The Alleged Disruption of Revelation Of Quran By Ibn Abi Sarah As Claimed By Orientalists And Atheists,Its Analysis And Refutation

The Alleged Disruption of Revelation Of Quran By Ibn Abi Sarah As Claimed By Orientalists And Atheists,Its Analysis And Refutation

Writer, Dr. Ahead Hassan

ʿAbdallāh ibn Saʿd ibn Abī Sarḥ; (Arabic: عبدالله بن سعد بن أبي السرح‎‎) was the milk brother of Uthman. His father was Sa'd ibn Abi Sarh.
During his time as governor of Egypt (646 CE to 656 CE), Ibn Abi Sarh built a strong Egyptian Arab navy. Under his leadership the Muslim navy won a number of victories including its first major naval battle against the Byzantine emperor Constans II at the Battle of the Masts in 655 CE. One of his achievements while governor of Egypt was the capture of Tripoli in 647 whereby he brought Libya into the Islamic Empire.
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdallah_ibn_Sa%27d)
According to orientalists and atheists,he embraced islam after migration of Holy Prophet Muhammad P.B.U.H to Madina and was appointed as the compiler of revelation.According to them,he used to write for Holy Prophet Muhammad P.B.U.H but he came to know that this was not a divine revelation but the self thoughts of Prophet Muhammad P.B.U.H and apostatized from Islam.According to them,he went to Kureshites of Makka and told them that he deliberately used to disrupt the revelation and misguided Prophet Muhammad P.B.U.H and he did not know about some thing.Is this objection right or wrong?For it,we should analyze the references quoted by orientalists and atheists.
The story goes on this way.

"He(Ibn Abi Sarah) converted to Islam before the conquest of Mecca and immigrated to the Prophet(P) [i.e. in Medina]. He used to record the revelation for the Prophet(P) before he apostatized and went back to Mecca. Then he told Quraysh: 'I used to orient Muhammad wherever I willed, he dictated to me "All-Powerful All-Wise" and I suggest "All Knowing All-Wise" so he would say: "Yes, it is all the same.
In Quran commentary of Al-Qurtbi,it is stated that,
The One whose name is Exalted (Allah) means in his saying "Who doth more wrong than such as invent a falsehood against Allah" and "Who doth more wrong and who is more ignorant than such as invent a falsehood against Allah" referring to those who invent falsehood against Allah and claim to be a Prophet and a Warner, and he [the person who claims] is false in his claims, and lying in his sayings. In this, God is ridiculing the Pagan Arabs, and (ridiculing) the opposing of Abdullah bin Sa'd bin Abi Al-Sarh and the Hanafite Musaylamah to the Prophet of Allah (SAW). For one of them claimed prophethood and the other claimed that he came up with something similar to what the Messenger of Allah (SAW) came with [the Quran], and at the same time denying the lying and false claims against his Prophet Mohammad (SAW). (Tafseer Al-Qurtubi)
Now notice a thing.While Al-Qurtbi states in commentary of that these verses(21,22) of chapter 6 of Quran that in these verses,Allah Almighty is opposing the false claims of ibn Abi Sarah who claimed that he came up with something similar to what the Messenger of Allah (SAW) came with [the Quran],Al-Qurtbi never states the incident of supposed disruption of revelation by Ibn Abi Sarah.Now read the commentary of Quran,Chapter 23,verses 14 by Al-Qurtbi.He states that The verse
ثُمَّ خَلَقْنَا النُّطْفَةَ عَلَقَةً فَخَلَقْنَا الْعَلَقَةَ مُضْغَةً فَخَلَقْنَا الْمُضْغَةَ عِظَامًا فَكَسَوْنَا الْعِظَامَ لَحْمًا ثُمَّ أَنْشَأْنَاهُ خَلْقًا آخَرَ فَتَبَارَكَ اللَّهُ أَحْسَنُ الْخَالِقِينَ
It is that Umar Ibn Al-khattaab R.A heard by the end of this verse,he said
فتبارک اللہ احسن الخالقین
The great is the Allah who is the best creator.Then Prophet Muhammad P.B.U.H said,it was revealed in this way.This is also narrated in Musnad Tialsi(مسند طیالسی).It is also narrated that it was not said by Umar Bin Khattab R.A but by Maaz Bin Jabl R.A.It is also narrated that it was not said by Maaz Bin Jabl R.A but by Abdullah Bin Abi Sarah and this was the reason of his apostasy and about him the verses 21,22 of Chapter 6 of Quran were revealed(which we have stated above).Now notice two things.First is that,while Al-Qurtbi states it not only for Ibn Abi Sarah,but also for Umar Bin Khattab R.A and Maaz Bin Jabl R.A.Then why orientalists and atheists pick only ibn Abi Sarah and present it as a proof of the disruption of revelation.Why it is the case?It is clear that while Umar Bin Khattab R.A and Maaz Bin Jabl R.A did not apostatize, ibn Abi Sarah was an easy proof to present against Quran as a claim for disruption of revelation of Quran as he had apostatized.Now when it is not clear that who was the person whom words were declared as the words of revelation by the Prophet Muhammad P.B.U.H,then how can orientalists and atheists claim of these words by Ibn Abi Sarah.The second and most important thing is that Al-Qurtbi states all of this incident and says "it is stated" while not gives the complete chain or isnad of this narration.Then how without the the complete chain or isnad, this narration,this narration can be called authentic.So it proves that without complete chain or isnad,this narration of Al-Qurtbi is weak and not reliable.So it is rejected.
Now read the detail of this incident mentioned in the Commentary of Al-Tibri,Chapter 6,verses 93۔
وَمَنْ اَظْلَمُ مِمَّنِ افْتَـرٰى عَلَى اللّـٰهِ كَذِبًا اَوْ قَالَ اُوْحِىَ اِلَىَّ وَلَمْ يُوْحَ اِلَيْهِ شَىْءٌ وَّمَنْ قَالَ سَاُنْزِلُ مِثْلَ مَآ اَنْزَلَ اللّـٰهُ ۗ وَلَوْ تَـرٰٓى اِذِ الظَّالِمُوْنَ فِىْ غَمَرَاتِ الْمَوْتِ وَالْمَلَآئِكَـةُ بَاسِطُوٓا اَيْدِيْـهِـمْ اَخْرِجُوٓا اَنْفُسَكُمُ ۖ اَلْيَوْمَ تُجْزَوْنَ عَذَابَ الْـهُوْنِ بِمَا كُنْتُـمْ تَقُوْلُوْنَ عَلَى اللّـٰهِ غَيْـرَ الْحَقِّ وَكُنْتُـمْ عَنْ اٰيَاتِهٖ تَسْتَكْبِـرُوْنَ
.In Tibri,this is stated in following way,
"Al-Qasim told us: Al-Hussein narrated: Al-Hajjaj narrated: by Ibn Jurayh, by Ikrimah:
His saying [Allah's saying in the Quran], "Who doth more wrong than such as invent a falsehood against Allah, or said: 'I have received inspiration,' when he hath received none". He [Ikrimah] said: This verse was revealed about Musaylamah the brother of Bani (children of) Uday bin Haneefah, for he [Musaylamah] was reciting poetry and prophesying. And "I can reveal like what Allah hath revealed" was revealed about Abdullah bin Sa'd bin Abi Al-Sarh, the brother of Bani (children of) Amir bin Lu'ai. He [Abdullah] used to write for the Prophet (SAW), and while he [Mohammad] was dictating "Exalted in power, full of Wisdom", he [Abdullah] would write it "Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful", thus changing it. Then he [Abdullah] would read the changed verses to him [Mohammad], and he [Mohammad] would say, "Yes [in approval], it's the same [meaning]". So he [Abdullah] reverted from Islam and followed Quraysh telling them, "He [Mohammad] used to recite to me Exalted in power, full of Wisdom', and I would change it when I write it down, and he would tell me, 'Yes [in approval], it's the same [meaning]." But then he [Abdullah] came back to Islam before the conquering (fath) of Mecca, while the Prophet (SAW) was at Mur [a place in Arabia - on his way to Mecca]."
Now analyze this narration of Tibri.In this narration of Tibri,the narrator Hajjaj is unknown.Nothing is mentioned in The narration about his father of children and according to Al-Zahbi,he is not reliable.According to al-zahbi,there are two narrators on the name of Al-Hajjaj,one who is unknown(Meezan Al-Aitadal) and the other who is Hajjaj bin Abi ziad Al-Aswad,the former is unknown and the latter is reliable.Now while Al-Tibri is narrating this narration through Hajjaj,he is not giving the detail as to which Hajjaj,he is refering,the second thing is that we have not read this narration from any other hadith narrator.So without the true identity of Hajjaj mentioned in this narration,this narration is not reliable and is weak.The people who call Hajjaj mentioned in this narration as the Hajjaj bin Abi ziad Al-Aawad,should give proof of it.The value of Tibri is very low in hadith narrators and this narration of Tibri is unauthenticated and very weak.
Tibri further states that some said: This verse was indeed revealed about Abdullah bin Sa'd in particular. Among those are:
"c. Mohammad bin Al-Hussein spoke to me, he said: Ahmad bin Al-Mufdil narrated: Asbat narrated from Al-Sudy: "Who doth more wrong than such as invent a falsehood against Allah, or said: "I have received inspiration,' when he hath received none" until his [Allah] saying, "ye receive your reward, a penalty of shame". He [Al-Sudy] said: This verse was revealed about Abdullah bin Sa'd bin Abi Al-Sarh, he embraced Islam, and used to write [Quran revelations] for the Prophet (SAW). So when the Prophet dictated him: "Who heareth and knoweth all things", he'd write it: "All-Knowing, All-Wise". So he doubted and reverted. Then he said, "If Mohammad gets inspiration, then I get inspiration too, and if Allah sent him his revelation then I was sent the same thing. For when Mohammad said, 'Who heareth and knoweth all things' I'd say, 'All-Knowing, All-Wise'" So he followed the Pagans, and he blew the cover of Ammar and Jubar [secret Muslims] to Ibn Al-Hudrumi or to Bani Abd Al-Dar, so they took them and tortured them until they reverted. Ammar's ear was cut off that day, so he [Ammar] went to the Prophet (SAW) and told him what had happened to him, but the Prophet (SAW) refused to handle his issue. So Allah revealed about [Abdullah] Ibn Abi Al-Sarh and his companions, "Anyone who, after accepting Faith in Allah, utters Unbelief, - except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith - but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty" Who was "under compulsion" is Ammar and his companions, and who "open their breast to Unbelief" is [Abdullah] Ibn Abi Al-Sarh. (Tafseer Al-Tabari)."
Now analyze this narration of Tibri.In this narration of Tibri,one narrator is Al-Sudy and there are two narrators in the name of Al-Sudi,Sudi, the senior(السدی الکبیر), and Al-Sudy,the junior( السدی الصغیر), and both are very weak narrators.(https://ar.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/إسماعيل_بن_عبد_الرحمن_السدي،http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vb/showthread.php?t=285255).So this narration of Tibri in both ways is very weak and unauthenticated and unreliable.
Furthermore,this narration is also stated from Al-Baidawi.Al-Baidawi commenting on the Qur'an, Sura al-An`am 6:93
"'To me it has been revealed', when naught has been revealed to him" refers to `Abdallah Ibn Sa`d Ibn Abi Sarh, who used to write for God's messenger. The verse (23:12) that says, "We created man of an extraction of clay" was revealed, and when Muhammad reached the part that says, "... thereafter We produced him as another creature (23:14), `Abdallah said, "So blessed be God the fairest of creators!" in amazement at the details of man's creation. The prophet said, "Write it down; for thus it has been revealed." `Abdallah doubted and said, "If Muhammad is truthful then I receive the revelation as much as he does, and if he is a liar, what I said is a good as what he said."
(Quoted from the famous Tafsir Anwar al-Tanzil wa Asrar al-Ta'wil by `Abdallah Ibn `Umar al-Baidawi).
What is chain of transmission?Now here is a question.While Baidawi is narrating this incident,what is the source of narration,what is the chain or isnad of this narration?How this narration can be trusted without the chain of authentic hadith narrators.We have seen arabic version of Baidawi and in it Baidawi has never given the chain of this narration.So this narration is also very weak and unauthenticated and unreliable.
In Usûd Ulghâbah fi Ma'rifat Is-Sahâbah by Ibn al-Athîr concerning cAbdullâh Ibn Sâd Ibn Abî Sarh we find the following:
"He converted to Islam before the conquest of Mecca and immigrated to the Prophet(P) [i.e. in Medina]. He used to record the revelation for the Prophet(P) before he apostatized and went back to Mecca. Then he told Quraysh: 'I used to orient Muhammad wherever I willed, he dictated to me "All-Powerful All-Wise" and I suggest "All Knowing All-Wise" so he would say: "Yes, it is all the same."
The same incident is also narrated in his Al-Kamil Fi Al-Tarikh in the details of conquest of Makka.
Now notice a thing, Ibn Athir mentions this incident in two of his books but never gives his source of narration or the chain of transmission or isnad.Now how can this narration be labelled as authentic.So this narration without having the chain of transmission is also very weak and unauthenticated and unreliable.
Now let us look into the argument quoted from Is the Qur'ân Infallible? by cAbdullâh cAbd al-Fad.
The translation provided by the critic is:
The scribes of Muhammad were 42 in number. 'Abdullah Ibn Sarh al-`Amiri was one of them, and he was the first Quraishite among those who wrote in Mecca before he turned away from Islam. He started saying, "I used to direct Muhammad wherever I willed. He would dictate to me 'All-Powerful, All-Wise' [the critic has wrongly translated 'Aziz by Most-High which is in Arabic 'Aliyy, it seems that he confused it with the previous word 'Alayya which means "to me"], and I would write down 'All-Wise' only. Then he would say, 'Yes it is all the same'. On a certain occasion he said, 'Write such and such', but I wrote 'Write' only, and he said, 'Write whatever you like.'" So when this scribe exposed Muhammad, he wrote in the Qur'an, "And who does greater evil than he who forges against God a lie, or says, 'To me it has been revealed', when naught has been revealed to him."
In fact, al-Hâfidh al-cIraqî has wrote the Sîrah in a piece of poetry of 1000 verse called Alfiyyat us-Sîrat in-Nabawiyyah.
Al-Hâfidh al-'Iraqî starts by saying that the scribes of the Prophet(P) were 42. Obviously, this detail links Alfiyyat us-Sîrat in-Nabawiyyah to the argument stated by the critic. In the verse 786, al-Hâfidh al-cIraqî says:
And I added from various accounts on Sîrah a lot of people, it is for you to verify and check.
This means clearly that not all that is mentioned is to be taken blindly. Al-Hâfidh al-cIraqî is making a simple compilation of what he found leaving the verification for the reader.
In verses 796 to 798, al-Hâfidh al-cIraqî says:
They mentioned three who wrote [for the Prophet] and apostatized: Ibn Abî Sarh and Ibn Khatal and another one whose name is unknown. No one of them returned to the religion [Islam] except Ibn Abî Sarh while the others strayed from the right path.
A minimum of objectivity is enough to understand that al-Hâfidh al-cIraqî does not back up such claims. He is merely reporting accounts and asks the people interested in them to take upon themselves the burden of verification.
Al-Hâfidh al-cIraqî in his Alfiyyat us-Sîrat in-Nabawiyyah does not assert for sure that cAbdullâh Ibn Sâd Ibn Abî Sarh was a scribe of the Prophet(P). He also states clearly that the scribes who apostatized had gone astray. Therefore, he cannot contradict himself by saying what the critic is putting in his mouth. Consequently, in the absence of the source of such claims, we dismiss this argument unless the critic provides us with its source stated fully and correctly.
(http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/Sarh/)
Now look at the other sources which mention the story of Ibn Abi Sarah but still dont describe the disruption of revelation by Ibn Abi Sarah.Read the following.
We have not come across any report with a saheeh (sound) isnaad that says that ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Sarh used to distort the revelation; rather in his story it says that the Shaytaan caused him to slip.
"It was narrated that Ibn ‘Abbaas said: ‘Abdullh ibn Sa’d ibn Abi’l-Sarh used to write for the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). Then the shaytaan caused him to slip and he joined the kuffaar. The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) ordered that he be killed on the day of the Conquest [of Makkah], but ‘Uthmaan ibn ‘Affaan sought protection for him and the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) granted him protection."
(Narrated by an-Nasaa’i (4069) and Abu Dawood (4358); classed as hasan by al-Albaani in Saheeh an-Nasaa’i)
Now notice that,while this narration is describing the apostasy of Ibn Abi Sarah,it never gives the account of disruption of revelation as claimed by orientalists and atheists from weak narrations.Now further read:
"It was narrated that Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) said: There was a Christian man who became Muslim and read al-Baqarah and Aal ‘Imraan, and he used to write for the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). He went back to being a Christian, and he used to say: Muhammad does not know anything but what I wrote for him. Allah caused him to die, and they buried him, then the next morning the earth had thrown him out. They said: This is the doing of Muhammad and his companions, because he ran away from them; they dug up our companion and threw him (on the ground). So they dug a grave for him and made it deep, but the next morning the earth had thrown him out. They said: This is the doing of Muhammad and his companions, because he ran away from them; they dug up our companion and threw him (on the ground). They dug another hole for him and they made it as deep as they could in the ground, but the next morning the earth had thrown him out. Thus they realised that this was not something that people had done, so they left him unburied."
(https://islamqa.info/en/168773)
This narration is also without the chain of transmission or isnad and is weak and unauthenticated and unreliable.The second thing is that here the story of disruption of revelation is attributed to a Christian man but not to the Ibn Abi Sarah.It clearly shows that how was the story invented and manipulated by the weak narrators.
They further say that Al-Waqidi in his book Al-Maghazi describes the same story.They forget the fact that according to all major hadith narrators,Waqidi is very weak narrator.Waqidi has faced criticism regarding his scholarly reliability from many Islamic scholars, including:
1. al-Shafi’i (d. 204 A.H.) said "All the books of al-Waqidi are lies. In Medina there were seven men who used to fabricate authorities, one of which was al-Waqidi."
2. Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 241 A.H.) said "He is a liar, makes alternations in the traditions"
Al-Nasa’i (d. 303 A.H.) said "The liars known for fabricating the hadith of the Messenger of Allah are four. They are: Arba’ah b. Abi Yahya in Medina, al-Waqidi in Baghdad, Muqatil b. Sulayman in Khurasan and Muhammad bin Sa’id in Syria."
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Waqidi)
So the source of this narration from Al-Waqidi is also very weak and unauthenticated and unreliable.
Now there is an excerpt from the book Sirat Rasul Allah.It states,
The apostle had instructed his commanders when they entered Mecca only to fight those who resisted them except a small number who were to be killed even if they were found beneath the curtains of the Kaaba. Among them was `Abdullah b. Sa`d, brother of the B. `Amir b. Lu’ayy. The reason he ordered him to be killed was that he had been a Muslim and used to write down revelation; then he apostatized and returned to Qurahysh [Mecca] and fled to `Uthman b. `Affan whose foster brother he was. The latter hid him until he brought him to the apostle after the situation in Mecca was tranquil, and asked that he might be granted immunity. They allege that the apostle remained silent for a long time till finally he said yes. When `Uthman had left he [Muhammad] said to his companions who were sitting around him, “I kept silent so that one of you might get up and strike off his head!” One of the Ansar [Muhammad’s helpers from Medina] said, “Then why didn’t you give me a sign, O apostle of God?” He [Muhammad] answered that a prophet does not kill by pointing.” (Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 550)
Notice that this source narrates the story of apostasy of Ibn Abi Sarah but never describes the disruption of revelation as claimed by orientalists and atheists.
Now read below:
“A person of al-Ansar had taken a vow to kill Ibn Abi Sarh if he saw him. `Uthman whose foster brother he (Abi Sarh) was, came and interceded for him with the Prophet. The Ansari was waiting for the signal of the Prophet to kill him. `Uthman interceded and he [Muhammad] let him (Abi Sarh) go. Then the apostle of Allah said to the Ansari, “Why did you not fulfill your vow?” He said, “O apostle of Allah! I had my hand on the hilt of the sword waiting for your signal to kill him.” The Prophet said signaling would have been a breach of faith. “It does not behave a prophet to make a signal.” (Tabaqat Al-Kabir, p. 174)
Narrated Sa’d: On the day when Mecca was conquered, the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) gave protection to the people except four men and two women and he named them. Ibn AbuSarh was one of them. He then narrated the tradition. He said: Ibn Abi Sarh hid himself with Uthman ibn Affan. When the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) called the people to take the oath of allegiance, he brought him and made him stand before the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him). He said: Apostle of Allah, receive the oath of allegiance from him. He raised his head and looked at him thrice, denying him every time. After the third time he received his oath. He then turned to his companions and said: Is not there any intelligent man among you who would stand to this (man) when he saw me desisting from receiving the oath of allegiance, and kill him? They replied: We do not know, Apostle of Allah, what lies in your heart; did you not give us an hint with your eye? He said: It is not proper for a prophet to have a treacherous eye. (Abu Dawud 14:2677)
So Tabqat Kabir and Abu Dawood dont mention the story of altering the revelation.
Now read two other narrations of Abu Dawud:
"Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: Abdullah ibn AbuSarh used to write (the revelation) for the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him). Satan made him slip, and he joined the infidels. The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) commanded to kill him on the day of Conquest (of Mecca). Uthman ibn Affan sought protection for him. The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) gave him protection. (Abu Dawud 38:4345)."
"Narrated Sa’d ibn Abu Waqqas: On the day of the conquest of Mecca, Abdullah ibn Sa’d ibn AbuSarh hid himself with Uthman ibn Affan. He brought him and made him stand before the Prophet (peace be upon him), and said: Accept the allegiance of Abdullah, Apostle of Allah! He raised his head and looked at him three times, refusing him each time, but accepted his allegiance after the third time. Then turning to his companions, he said: Was not there a wise man among you who would stand up to him when he saw that I had withheld my hand from accepting his allegiance, and kill him? They said: We did not know what you had in your heart, Apostle of Allah! Why did you not give us a signal with your eye? He said: It is not advisable for a Prophet to play deceptive tricks with the eyes.” (Abu Dawud 38:4346)"
Notice that thrse also narrates the story of apostasy of Ibn Abi Sarah but never describe the disruption of revelation as claimed by orientalists and atheists.
They have two story versions for Ibn Abi Sarah leaving of islam.
The prophet gathered the writers as usual when he had new revelations to be written. So the prophet ended one revelation with “ and he is is the listener and the all knowing” but Abdullah said “ and he is the listener and the wise”. The prophet replied “it is so”. Thus Abdullah thought the prophet allowed him to change the revelation from Quran so it must be fake. While all the other writers put it down as the first way it was told to them, since they understood that the prophet meant that indeed god is also the wise in agreement to the words but not to the recored. Which is why the prophet got many writers to recored him every time in a group so no single person can change the revelation. This story is belived to be weak in sources.
The second story goes that the prophet was interrupted by Abdullah while he was reciting the revelations on the writers and he said “blessed be god the greatest of creators”. The prophet said “that is how it was revealed to me”. Abdullah in his doubt said it is either that I was also been able to get a revelation from god or that the prophet is making up the revelations. Now we ask the question from orientalists and atheists that In which story they believe while our discussion has shown that this story from all sources is narrated from unauthenticated and unreliable narrators and narrations.While there are some what reliable sources like Nasai and Abu Dawud,they never describe the story of disruption of revelation as told by orientalists and atheists.So this objection based on very weak and unauthenticated narrations is a mere lie and is thoroughly rejected.
Many of the early writers were concerned by the compilation only. Fearing that the material available could be lost, they collected whatever reports they could find without authenticating them. They left the authentication process to the following generations as it is clearly stated in the excerpt of Alfiyyat us-Sirat in-Nabawiyyah by al-Hâfidh al-cIraqî. A whole Science is concerned with the reliability of the narrators based on their life and their moral values. That is why many people could compile many reports leaving the authentication procedure to the ones who followed them. In reality, if all the early scholars cared about authenticating every report they heard of, a lot of the material available today would be lost.
Concerning Chapter 6 (from which the verse 6:93 is quoted), many reports support the fact that it was entirely revealed in Mecca. They also go on saying that this Chapter was escorted by 70,000 angels when Gabriel carried it down to the Prophet(P). Refer to Al-Itqân, Section 13: What was revealed scattered and what was revealed in one unit. One may also refer to Al-Itqân, Section 14: What was revealed with an escort and what was revealed alone. Consequently, the opinion the verse 6:93 addressed cAbdullâh Ibn Sâd Ibn Abî Sarh falls flat on its face. Many commentators convey reports that the revelation of the verse 6:93 addressed Musaylamah al-Kadhdhâb of al-Yamâmah and al-'Ansy of Yemen, both of them having claimed prophethood at that time.
Other reports exclude two verses only, for example 6:20 & 6:114. They also differ on Asbâb un-Nuzûl of the verses excluded as they either concern Musaylamah or a Jewish Rabbi of Medina or other reasons.
The orientalists and atheists say that the same source says that a verse could have multiple reasons of revelation (meaning Allah revealed it again at another time to Mohammad because of another incident). Thus if we were to assume what the author said is accurate, that Ibn Sarh converted to Islam in Al-Madina, then reverted a year before conquering Mecca, then it is still possible that this verse was indeed revealed again when Ibn Sarh reverted (as another reason of revelation).For it,we ask them two questions.First question is that can they give proof that this verse was revealed two times?First in Makka and then in Madina?What is the proof for it that it was revealed two times? Or they have based their allegations on approximations and estimations only?Have they any sound proof for it or their courts give punishments only on approximations and estimations as their favourite america is doing in whole of world?The other thing is that even if it is accepted that this verse was revealed two times,yet still how can they prove their false allegations of disruption of revelation when all of their proofs are from unauthenticated and unreliable narrations as we have discussed above.
So ibn Abi Sarah embraced Islam after the Hijrah while Muslims were living in Medina. We don't know the year exactly. He probably had the opportunity to write for the Prophet(P). He apostatized but the reason stated in many accounts (i.e. verse 23:12) is not consistent because it goes against many established reports in the cUlûm al-Qur'ân. He returned to Islam and was a good Muslim.
Moreover, if the scribes were allowed to contribute to the Qur'ân, how can the critic explain that among the 42 scribes there is only one (cAbdullâh Ibn Sâd Ibn Abî Sarh) who was bothered about it? Didn't the others feel uneasy about such a thing if it ever happened?
Of course, it is out of the question that the Prophet of God(P) allow such contribution because it is claimed many times in the Qur'ân that the Holy Book is dictated upon revelation and any contribution to it must be of divine inspiration.
This story was used over and over to bash on Quran origin and yet critics leave out the fact that he was one of a group not the only one to write or listen to the revelations.The writing of the revelations was always in public never in secret. So you got people who memorize it and people who actually wrote it down.
The orientalists and atheists further say that ibn Abi Sarah embraced islam due to fear of the sword hanging over his head.It is a big lie to refute the truthiness of Islam.Abdullah never ran away or joined any group after the death of the prophet. He stayed a muslim and taught Islam and he fought for it and became one of the muslims generals and governors in Egypt then he became the governor of all of Egypt.
They further ask a question that If Abdullâh Ibn Sâd Ibn Abî Sarh really deserved to be executed according to a Law, why did the Prophet(P) accept the intercession of cUthmân?
In terms of Islamic Law, there are two categories of crimes. The ones named by God (such as murder, theft, fornication etc.) to which He defined the proper punishment "Hudood"(the singular is 'Hadd'). And the ones not named by God, their evaluation and their punishment (called ta'dhîr) are left for the judgment of the sovereign. Provided that the reports of Sîrat Rasulillah and at-Tabaqât al-Kabîr are correct, the case of cAbdullâh Ibn Sâd Ibn Abî Sarh is simply about the sovereign (Prophet Muhammad(P)) making a decree against a criminal (cAbdullâh Ibn Sâd Ibn Abî Sarh) then upon the intercession of a third party (cUthmân Ibn 'Affân), the sovereign agrees to give amnesty to the criminal. Given that the punishment is originally left to the sovereign, a subsequent change in the judgment especially forgiveness cannot be criticized.
They say that Why did Mohammad order the killing of Abi Sarh although he'd forgiven all the rest of the Meccans, some of whom have hurt Mohammad badly? The Prophet (p) did not order Abdullah Ibn Sa‘ad Ibn Abi as-Sarḥ to be killed for apostating. Rather, the Hadith and other sources tell us that once he left Islam, he joined the Makkan pagans in war against the Prophet (p).
Islamic scholar Safi-Ur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri states that after he left Islam, he killed some Companions of the Prophet (p). Hence, his blood was declared lawful by the Prophet (p) for what he did. But, he was forgiven later.
“Shedding blood of none of the worst criminals was declared lawful even under the curtains of Al-Ka’bah. Some of them were later pardoned. Abdul-Uzza bin Khatal was found holding on to the curtain of the Ka’bah and was killed. Abdullah bin Abu Sarh had become a Muslim and emigrated, but later left Islam and killed some of the companions.”
(Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum The Sealed Nectar Biography Of The Noble Prophet [Revised Edition January 2002] By Safi-Ur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri page 468).
They say that If you say that Ibn Sarh converted to Islam in Al-Medinah, but then reverted, why did he revert?We ask them while no cause of his apostasy is known but why he again converted to Islam and remained the front line soldier and general of it for whole of his life if islam and Quran were fabricated in his eyes?
So all of our discussion shows that the allegations on Quran of disruption by ibn Abi Sarah is just a myth and narrated from unauthenticated and unreliable narrators and incomplete chains of transmission.So how can they say that Quran was copied from other sources and was disrupted.Can they give a proof of it from authentic narrations and trustworthy narrators?They can never do this and will always fail in their attempts of falsifying the Quran.insha Allah.
And the praise is all for Allah.