بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم الحمد لله وحده و الصلاة و السلام على من لا نبي بعده و على آله و أصحابه أجمعين

Following Theodor Nöldeke, the Christian missionaries continue to raise the issue of what they call the lost verse(s) of surah 98, al-Bayyinah. As pointed out by Nöldeke, in Geschichte des Qorans 1/242 Leipzig (1909), the narration from Jami’ al-Tirmidhi runs as;

عَنْ أُبَيِّ بْنِ كَعْبٍ، أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ لَهُ: «إِنَّ اللَّهَ أَمَرَنِي أَنْ أَقْرَأَ عَلَيْكَ القُرْآنَ» ، فَقَرَأَ عَلَيْهِ {لَمْ يَكُنِ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا} وَقَرَأَ فِيهَا: «إِنَّ ذَاتَ الدِّينِ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ الحَنِيفِيَّةُ المُسْلِمَةُ لَا اليَهُودِيَّةُ وَلَا النَّصْرَانِيَّةُ وَلَا المَجُوسِيَّةُ، مَنْ يَعْمَلْ خَيْرًا فَلَنْ يُكْفَرَهُ» وَقَرَأَ عَلَيْهِ: لَوْ أَنَّ لِابْنِ آدَمَ وَادِيًا مِنْ مَالٍ لَابْتَغَى إِلَيْهِ ثَانِيًا، وَلَوْ كَانَ لَهُ ثَانِيًا، لَابْتَغَى إِلَيْهِ ثَالِثًا، وَلَا يَمْلَأُ جَوْفَ ابْنِ آدَمَ إِلَّا التُّرَابُ، وَيَتُوبُ اللَّهُ عَلَى مَنْ تَابَ

Ubayy ibn Ka’b (RA) reported that Allah’ Messenger -peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- said to him, “Allah has commanded me that I should recite the Qur’an to you.” Then he recited to him, “Those who reject (Truth)…” (surah 98) He also recited: Surely, the essence of religion with Allah is upright Islam not Judaism and not Christianity and not Magianism. Whoever performs a good deed, it will not be neglected. He then said, “If the son of Adam has a valley full of wealth, he would crave for a second, and if he had a second, he would crave for a third. Nothing will fill the belly of the son of Adam but dust. And Allah relents to one who repents.” (Jami’ Tirmidhi, Hadith 3898)

Alleged lost verses:

Here they find two alleged lost verses which the Holy Prophet - peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- recited after Surah Bayyinah (No.98).

First of them being;

إِنَّ ذَاتَ الدِّينِ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ الحَنِيفِيَّةُ المُسْلِمَةُ لَا اليَهُودِيَّةُ وَلَا النَّصْرَانِيَّةُ وَلَا المَجُوسِيَّةُ، مَنْ يَعْمَلْ خَيْرًا فَلَنْ يُكْفَرَهُ

“Surely, the essence of religion with Allah is upright Islam not Judaism and not Christianity and not Magian.”

And second one;

لَوْ أَنَّ لِابْنِ آدَمَ وَادِيًا مِنْ مَالٍ لَابْتَغَى إِلَيْهِ ثَانِيًا، وَلَوْ كَانَ لَهُ ثَانِيًا، لَابْتَغَى إِلَيْهِ ثَالِثًا، وَلَا يَمْلَأُ جَوْفَ ابْنِ آدَمَ إِلَّا التُّرَابُ، وَيَتُوبُ اللَّهُ عَلَى مَنْ تَابَ

“If the son of Adam has a valley full of wealth, he would crave for a second, and if he had a second, he would crave for a third. Nothing will fill the belly of the son of Adam but dust. And Allah relents to one who repents.”

The Truth:

The truth, however, is simply that neither of them was ever a part of the Surah Bayyinah. And Holy Prophet –may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- only mentioned these as explanation to words within the surah.

This is clear for two reasons;

1. In Mustadrak al-Hakim, the wording of the same narration testifies to this. There it reads;

عَنْ أُبَيِّ بْنِ كَعْبٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ، قَالَ: قَالَ لِي رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: «إِنَّ اللَّهَ أَمَرَنِي أَنْ أَقْرَأَ عَلَيْكَ الْقُرْآنَ» فَقَرَأَ: {لَمْ يَكُنِ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ وَالْمُشْرِكِينَ} وَمِنْ نَعْتِهَا لَوْ أَنَّ ابْنَ آدَمَ سَأَلَ وَادِيًا مِنْ مَالٍ، فَأَعْطَيْتُهُ، سَأَلَ ثَانِيًا، وَإِنْ أَعْطَيْتُهُ ثَانِيًا، سَأَلَ ثَالِثًا، وَلَا يَمْلَأُ جَوْفَ ابْنِ آدَمَ إِلَّا التُّرَابُ، وَيَتُوبُ اللَّهُ عَلَى مَنْ تَابَ، وَإِنَّ الدِّينَ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ الْحَنِيفِيَّةُ غَيْرَ الْيَهُودِيَّةِ، وَلَا النَّصْرَانِيَّةِ، وَمَنْ يَعْمَلْ خَيْرًا فَلَنْ يُكْفَرَهُ

Ubayy ibn Ka’b (RA) reported that Allah’ Messenger -peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- said to him, “Allah has commanded me that I should recite the Qur’an to you.” Then he recited , “Those who reject (Truth) among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists … ” (surah 98) and in its description (he said) “If the son of Adam would ask for a valley of riches and is given, he would ask for the second, and if he is given the second, he would ask for the third and nothing fills the belly of son of Adam but dust. And Allah relents to one who repents.” And religion with Allah is uprightness (hanfiyya), not Judaism, and not Christianity and whoever performs a good deed, it will not be neglected.” (Mustadrak al-Hakim, Hadith 2889. Classified as Sahih by al-Hakim and al-Dhahbi)

This clearly states the alleged lost verses were not verses but prophetic description and commentary of certain points in the Surah.

2. Had the statements in question actually been part of the Qur’anic text, there wouldn’t have been any difference on their wording, as is the case with established text of the Qur’an. In the following lines I show variance in the words of the alleged verses.

a- Religion with Allah:

In al-Tirmidhi’s narration, it reads;

إِنَّ ذَاتَ الدِّينِ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ الحَنِيفِيَّةُ المُسْلِمَةُ لَا اليَهُودِيَّةُ وَلَا النَّصْرَانِيَّةُ وَلَا المَجُوسِيَّةُ

“Surely, the essence of religion (zaat al-deen) with Allah is upright Islam (al-hanfiyya al-muslimah) not Judaism and not Christianity and not Magianism.”

In a narration of Musnad Ahmad it is;

إِنَّ الدِّينَ عِنْدَ اللهِ الْحَنِيفِيَّةُ، غَيْرُ الْمُشْرِكَةِ، وَلَا الْيَهُودِيَّةِ، وَلَا النَّصْرَانِيَّةِ

“Verily the religion (inna al-deen) with Allah is the upright faith (hanfiyyah), not paganism and neither Judaism nor Christianity.” (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith 21203. Classified as Sahih by Shu’aib Arnaut)

At another place in Musnad Ahmad it goes as;

وَإِنَّ ذَلِكَ الدِّينَ الْقَيِّمَ عِنْدَ اللهِ الْحَنِيفِيَّةُ، غَيْرُ الْمُشْرِكَةِ، وَلَا الْيَهُودِيَّةِ، وَلَا النَّصْرَانِيَّةِ

“And verily this true religion (zalik al-deen al-qayyim) with Allah is the Upright Faith (hanfiyyah), neither paganism (ghayr al-mushrikah), not Judaism nor Christianity.” (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith 21202. Classified as Hasan by Shu’aib Arnaut)

In yet another collection the wording varies further;

إِنَّ ذَاتَ الدِّينِ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ الْحَنِيفِيَّةُ السَّمْحَةُ لَا الْمُشْرِكَةُ وَلا الْيَهُودِيَّةُ وَلا النَّصْرَانِيَّةُ

“Verily the essence of religion with Allah is pliable Uprightness (al-hanfiyyah al-samhah), not paganism (la mushrikah) , neither Judaism nor Christianity.” (al-Ahadith al-Mukhtarah, Hadith 1162. Classified as Sahih by the author)

In narration of Mustadrak, it is even different, with no mention of paganism;

وَإِنَّ الدِّينَ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ الْحَنِيفِيَّةُ غَيْرَ الْيَهُودِيَّةِ، وَلَا النَّصْرَانِيَّةِ

“Verily the religion with Allah is uprightness (al-hanfiyyah) not Judaism or Christianity.” (Mustadrak, Hadith 2889)

This variation shows it was not the Quranic text. The simple fact that verses found in established text of the Qur’an i.e. verses of surah bayyinah are always reported without variation in all these reports but there is variance in these words shows the statement was never a part of the Qur’an, not even to the primary narrators.

In some narrations it is “inna al-deen”, in some it is “inna zaat al-deen”, in some it is “inna zalik al-deen al-qayyim.” In some narrations it is “al-hanfiyya al-muslimah”, in some it simply “al-hanfiyya”, in yet another variation it is “al-hanfiyya al-samha.” In one narration it says لَا المَجُوسِيَّةُ i.e. “not magianism” in others it is لَا الْمُشْرِكَةُ i.e. “not paganism” and in one narration there is no mention of either of these. In one narration it says “ghayr al Musrikah” and in another it says “la mushrikah.”

Also in al-Tirmidhi’s narration it is مَنْ يَعْمَلْ and in other narrations letter و ‘waw’ meaning ‘and’ is added to it and it becomes ومن يعمل .

Also note the phrase ذَاتَ الدِّينِ “essence of religion” and the words الْيَهُودِيَّةِ “Judaism”, النَّصْرَانِيَّةِ “Christianity” and المَجُوسِيَّة i.e. “Magianism” have not been used in the Qur’an showing the style is non-Qur’anic.

b- Two valleys of riches:

In al-Tirmidhi’s narration the wording is;

لَوْ أَنَّ لِابْنِ آدَمَ وَادِيًا مِنْ مَالٍ لَابْتَغَى إِلَيْهِ ثَانِيًا، وَلَوْ كَانَ لَهُ ثَانِيًا، لَابْتَغَى إِلَيْهِ ثَالِثًا، وَلَا يَمْلَأُ جَوْفَ ابْنِ آدَمَ إِلَّا التُّرَابُ، وَيَتُوبُ اللَّهُ عَلَى مَنْ تَابَ

“If the son of Adam has a valley full of wealth, he would crave for a second (la-abtigi ilaihi thaniya), and if he had a second, he would crave for a third. Nothing will fill the belly of the son of Adam but dust. And Allah relents to one who repents.” (Jami Tirmidhi, Hadith 3898)

In one narration of Musnad Ahmad it is;

"لَوْ أَنَّ لِابْنِ آدَمَ وَادِيَيْنِ مِنْ مَالٍ، لَسَأَلَ وَادِيًا ثَالِثًا، وَلَا يَمْلَأُ جَوْفَ ابْنِ آدَمَ إِلَّا التُّرَابُ

“If the son of Adam would have two valleys of wealth, he will ask for the third (las’aala wadiyan thalitha) and nothing fills the belly of son of Adam except dust.” (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith 21203)

Mark the difference, how besides the variation, the statement gets brief and last part about Allah relenting to the repentant is trimmed.

In another narration, it reads;

وَلَوْ أَنَّ ابْنَ آدَمَ سَأَلَ وَادِيًا مِنْ مَالٍ فَأُعْطِيَهُ، لَسَأَلَ ثَانِيًا وَلَوْ سَأَلَ ثَانِيًا فَأُعْطِيَهُ، لَسَأَلَ ثَالِثًا، وَلَا يَمْلَأُ جَوْفَ ابْنِ آدَمَ إِلَّا التُّرَابُ، وَيَتُوبُ اللهُ عَلَى مَنْ تَابَ

“If the son of Adam would ask for a valley of riches and is given (sa’aala wadiyyan min maal fa-aatihi), he would ask for the second, and if he is given the second, he would ask for the third and nothing fills the belly of son of Adam but dust. And Allah relents to one who repents.” (Musnad Ahmad Hadith 21202 & Mustadrak al-Hakim 2889)

Now the variation in the above three version is too evident.

Also compare the narrations from Tirmidhi and Mustadrak given in full above. In Tirmidhi’s narration the thing of about True Religion comes first and man’s crave for valley’s of riches follows it (same is in Musnad Ahmad No. 21203), where as in the narration from Mustadrak (and similarly in one narration of Musnad Ahmad i.e. No.21202) the mention of two valleys comes first and the thing about True Religion comes later. This also proves there was nothing particular about the sequence of these words, showing these were not a part of the Qur’an.

What words do these phrases explain?

These words actually explain verse 5 of the surah;

وَمَا أُمِرُوا إِلَّا لِيَعْبُدُوا اللَّهَ مُخْلِصِينَ لَهُ الدِّينَ حُنَفَاءَ وَيُقِيمُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَيُؤْتُوا الزَّكَاةَ وَذَلِكَ دِينُ الْقَيِّمَةِ

“And they have been commanded no more than this: To worship Allah, offering Him sincere devotion, being true (in faith); to establish regular prayer; and to practise regular charity; and that is the Religion Right and Straight.” (Qur’an 98:6)

Seemingly the statement on man’s crave for riches is about “regular charity” arguing that one should spend, otherwise one is never satiated hoarding riches.

And the statement on True Religion explains ‘deen al-qayyimah’ i.e. Right/Straight Religion.

Answering some possible queries:

1- One may say how these statements can be taken to explain verse 5 when they are mentioned just after initial few words of the surah. The answer is, initial few words are generally mentioned to point towards a surah instead of naming it. This is also evident from the fact that different narrations give different extent of wording to show the surah it refers to.

In al-Tirmidhi’s narration its simply, “Those who reject (Truth) …”

In Musnad Ahmad (No. 21202) it says, “Those who reject (Truth) among the People of the Book …”

In Mustadrak al-Hakim it is, “Those who reject (Truth) among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists …”

These are not full quotes of verse 1 even.

In Musnad Ahmad (No. 21203), first 2 verses are given in full

And in al-Ahadith al-Mukhatara it just says, “They are not …”

This is just to show it was only a reference to the surah in general.

2- As regards the fact that in some narrations on the issue the report ends with the words, “And then he read the rest of the Surah” it may be about the verse 6 and 7 i.e. the explanation came after verse 5 and after the explanation the other verses were read.

3- If one says, that narrations clearly say i.e. “he recited in it” so how can it be an interpretation and commentary? the answer is in putting together all the various forms of the narration. Mustadrak’s version  clearly says وَمِنْ نَعْتِهَا i.e. “and in its description.”

The words وَقَرَأَ فِيهَا i.e. “he recited in it” are the words of a later narrator as is evident from the fact that in the same narrations it also reads, وَقَرَأَ عَلَيْهِ i.e. “and he recited to him” i.e. Prophet recited to Ubayy. This shows these were not the words of Ubayy but a later narrator for Ubayy would not refer himself in third person. In fact one narration (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith 21203) explicitly says these interjecting words are those of the narrator Shu’bah. Words of a later narrator which are not even consistently used cannot stand the above mentioned facts. And the Tawatur of the Qur’an is ultimate evidence against this.

Answering Ahmadis:

Ahmadis (Qadianis), the followers of the religion founded by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad also use this narration to their ignoble end. In his bid to justify Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s lie of attributing a narration to Sahih Bukhari which is not found in it, author of Ahmadiyya Pocket Book, Malik Abdul Rahman Khadim, says this narration proves even the Holy Prophet Muhammad –may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- had a lapse and mentioned some words as part of the Qur’an while they are not. See Ahmadiyya Pocket Book, pp.517-518.

The assertion is utterly false as we have seen above the Prophet –may Allah bless him- mentioned those lines only as commentary. Malik Abdul Rahman’s objection to idea of its being commentary is answered above.

Furthermore there could have been some adjustments in the Qur’anic text during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet –may Allah bless him- but Bukhari or any other classical work could never be edited by the pseudo-prophet Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

The fact of Malik Abdul Rahman, the famous Ahmadi author trying to justify the lies of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad even at the cost of sowing the seeds of doubt about the Holy Prophet –may Allah bless him- and the stability of the Qur’anic text, is a clear evidence that Ahmadiyya religious elite has done away with the very fundamentals of Islam and how Murabbis don’t mind raising questions about the basics of Islam to justify the lies of a false claimant of prophethood. I will urge common Ahmadis to take exception to such a behavior and revert back to the Ummah of Muhammad, the Final Seal of Prophethood –may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.

Summary:

The above detail is enough to show that neither of the two statements is mentioned as a part of the Qur’anic text. They were never a part of surah al-Bayyinah. It was just a prophetic commentary. A number of variations in the wording of the statements in question and the fact that they do not go with the general Qur’anic usage and style are enough to show they were never meant as part of the Qur’an.

Indeed Allah knows the best!