Azami 6689

Malik reported it in the Suckling chapter (17), from Abdullah bin Abu Bakr bin Hazm, from Amra bint Abdul-Rahman, from Ayesha, the wife of the Prophet ﷺ, that she said, and she mentioned it. Muslim also reported it in the Suckling chapter (24:1452) through the route of Malik, with the same wording. Her statement was, "Then the Messenger of Allah ﷺ died, while it was still among what was recited from the Quran."An objection has been raised against Ayesha's hadith, namely that she did not transmit this report as a hadith is transmitted, but rather transmitted it as one transmits Quran, and the Quran can only be established through mass transmission (tawatur). The response to this is that the matter has two aspects. The first is whether it is part of the Quran. The second is whether acting upon it is obligatory. As for the first, that it is part of the Quran, this has not been established, and had it been established, it would have been permissible to recite it in prayer. As for the second, the obligation to act upon it, the absence of legal rulings due to the lack of mass transmission does not necessitate the absence of acting upon it, since a mere preponderant likelihood (zann) suffices for that.Indeed, each of the four Imams has relied upon it in various places. Shafii and Ahmad relied upon it in this very matter, while Abu Hanifa relied on the reading of Ibn Masud, "the fasting of three consecutive days," to establish the obligation of consecutiveness in the fasting of expiation. For more, see Zad Mad (5/573).Nawawi said, its meaning is that the abrogation by five sucklings was revealed late, so late that it occurred only shortly before the death of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. Some people used to recite "ten sucklings" and treated it as recited Quran because the abrogation had not reached them, given how recent it was. When the abrogation later reached them, they abandoned that reading, and there was consensus that this is not to be recited.Abrogation is of three types. The first is what had both its ruling and its recitation abrogated, such as "ten sucklings." The second is what had its recitation abrogated while its ruling remained, such as "five sucklings," and likewise "if the old man and the old woman commit adultery, stone them both." The third is what had its ruling abrogated while its recitation remained, and this is the most common type, an example of which is His statement, "Those of you who die and leave wives behind, a bequest for their wives" [Baqarah 2:240], the rest of the verse. End of quote. This is among what had its written text abrogated, as Ibn Jawzi mentioned in Nawasikh Quran (p. 118).As for what has been narrated from Ayesha that she said, "The verse of stoning and of the suckling of an adult being ten sucklings were revealed, and they were on a sheet of paper under my bed. When the Messenger of Allah ﷺ died and we were preoccupied with his death, a domestic animal came in and ate it," this is munkar. The word "dajin" refers to a sheep that is kept tame in the houses and is not sent out to pasture.It was reported by Ibn Majah (1944) and Ahmad (36316), and by Ibn Jawzi in Nawasikh Quran (p. 118), all of them through the hadith of Muhammad bin Ishaq, from Abdullah bin Abu Bakr, from Amra, from Ayesha, and also from Abdul-Rahman bin Qasim, from his father, from Ayesha. All of this is found in Ibn Majah. In Imam Ahmad's version, the narration is from Abdullah bin Abu Bakr bin Amr bin Hazm, from Amra alone, with the wording, "The verse of stoning and the ten sucklings of an adult were revealed, and they were on a piece of paper under the bed in my house. When the Messenger of Allah ﷺ fell ill and we were preoccupied with his condition, a small creature came in and ate it." In Ibn Jawzi's version, coming only through this route, it says, "a ewe belonging to us ate it, meaning the sheep."The pivot of this narration is Muhammad bin Ishaq, that is, Ibn Yasar Abu Bakr Makhzumi, their client, of Madinah, the well-known historian and an authority in campaign narratives (maghazi). His hadith is hasan when he states his source explicitly, but when he narrates something alone in matters of legal rulings, scholars do not accept his sole transmission. How then could his statement be accepted regarding the loss of a verse from the Book of Allah? There is clear nakara (irregularity) in this story, because if this sheet of paper that the domestic animal ate contained a verse of the Quran that Allah had not abrogated, it would have remained preserved in the heart of the Prophet ﷺ and in the hearts of his companions, since Allah says, "Indeed it is We who sent down the message, and indeed it is We who will preserve it" [Hijr 15:9]. Since it is not found in the Quran, this points to the invalidity of this story, even though its chain of transmission appears outwardly hasan, because Muhammad bin Ishaq was a mudallis (one who conceals defects in his narration), but he did state his source explicitly here. Even so, his sole transmission is not accepted, as Dhahabi said in Mizan. For this reason, Ibn Hazm strongly rejected this story and declared it fabricated. See Ihkam fi Usul Ahkam (4/453–454).