The ibn mas’ud masahif

CONCLUSION
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.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
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.”¹⁴²
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.

Feel free to contact me at [e-mail] for any questions or comments.

Return to Refuting Arguments Made Against The Preservation Of the Qur'an

Return to Homepage

1 A. A. B. Philips (1997), Usool at-Tafseer - The Methodology of Qur’aanic Explanation, (Sharjah, U.A.E: Dar al-Fatah), pg.155.

2 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.

3 M. M. Ali (2004), The Qur’an and the Orientalists (UK: Jam’iyat ‘Ihyaa Minhaaj al-Sunnah), p. 228 – quoting Jeffery.

4 A. A. Y. Qadhi (2003), An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’aan, (UK: Al-Hidaayah Publishing and Distribution), p.148.

5 Ibid., p.385

6 Ibid., p.386

7 M. M. Ali, op. cit., p.231

8 A. A. Y. Qadhi, op. cit., p.386

9 Ibid., p.386; M. M. Ali, op. cit., p.230

10 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.

11 http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Jam/chap3.html
N.B. All unreferenced citations in this paper should be taken to be from Gilchrist’s booklet unless otherwise stated.

12 Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 6, p. 488, no. 525

13 Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 6, book 61, no. 526

14 Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari bi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, book: “Virtues of the Qur’an”, 8/5004

15 Al-Itqan, vol. 1, pp. 199- 200 on the authority of “Al-Mu’allem fe Sharh Sahih Muslim” by Al-Maziri (manuscript).

16 Fn.8: For a detailed study, see, M.M. al-A'zami, Kuttab an-Nabi, 3^rd edition, Riyad, 1401 (1981), pp. 83-89.

17 M. M. al-Azami (2003), The History of the Qur’anic Text from Revelation to Compilation, (UK Islamic Academy), p. 68

18 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

19 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

20 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

21Fn. 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.

22 Fn. 5: Al-Bukhari, Sahih, Jam'i al-Qur'an, hadith no. 4986; see also Ibn Abi Dawud, al-Masahif, pp. 6-9.

23 M. M. al-Azami, op. cit., p. 78

24 Ibid., pp. 8.

25 Fn. 8: Tahir al-Jaza’iri, at-Tibyan, p. 126; see also A. Jeffery (ed.), al-Mabani, p. 25.

26 M. M. al-Azami, op. cit., pp. 78-79.

27 Fn. 304: See al-Itqaan, vol. 1, p. 199.

28 Fn. 305: Sahih al-Bukhari, vol.6, p.488, no.525.

29 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.

30 A. A. B. Philips, op. cit., p. 152.

31 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.

32 Fn. 250: All quotes taken from al-Hamad, p. 113.

33 A. A. Y. Qadhi, op. cit., p. 133.

34 Reported in Taareekh Ya'qoob bin Sufyaan, Fath al-Bari, vol.7, p.100; Al-Isaabah, vol.4, p.92.

35 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

36 “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)

37 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).

38 Sahih Muslim, Book 31, Number 6022: http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=1&Rec=5779

39 Sahih Al-Bukhari, 6.522: http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?hnum=4616

40 Tafsir al-Qurtubi, op. cit.

41 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

42 Ibid., p.179.

43 Fn. 405: Ibn al-Jazaree, an-Nashr, v.1, p.31 with changes.

44 A. A. Y. Qadhi, op. cit., p.180.

45 Ibid., p.149.

46 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).

47 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.

48 A. A. Al-Imam, op. cit., p.9: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=R2iYf0bvYGwC&pg=PA9

49 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

50 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.

51 Fn. 4: Ibn Abi Dawud, al-Masahif, p. 22. See also Ibn Hajar, Fathul Bari, x:402.

52 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).

53 M. M. Al-Azami, op. cit., p.88.

54 M. M. Ali, op. cit., p.228.

55 Ibid., p.224.

56 Fn. 3: Ibn al-Athir, Al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, Beirut, 1987, vol. III, p.8.

57 M. M. Ali, op. cit., p.228.

58 A. A. Y. Qadhi, op. cit., p.386.

59 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

60 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.

61 http://www.islamww.com/booksww/book_search_results.php?bkid=1826&id=828

62 Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari bi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, Par. 3: http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?hnum=4616

63 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)”;

64 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.

65 A. A. Al-Imam, op. cit., p.18.

66 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).”

67 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).”

68 Tafsir al-Qurtubi, 1/52-3, and Jam’ al-Qur’an al-Karim by ar-Rumi.

69 As-Sunan at-Tirmidhi, 5/285

70 Fn. 2: Ibn al-Athir, op. cit., p. 9.

71 M. M. Ali, op. cit., p.229.

72 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.

73 A. A. Y. Qadhi, op. cit., Fn. 265, p.137.

74 Tafsir al-Qurtubi, op. cit.

75 Ibn Asaakir, op. cit.

76 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.

77 Fn. 3: Al-Dhahabi, op. cit. p.488.

78 Fn. 4: Ibid., pp.498-499.

79 M. M. Ali, op. cit., p.230.

80 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.

81 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.

82A. A. Al-Imam, op. cit., p.18, Fn. 46: “Fath al-Bari, vol.9, p.19”, p. 121.

83 Ibid.

84 Al-Bukhari, Sahih, Jam'i al-Qur'an, hadith no. 4986; see also Ibn Abi Dawood, al-Masahif, pp. 6-9.

85 Tafsir al-Qurtubi, op. cit.

86 Fn. 260: Ibn Abee Daawood, p.22.

87 A. A. Y. Qadhi, op. cit., p. 136.

88 Fn. 1: Ibid; also Bukhari, no. 4987

89 Fn. 2: Ibn al-Athir, op. cit., p. 9

90 M. M. Ali, op. cit., p.229.

91 Ibid., p.215.

92 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?

93 Fn. 2: A. Jeffery, Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur’an The Old Codices, p. 8

94 M. M. Ali, op. cit., p.228.

95 Ibid., p. 387.

96 Fn. 818: Jeffery, p. 5.

97 A. A. Y. Qadhi, op. cit., p.388.

98 Ibid., p. 149.

99 Ibid., p. 386.

100 M. M. Ali, op. cit., p.230.

101 A. A. Y. Qadhi, op. cit., p.386 – Fn. 814.

102 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

103 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/

104 Jeffery, p. VII., as cited by A. A. Y. Qadhi, op. cit., p.387.

105 Ibid.

106 M. M. Ali, op. cit., p.232.

107 A. A. Y. Qadhi, op. cit., p.386.

108 M. M. Ali, op. cit., p.223.

109 Ibid.

110 Ibid., p.227.

111 S. Ibn G. al-Sadlaan (2000), Congregational Prayer, (USA: Al-Basheer Company), pp.22-23.

112 Sahih Muslim, Eng. Trans. 1/315 no. 1365.

113 S. al-Fawzan (2005), A Summary of Islamic Jurisprudence Vol.1, (Riyadh: Al-Maiman Publishing House) p.189.

114 Ibid., p.191; Endnotes 5: Al-Bukhari (657) [2/184] and Muslim (1480) [3/156], p.200.

115 Ibid.. p.191.

116 Ibid.. Endnotes 5: Muslim (1486) [3/158], p.200.

117 Ibid., p.192.

118 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

119 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

120 Ibid., Fn. 182: Ibid., vol. 18, p.8.

121 Ibid., pp.27-28: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=R2iYf0bvYGwC&pg=PA27

122 M. N. Ar-Rifa’i (1996), Tafsir Ibn Kathir (abridged), Vol. 1, (London: Al-Firdous Ltd.), p.3.

123 Musnad Ahmad, No. 24139.

124 Al-Qur’an, Surah al-Ahzab, 33:21.

125 Ibid., Surah al-An’am, 6:106.

126 M. M. Ayoub, op. cit., p.41: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=sIXpFtvp2JYC&pg=PA41

127 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.

128 M. N. Ar-Rifa’i, op. cit., p.8.

129 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 [756], Saheeh Muslim [872/873].

130 Tafsir ibn Kathir: http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=99&Itemid=35

131 M. M. Ali, op. cit., p.223.

132 Fn.6: See supra, pp.200-201 (Fn. 6 on p.200: Al-Suyuti, Al-Itqan, I, p.166).

133 M. M. Ali, op. cit., p.225.

134 Ibid., pp.225-26.

135 Ibid., p.215.

136 Ibid., p.228.

137 A. A. Y. Qadhi, op. cit., p.161.

138 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

139 Ibid., pp.51-2: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=R2iYf0bvYGwC&pg=PA51

140 Sahih al-Bukhari, 4595; Fath al-Bari bi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari: http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?hnum=4595

141 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.

142 Collected by Ahmad; authenticated by Nasir ud-Deen al-Albani, As-Saheehah, no. 416