of Mutah she would have to observe Iddah of death for four months and ten days even if conjugal relations were not established and she is not pregnant. If she is pregnant she has to observe Iddah till the childbirth or four months and ten days, whichever is longer.
    It is narrated from Ibne Bazigh that a person asked Imam Reza (s),“If a person performs Mutah with a woman and puts forth a condition that if a boy is born it would not be his. What if a male child is born to her after this?” Imam (s) strictly opposed this denial and considered the rejection of the father a great sin, he said, “What? Would he reject that boy?”[3]

[1] Aslush Shia wa Usulaha, Pg. 94
[2] Sarair, Ibne Idris

[3] Furu al-Kafi, Vol. 2, Pg. 196, Tahzib, Man Laa Yahzaruhul Faqih

 Zihar is valid occurs with Mutah wife also (due to more correct saying) because the verse of Zihar is general and the Mutah wife is also a wife and there is no restriction of a permanent wife in the verse.[1]
    Shaykh al-Mufeed and Syed Murtada (a.r.) have said that ‘Liaan’ is applicable with the Mutah wife because she is a wife and hence, she is also included in the generality of the verse.[2]
    Scholars have a difference of opinion about the right to inheritance in Mutah. There are a number of opinions in this. The first is that both husband and wife become mutual inheritors of each other through this marriage as in the case of permanent marriage. This is a saying of Ibne Barraj and he gives the evidence that the verse of inheritance in marriage is general. The Mutah wife is also a wife and she also inherits like other wives.

The second opinion is exactly opposed to the first. None of the spouses inherit each other. Its proof is that inheritance is a religious command and its right is based on some religious proofs. And merely being a wife is not a proof enough of being rightful to inheritance because there are many wives who inherit and many who cannot. Thus, how can inheritance be given on the basis of just wifehood, without any other legal commandment?[3]

[2] Sharh Lumah, Vol. 2
[3] Masalikul Afham, Vol. 1
[4] Hadaifun Nadhrah, Vol. 7, Pg. 165

This is Mutah, whose dreadful picture is drawn by the Rizwan editor. You have seen that there is no difference between Mutah and Nikah except that there is no period fixed in permanent marriage while a period is fixed in Mutah.

All the supposed evils of Mutah can also be found in permanent marriage after which, divorce may be given. Rather the evils become ten-fold due to divorce after permanent marriage. An example of this is, suppose you want to travel somewhere and you hire a vehicle for this purpose and start your journey. On the way, you reach a deserted area where there is no place to stay at night or hire some other vehicle and the vehicle owner leaves stranded there and returns. What hell would befall you? Just imagine!

On the contrary, if the vehicle owner tells you beforehand that he would drop you at so and so place and not go ahead, you would have the option to travel with him and plan your future course of action or find some other way if you do not like his terms and conditions.

Which is the better option between the two? Indeed, every sensible person would denounce the vehicle owner in the first case. However, no accusation can be laid on him in the second case because he had already stated the terms beforehand.

The same corollary is found in ‘divorce after Nikah’ and ‘Mutah’. A man performing Mutah tells the woman beforehand that he would keep her as a wife, say for five years. After that, she is free, after completing the Iddah period. If a woman considers this condition acceptable, she can perform Mutah or the discussion would end; but in any case there would no deceit.

On the contrary, if the man does not reveal any of his such plans and a permanent marriage is performed, then if he divorces the wife after two, four or ten days, you can imagine the condition of the poor woman due to the shipwreck of her life, in the middle of the high seas.

It is clear from this example that those hypothetical defects (none of which has happened till date) described about Mutah are ten-fold in divorce after Nikah. Keeping in mind this example, is the Rizwan editor still prepared to ridicule divorce and permanent marriage also?

In any case, it has become as clear as daylight from the above discourse that there is no difference between the importance and conditions of the elements, conditions and nature of Mutah and permanent marriage from the point of view of reason and jurisprudence. Now a possible question is whether Mutah is permissible and in accordance with the command of God or not? Hence I consider it important to describe the history of Mutah and some related issues so that its historical background is revealed.

For more Details , Read Part 3

Objections and our Replies regarding Permissibility of Mutah- Part 1

 (Published in ‘Al-Jawwad’, March 1957 A.D., April 1957 A.D., February 1958 A.D.)
 

Written by Allamah Sayyed Saeed Akhtar Rizvi ( Shia Scholar)
 .....

Regarding Mutah, the editor of Rizwan writes:

According to the Shias it is a very good deed to use women after giving them some pennies, without performing Nikah with them. It is even that, God forbid, it is permissible even with Sayyid women after giving them some money. This is so because they believe that performing Mutah gives them the rank of Husain, Ali and even the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.). It is mentioned on page 50 of Burhanul Mutah: “One who performs Mutah once gets the rank of Hasan. One who performs twice gets the rank of Husain. One who performs thrice gets the rank of Ali and one who performs Mutah four times gets the rank of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.).”

I have estimated from a later writing that either the Rizwan editor is unaware of the meaning of Mutah or he intentionally wants to deceive the common people. Since he has tried to answer the questions of ‘Razakar’ regarding Mutah in December 1954 A.D. issue and has used about three pages for it. 

I present his( Rizwan editor)  statements that tell us about his knowledge regarding Mutah.

1)  “The method of performing Mutah is to catch a woman and say, “I want you for one night or a definite period for five rupees.” If the woman agrees, everything is permissible. If Mutah is correct, what is the difference between this and going to a brothel?”[1]

2)  “However, they should know that there is a vast difference between Mutah and Nikah. This is the reason why we find two different chapters in the books as Kitabul Mutah and Kitab Al-Nikah. In brief, Mutah is a temporary contract, which is a way of passing ones time just like a temporary contract with a prostitute. And just a little amount is fixed for it, it is done similarly in Mutah.”[2]

3)  “As an amount is fixed with a prostitute and a deal is made for one or two nights, similarly it is done in Mutah. As if the wine is same and the label has changed.”[3]

[1] Rizwan, Pg. 14
[2] Rizwan, Pg. 15
[3] Rizwan, Pg. 15

In such a condition, first I would like to describe the rules and regulations and the actual nature of Mutah so that there would not be any possibility of misunderstanding.

It appears from the writings of the Rizwan editor that maybe Mutah is another name for adultery and there is no difference between the two. 

Hence, first of all, I would like to ask what is the difference between a permanent Nikah and adultery?

The natural urges are fulfilled in Nikah as well as adultery. Hence if an atheist says, “The method of Nikah is to catch a woman and say that one wants her in exchange of a definite amount. If the woman agrees, everything is permissible. Nikah is correct. Then what is the difference between this and going to a brothel?”  

What reply would the Rizwan editor give?

Perhaps, he would say that there is a ‘proposal’ and ‘consent’ therein, but this purpose is present in adultery also.

Probably, he would suggest ‘dower’, but then people going to brothels also fix an amount and pay it.

May be he would mention the open declaration of Nikah but then many a times lustful rich people keep prostitutes after open declaration of ‘proposal and consents’ (in their own words) and giving them money.

Possibly he would present the issue that after Nikah a woman is confined to a single man only. However, there are many such prostitutes who are confined to a rich man after signing a contract with him.
Maybe he would say that both spouses inherit each other in Nikah. Nevertheless, this rule is not general and absolute because if the wife kills her husband she does not inherit. Similarly, if she is from among the People of the Book[1] she cannot inherit. Thus, if all these wives cannot inherit, what is the problem in keeping a prostitute who would not inherit? What is the difference?

Actually, the difference between Nikah and adultery is that Nikah is under the command of God while adultery is against it. No other strong reason of excellence can be presented. As it would be discussed later, both permanent and temporary marriages performed on the command of God are equal. Thus, although many acts are similar to fornication, yet they are appreciable in permanent marriage because they are carried out according to Divine commands. Similarly, Mutah is also appreciable because it is in accordance to Divine commands.

Let us now make a comparison between permanent and temporary marriage.

We should first know that Islamic jurisprudence and Quran have fixed two types of Nikahs. First, the permanent Nikah, in which no time limit is fixed, while proposal and consent are required. Naturally, this contract lasts for an unlimited period of time. Once a person is bound by this contract he would have to take a particular step in order to terminate it, which is called ‘divorce’. If divorce were not given this contract would last life long.

The second type is called ‘limited Nikah’ (also called as Mutah) whose matrimonial proposal and consent also has a time limit. Naturally, such a contract automatically ends after the stipulated period of time.

Now let us compare the rules and regulations of the two.

(1)   It is an important condition in both types of Nikah that the wife should not be from the prohibited degree (Mahrams). That is, she must not be among the women whom the Holy Quran has prohibited to marry. She must not be already married to someone or in the waiting period (Iddah) of some other man. In brief, temporary marriage is prohibited with those women who are prohibited for permanent marriage also because both are kinds of Nikah only. And as it is permissible but detestable to marry a prostitute in every Islamic sect, it is also detestable to do Mutah with her.

(2) Dower (Mehr), matrimonial proposal and consent are obligatory in permanent marriage; they are obligatory in Mutah also. As the amount of Dower is fixed through mutual agreement between man and woman in the first kind, it is done in the second kind also.

(3)   As it is necessary for a woman to observe Iddah[Waiting Period] after divorce is given to her i.e. she could not marry for a fixed period of time, similarly it is obligatory on a woman to observe Iddah for a fixed period of time after the period of Mutah is over i.e. she cannot marry another man for a fixed period.

(4)   Similarly, a woman has to observe ‘Iddah of death’ for a fixed period of time after the death of her husband in both the cases. It may be permanent or temporary marriage (Mutah).

(5)   As the man and woman become husband and wife of each other after permanent marriage and the woman cannot even think of anyone else, they become husband and wife of each other after temporary marriage also and the woman cannot even think of anyone else.

(6)   As the permanent marriage is not an evil deed due to it being in accordance with divine command, Mutah is also not an evil deed due to its performance in accordance with divine command.

(7)   As the offspring of a permanent wife is a lawful inheritor of its father, it is a lawful inheritor in Mutah also and there is no difference between them.
These were laws, which are obligatory and marriage cannot even be imagined without them. And you might have seen that Nikah and Mutah are almost same in these obligatory conditions and specialties.
 

Once again I emphasize that obligatory conditions and specialties of Nikah are only those, which are discussed above. They are same for permanent marriage and Mutah (temporary marriage).

.......For more Details , Read Part 2

Do Shias believe that the present Quran is Incomplete and fabricated one?

Note : This article is written by eminent Shia Scholar Allamah Sayyed Saeed Akhtar Rizvi in reply to RIZWAN Editor.

Tabari and Abd bin Hamid have narrated through a correct chain of narrators (each of whose narrator was a narrator of Bukhari) that Ibne Abbas used to read the verse:

“Have not yet those who believe known (Afalam yayasa) that if Allah please He would certainly guide all the people?”[1]

[1] Surah Ra’ad 13:31

as ‘Afalam yattabin’. He used to say that the scribe made a mistake since he was feeling very sleepy.

This narration is also mentioned by Allamah Suyuti in Durre Manthur, Ibne Jurair Tabari and Ibne Anbari.

It is regretful that space does not permit me to dwell further on this topic and I have to restrain my pen, otherwise, there are hundreds of narrations that could be presented on this subject.

After this long preamble, I would only like to say that even if the people having same opinion as that of the Rizwan editor express aloofness from the belief of distortion of Quran out of the fear of Shias, they will in any case have to agree that their religious leaders were of the opinion that there are additions, omissions, changes, and mistakes due to the drowsiness of calligraphists in Quran. The commentators and narrators of Ahle Sunnat have quoted so many narrations on this topic (in which the most authentic book after the book of God, Sahih Bukhari is also included) that these people cannot succeed in calling them wrong, rare, weak or incorrect. Also there is no possibility to interpret them differently because their position and identification is mentioned clearly that all these verses are of Quran and nothing else.

Now read this sentence of the Rizwan editor once again: “Muslims all over the world believe that the Quran in our hands is the one revealed by Allah. It is exactly as it was revealed upon the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.).”

Consider this sentence of a famous Ahle Sunnat scholar, Qazi Ayaz, which he has mentioned in Shifa:

Know that one who dishonors the Quran or any of its parts, or talks ill about Quran or its part or rejects the Quran or falsifies a command of Quran or makes something permissible that Quran has prohibited or make a permissible thing prohibited or doubts the Quran or its laws or its contents, then according to the scholars, he is a disbeliever (Kafir). Allah says,

“Falsehood shall not come to it from before it nor from behind it; a revelation from the Wise, the Praised One.”[1]

[1] Surah Ha Mim 41:42

Now if the Rizwan editor has any Islamic modesty remaining he should boldly declare:

“Since it is the faith of the world Muslims that the Quran in our hands is the one revealed by Allah, and it is exactly as it was revealed upon the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.); and according to the clarification of Qazi Ayaz one who doubts a verse or even a single alphabet of Quran or one who falsifies or disgraces it, is a disbeliever, hence all the above leaders of Islam and all those who have a similar opinion are excluded from the limits of Islam and are disbelievers according to the unanimity of the scholars.”

Now read these sentences of the Rizwan editor:

“However the Shia belief is exactly opposite; that the existing Quran is a fabricated one. It has been distorted while the real Quran is with the Hidden Imam who is hiding in a cave. He will come with the real Quran sometime before the Day of Judgment.

All right sir! So this is a forged Quran. But how sensible is this Hidden Imam that he has hidden the real Quran and does not guide the creatures of God?
 

It is narrated on page 271 of Usul al-Kafi that Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq (s) said, “The Quran that Jibraeel (s) brought to the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.) had seventeen thousand verses in it.”

On the same page of this book another tradition is narrated that Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq (s) brought out the Quran inscribed by Imam Ali (s) and said, “By Allah, after this day you will never see the Quran.”

In the above statements of Rizwan, some point are worthy of discussion:

Firstly, the existence of Imam Mahdi (a.t.f.s.) is mentioned in a taunting manner. I would have proved the belief in existence of my Master (s) in the words of the Rizwan editor’s ancestors at this place itself but since some objections were made under the topic of ‘Shia and Imam Mahdi (a.t.f.s.)’, therefore I reserve my explanation for that section.

Secondly, Shias are blamed of such a belief, which they can never accept. The editor of Rizwan should, at first, learn to speak. Come, let me explain to him some manners of writing. Just now, I have quoted hundreds of narrations about the distortion of Quran through different sources from the books of Ahle Sunnat. If I were a sensible man like you, I would have immediately written: ‘Hence it is proved that all Ahle Sunnat are believers of distortion (of Quran).’

Ayesha believed that there is a mistake in the existing Quran.

Mother of faithful, Ayesha also believed that there is a mistake in the existing Quran. 

Read the following explanation: 

Allamah Baghavi writes in Tafsir Malimut Tanzeel regarding the verse:

“But the firm in knowledge among them and the believers believe in what has been revealed to you and what was revealed before you, and those who keep up prayers (Muqimeenas Salaat) and those who give the poor-rate and the believers in Allah and the last day, these it is whom We will give a mighty reward.”[1]

He says: ‘There is a difference of opinion in its being ‘Muqimeenas Salaat’. It is narrated from Ayesha and Aban bin Uthman that this is a mistake of the calligraphist which should be corrected and, ‘wal muqimoonas Salaat’ be written in its place. Similarly, she says that there is a mistake in the words of God:

“Surely those who believe and those who are Jews and the Sabians (saabi-oon) and the Christians, whoever believes in Allah and the last day and does good- they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve.”[2]

And:

“These are most surely two magicians (in haadhaani…”[3]

According to her these mistakes occurred due to the calligraphists and should be changed from ‘saabi-oon’ to ‘sabi-een’ and ‘in haadhaani’ to ‘in haadhaini’, respectively.
This shows that Ayesha and Aban bin Uthman, the third caliph’s son, considered these verses incorrect. They felt that they should be corrected.

Abu Ubaid has quoted this narration in Fazailul Quran: A narrator asked Ayesha about these mistakes in Quran and she replied, “O nephew! These are the errors of the calligraphists when they inscribed the Quran.” The chain of narrators of this report is correct according to the standards of Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim. (On the authority of Itqan by Allamah Suyuti).

[1] Surah Nisa 4:162
[2] Surah Maidah 5:69
[3] Surah Taha 20:63

In addition to this, the following scholars have also mentioned the belief of Ayesha regarding mistakes in the above three verses:

1)  Saeed bin Mansur

2)  Ibne Abi Shayba

3)  Ibne Abi Dawood

4)  Ibne Jurair

5)  Ibne Mundhir

6)  Allamah Suyuti

7)  Raghib Isfahani

8)  Abu Amr Dani

Since the discussion is becoming prolonged I refrain from writing about other verses that Ayesha considered incorrect.

Uthman believed that there was a mistake in the existing Quran

Consider the following narration on this topic:

Uthman said that there is a mistake in the statement of God:

“These are most surely two magicians…”[1]

Someone asked him to correct this mistake. Uthman replied, “Let it be as it is, because no unlawful deed becomes lawful or vice versa due to it.”

In order to avoid making the discussion lengthy, I leave the original wordings and just give the sources. The following scholars and narrators of Ahle Sunnat have stated this saying of Uthman:

1)  Ibne Abi Dawood

2)  Akramah

3)  Qatadah

4)  Yahya bin Yamar

5)  Faqih Abul Laith Samarqandi (In Tafsir)

6)  Allamah Jalaluddin Suyuti (In Itqan and Durre Manthur)

[1] Surah Taha 20:63

Ahle Sunnat leaders who believe that words of Quran are changed

Umar

Here also the first name is that of Umar. The caliph used to read ‘famzu iladh dhikrillaah’ (then walk towards to the remembrance of Allah) instead of ‘fas-oo iladh dhikrillaah’ (then hasten to the remembrance of Allah)[1]. It means that ‘fas-oo’ (hasten) was wrong according to him.

Imam Malik asked Ibne Shahab about the verse:[2] “O you who believe! When the call is made for prayer on Friday, then hasten to the remembrance of Allah and leave off trading.” Ibne Shahab replied, “Umar bin Khattab used to recite this as: “O you who believe! When the call is made for prayer on Friday, then walk towards the remembrance of Allah and leave off trading.”[3]

Narrations regarding this matter are present in Tafsir Durre Manthur on the authority of the following scholars:

1)  Abu Ubaid (Kitab al-Fazail)

2)  Saeed bin Mansur

3)  Ibne Abi Shayba

4)  Ibne Mundhir

5)  Ibne Anbari

6)  Abd bin Hamid

7) Imam Shafei

Out of them many have quoted the testimony of Abdullah bin Umar that the caliph used to say, ‘famzu’ till the time of his death.

[1] Surah Jumah 62:9
[2] Surah Jumah 62:9
[3] Muwatta, Imam Malik

Abdullah bin Umar

Ahle Sunnat scholars who believe that compilers of Quran made additions to it!

Abdullah bin Masud

The first name among them is of Abdullah bin Masud. We have already discussed his merits and virtues earlier. He did not consider Surah Falaq and Surah Naas as part of Quran. Allamah Suyuti writes in Itqan:

“There were only a hundred and twelve chapters in the Copy (Mus’haf) of Ibne Masud (there are 114 in the existing Quran). He had not included Surah Falaq and Surah Naas while inscribing the Quran.”[1]

In other words he used to omit these chapters from the Quran.

A narration on this topic has been quoted by Abu Ubaidah from Ibne Sireen.
 

Abu Darda

The second name is that of Abu Darda, a famous companion. It is narrated as follows in Sahih Muslim:

Alqama says, “We went to Syria where Abu Darda came to us and asked, ‘Does anyone of you recite Quran according to the recitation of Abdullah bin Masud?’ I replied that I do. Abu Darda asked, ‘How does Abdullah recite the verse: “I swear by the night when it draws a veil.” I said that I heard him reciting in the following way: “I swear by the night when it draws a veil and the male and the female.” Abu Darda said, “By Allah! I heard the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.) reciting in the same way but these people want me to recite as: And the creating of the male and the female. But I am not going to listen to them.”

[1] Itqan, Allamah Jalaluddin Suyuti, Vol. 1 Pg. 81

Another narration on this topic is present in Sahih Muslim. Apart from this, there are three narrations on this topic in Sahih Bukhari. After the narration on this subject, it is mentioned in Sahih Tirmidhi that: This tradition is correct and the recitation of Abdullah bin Masud is like this only: “I swear by the night when it draws a veil. And the day when it shines in brightness. And the male and the female.”

These narrations show that Abu Darda and Abdullah bin Masud believe that the words “And the creating of” (Maa khalaqa), in the third verse of Surah Lail,[1] were added later by the compilers of Quran.

Thus not only the Ahle Sunnat believe that the Quran is incomplete but they also think that some additions have been made into it by the people. But they are not even content with this much. They go further to claim that many words of the Quran have been changed.

[1] Holy Quran, Surah 92