Does the concept of naskh at-tilāwah (abrogation of recitation) exist? Are there verses missing from the Qurʾān, such as those on stoning and on the number of sucklings that render marriage impermissible?

One of the concepts frequently misrepresented by anti-Islam polemicists is that of naskh (abrogation). Lacking any sound knowledge of the subject, they cite certain ḥadīths (traditions) that, at first glance, appear to suggest that the received text of the Qurʾān is incomplete. These are the reports that supposedly speak of the so-called missing verses:

•ʿĀʾishah [may Allah be pleased with her] reported: It was revealed in the Qurʾān that ten instances of breastfeeding known with certainty establish marital prohibition; these were later abrogated and replaced by five instances of breastfeeding known with certainty. The Messenger of Allah (may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him) passed away while these [words of the abrogating verse] were still being recited as part of the Qurʾān.¹

•Ibn ʿAbbās [may Allah be pleased with him] reported: ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb said, “I fear that a long period will pass among the people until someone says, ‘I do not find stoning in the Book of Allah,’ and they go astray by abandoning one of Allah’s prescribed ordinances. Verily, stoning is established: if a man is married and the evidence is established, or in the case of pregnancy, or confession. And I have read it [the verse in the Qurʾān]: the married man and married woman, if they commit adultery, stone them both. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) carried out stoning, and we carried it out after him.”²

The problem with the opponents of Islam is that they often select one or two reports and base all their arguments on their own interpretations, failing to recognize that the Islamic treasury of traditions is rich and capable of refuting any of their hollow claims. As we shall demonstrate, the above reports, when critically examined, do not cast any doubt whatsoever on the Qurʾān or its authenticity. Before proceeding further, it is important to understand two crucial facts:

1.In Islam, revelation is not limited to what constitutes the Qurʾān; there were other revelations as well, for the Prophet (PBUH) did not speak out of his own whims.³ This is a principle on which Muslims are unanimous. For instance, the aḥādīth qudsiyyah (plural; singular: ḥadīth qudsī)are such that, while the Prophet (PBUH) conveyed them to his Companions, he made it clear that Allāh, in effect, had communicated them to him. However, these communications do not form part of the Qurʾān. In other words, the common factor between a ḥadīth qudsī and the Qurʾān is that both were revealed to the Prophet (PBUH) from Allāh, yet they remain distinct from one another. For example, the Prophet (PBUH) said: “The Holy Spirit (Angel Gabriel) has inspired to me that no soul will die until it has completed its appointed term …”⁴ This is an inspiration from Allāh, but it is not part of the Qurʾān, and the Companions were fully aware of that. Hence, some revealed verses were never intended to be included in the recited Qurʾān, though their rulings were meant to remain part of the Sharīʿah (Islamic law). Allāh, the All-Wise, for reasons known only to Him, decreed it to be so. Abū Jaʿfar an-Naḥḥās, the imām of ʿilm an-nāsikh wa-l-mansūkh (the Islamic science concerned with the abrogating and the abrogated verses), said: “The ruling on these verses is not the same as the ruling on the Qurʾān, which was transmitted from one generation to another. Rather, they are a sunnah thābitah (an established sunnah), and one might say: ‘I used to recite such-and-such regarding revelation other than the Qurʾān.’”⁵

2. The phenomenon of Qurʾānic abrogation does not mean that a verse of the Qurʾān is cancelled or negated; rather, it means that one ruling is replaced by another, or that a general ruling is specified. The general concept of abrogation is itself established in the Qurʾān. Allāh said: {If We ever abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten, We replace it with a better or similar one. Do you not know that Allāh is Most Capable of everything?} (Qurʾān 2:106). Allāh also said: {When We replace a verse with another—and Allāh knows best what He reveals—they say, “You ˹Muḥammad˺ are just a fabricator.” In fact, most of them do not know} (Qurʾān 16:101). According to the claim of Islam’s critics, abrogation implies that Allāh is prone to error—having issued a ruling which He later realized was mistaken, and thus changed. The correct understanding, however, is that Allāh, the All-Knowing, in His perfect wisdom, legislates rulings suited to their proper time and circumstances. That is, abrogation does not indicate a change of mind but rather manifests divine wisdom: a ruling appropriate for one stage or context may be replaced by another more fitting for a subsequent stage or different context. Thus, the abrogation of a ruling does not signify that it was wrong, but that it was most suitable for its time, just as the new ruling is most suitable for the present. It should be recalled that the Qurʾān was revealed gradually over a period of twenty-three years, with rulings introduced in stages as the Muslim community became ready to receive and implement them. For instance, the prohibition of alcohol was revealed in three successive stages.⁶ ʿĀʾishah stated: “If the first revelation had been, ‘Do not drink alcohol,’ they would have said, ‘We will never give up alcohol.’”⁷ Scholars have classified abrogation into three types:⁸

1.Abrogation of both the recited verse and its legal ruling.

2.Abrogation of the legal ruling while retaining the recited verse.

3.Abrogation of the recited verse while retaining the legal ruling.

Now, with regard to ʿĀʾishah’s narration, it may give the mistaken impression that the Qurʾānic text was not fully transmitted from Prophet Muḥammad (PBUH) to subsequent generations of Muslims. In fact, however, it exemplifies the first two types of abrogation. Essentially, it reports that the Qurʾān initially stated that ten confirmed instances of breastfeeding rendered the breastfed person maḥram (unmarriageable) to those who shared breastfeeding from the same woman, as well as to their maḥram relatives. Both the recitation and the ruling of this verse were later abrogated and replaced by a verse stipulating five confirmed instances of breastfeeding. Subsequently, the recitation of the latter verse was abrogated while its ruling remained in force. In other words, the recitation and ruling of the verse “ten clear sucklings establish marital prohibition” were abrogated and replaced by the five-sucklings verse in terms of ruling, while the recitation of the latter was itself later abrogated. ʿĀʾishah’s statement that the Prophet (PBUH) died while the abrogating verse containing the ruling of the five sucklings was still being recited as part of the Qurʾān simply indicates that its recitation had been abrogated toward the very end of the Prophet’s life, and some people who had not yet heard of this abrogation continued reciting it. Once the news of the abrogation of its recitation reached them, they ceased reciting it, while its ruling remained in effect. Hence, this case falls into the category of abrogation of the recitation without abrogation of the ruling. Scholars are unanimous on this. Imām an-Nawawī explained: “And her [ʿĀʾishah’s] statement: ‘…and the Messenger of Allah (may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him) passed away while these [words of the abrogating verse] were still being recited [as part of the Qurʾān]’ contains a ḍammah on the yāʾ of ‘yuqraʾ’ (still being recited), and it means that the abrogation of the five-sucklings [verse] was revealed very late—so late that the Prophet (PBUH) passed away while some people were still reciting the five-sucklings [verse] and deemed it part of the recited Qurʾān, since the news of its abrogation had not yet reached them due to its recent occurrence. Thus, when the [news of its] abrogation did eventually reach them, they ceased reciting it and formed a consensus that it should no longer be recited.”⁹ In Arabic, ḍammah (ـُ) is the diacritical mark that gives a consonant a short /u/ vowel sound. In this context, it specifically marks “yuqraʾ’’ as present tense, conveying the sense of ongoing recitation—”still being recited.’’¹⁰ This, in turn, indicates that the abrogation of the five-sucklings verse was delayed to such an extent that the Prophet (PBUH) passed away while some people were still reciting it as part of the Qurʾān, since the news of its abrogation had not yet reached them. Once the news of its abrogation did reach them, however, they ceased reciting it and unanimously agreed that it should no longer be recited. Similarly to an-Nawawī, as-Sindī stated: “It is said that the recitation of the five [the verse on the five sucklings establishing marital prohibition] was abrogated, and that its abrogation occurred near the death of the Prophet (PBUH). Thus, some people were not informed of it, and they used to recite it when the Prophet (PBUH) passed away. But they later left its recitation [when they were informed of its abrogation].’’¹¹ Likewise, abū aṭ-Ṭayyib ʾĀbādī elaborated:“The abrogation of the verse of the five sucklings was revealed very late, to the extent that when the Prophet (PBUH) died, some people were still reciting it and making it part of the recited Qurʾān, for they had not been informed about its abrogation. But when they were informed after that, they ceased reciting it and formed a consensus that this verse must not be recited. And abrogation is of three types: one of them is a verse whose ruling and recitation are both abrogated, such as the verse of the ten sucklings. And the second is that a verse’s recitation is abrogated without its ruling, such as the verse of the five sucklings.’’¹²

Hence, the consensus among the Companions of the Prophet (PBUH) was that the verse stipulating that ten sucklings establish marital prohibition was abrogated by another verse stipulating five. However, the Prophet (PBUH) ordered that the recitation of the latter also be abrogated. Since this command came only a very short time before his passing, not everyone was informed, and some continued to regard it as part of the recited Qurʾān. However, once they were informed that the Prophet (PBUH) had commanded its recitation to be abrogated, they discontinued reciting it. Moreover, ʿĀʾishah—the wife of the Prophet (PBUH)—lived long after his demise, witnessing both the compilation of the first official codex of the Qurʾān during the caliphate of her father, Abū Bakr, and the subsequent codification as well as dissemination of standardized codices to the Muslim provinces during the caliphate of ʿUthmān. Yet there is not even the weakest indication that she, or any other Companion, ever claimed that a verse—especially one containing a legal ruling—had been omitted. Had ʿĀʾishah known of such a verse, she would certainly have made every effort to ensure it was preserved. Undeniably, there is divine wisdom behind the gradual modification of the ruling on breastfeeding that establishes marital prohibition, initially setting the limit at ten sucklings and later reducing it to five. In Islamic law, riḍāʿah (fosterage) refers to the act of breastfeeding a child who is not one’s biological offspring. A child who is breastfed a specified number of times by a woman becomes a “foster child,” establishing a maḥram (unmarriageable) relationship between the child and the woman’s biological children. This milk kinship is permanent and legally prohibits marriage between the parties. The gradual reduction in the number of required sucklings—from ten to five—reflects careful consideration of social practices in early Arabia and the community’s preparedness to implement the ruling without causing unwarranted disruption. In short, since fostering other people’s children was widespread at the time and directly affected future marital eligibility—fosterage being a permanent ground of marital prohibition in Islamic law—the command was revealed in stages (i.e., gradually made stricter) to ensure a smooth transition within society and to avoid undue consternation.

Likewise, the claim that Muslims corrupted the Qurʾān by removing the stoning verse is unfounded. In fact, the so-called verse, which prescribed stoning for the married adulterer when the required evidence was present—namely four witnesses, pregnancy, or confession—was revealed to the Prophet (PBUH) and recited by the Companions, yet it was never part of the Qurʾān itself. Essentially, stoning the married adulterer, whose commission of the crime is established by clear evidence, is part of Islamic law as established in the Sunnah. This prescribed punishment underscores the gravity of adultery in Islamic law, highlighting its severe impact on individuals, families, and society as a whole. The leading Companions treated the prescribed punishment for adultery, namely stoning, with utmost seriousness, aiming to protect the moral and social fabric of the community. For example, the second rightly-guided Caliph, ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb, wished to include the verse prescribing stoning in the codex of the Qurʾān, but refrained so as not to add anything to it. He [may Allāh be pleased with him] stated: “The Messenger of Allāh (peace and blessings be upon him) stoned [the married adulterer], and Abū Bakr stoned, and I have also stoned. And were it not that I dislike adding to the Book of Allāh, I would have recorded it [the verse prescribing it] in the codex [of the Qurʾān], for I feared that there would come people who would not find it in the Book of Allāh and would therefore disbelieve in it.”¹³ It is evident from this narration that Caliph ʿUmar did not in any way consider the stoning verse to be missing from the Qurʾān, for he was fully aware that the statement—“The married man and the married woman, if they commit adultery, stone them both utterly [to death]”— was not intended to be part of the Qurʾān’s actual text. This understanding is further corroborated by another tradition in which he stated: “Were it not that some would say ʿUmar has added to the Book of Allāh what does not belong in it, I would have written it [the verse prescribing stoning] in the margins of the codex.”¹⁴ The idea of writing the stoning verse in the margins of the codex indicates that ʿUmar intended it only as a side note, to explicitly inform future generations about the stoning punishment, since he feared they might otherwise reject this commandment and go astray. Additional evidence confirms that the stoning verse was never intended to be part of the Qurʾānic text. In fact, ʿUmar himself sought the Prophet (PBUH)’s permission to include this verse in the codex, but his request was declined. Kathīr ibn aṣ-Ṣalt reported that Saʿīd ibn al-ʿĀṣ and Zayd ibn Thābit were engaged in compiling the codices when they came across this verse [prescribing stoning]. Zayd stated: “I heard the Messenger of Allāh say, ‘The married man and the married woman, if they commit adultery, stone them both utterly [to death].’ [Upon hearing this,] ʿUmar said: ‘When this was revealed, I approached the Prophet (PBUH) and asked if I could record it [in the codex]. It was as if he disliked that.’”¹⁵ In another narration, Kathīr ibn aṣ-Ṣalt reported that he, Zayd ibn Thābit, and Marwān ibn al-Ḥakam were discussing why this verse [prescribing stoning] was not recorded in the Qurʾānic codex. ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb was present, and upon hearing their discussion, he said that he knew more about it than they did. He then recounted that when it was revealed, he approached the Messenger of Allāh (PBUH) and said: “O Messenger of Allāh, let the verse about stoning be written for me [i.e., give me permission to record it in the codex].” The Prophet (PBUH) replied, “I cannot do this.”¹⁶ Hence, these traditions make clear that the stoning verse was never intended as part of the Qurʾān’s text. Indeed, if it were, nothing would have prevented the Prophet (PBUH) from recording it. Evidently, he (PBUH) did not permit the Companions to write it in the codex so as to avoid any confusion with the Qurʾān itself. This understanding enjoys consensus among the scholars. Al-Bayhaqī commented on the incident in which the Prophet (PBUH) did not grant ʿUmar permission to write down the stoning verse, and on his (PBUH) apparent dislike of the idea, stating: “In this, and in what preceded it, there is evidence that the ruling of the stoning verse is affirmed while its recitation is abrogated. This is among matters about which I know of no disagreement.’’¹⁷ Abū Bakr al-Bāqillānī also commented on this incident, stating: “Indeed, it was among that which he (PBUH) prohibited from being recorded. Had we been commanded to affirm it, he would surely have been able to affirm it, and he would not have omitted it.’’¹⁸ Ibn Ḥazm said: “When the verse of stoning was revealed, it was memorized, recognized [as authoritative], and acted upon by the Messenger of Allāh (PBUH); however, he did not have it recorded in the manuscripts of the Qurʾān, nor did he affirm its wording as part of the Qurʾān. ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb sought permission from the Prophet (PBUH) to record it, as previously related, but the Prophet did not grant it.”¹⁹ In this context, ‘recognized’ means that the Prophet (PBUH), and by extension the Companions, acknowledged the authenticity and authority of the stoning verse as a divine ruling. This recognition does not imply inclusion in the Qurʾān’s text, but affirms that the verse was accepted as a valid divine command, binding in practice. Imām ibn Jārīr aṭ-Ṭabarī, the shaykh (master) of exegetes, said: “As for what ʿUmar said, ‘When the stoning verse was revealed, I went to the Prophet (PBUH) and said, ‘Let the verse about stoning be written for me’ (i.e., give me permission to write it), and it was as if he disliked that,’’ this is clear evidence that this verse was not from the Book of Allāh. For if it had been, the Prophet (PBUH) would not have refused ʿUmar’s request to write it, just as he did not refuse anyone who wished to learn any part of the Qurʾān from him to write it.’’²⁰ Hence, ʿUmar himself knew that this verse was not part of the recited Qurʾān. His desire to have it written in the codex stemmed from his concern that future generations might deny the ruling of stoning married adulterers, assuming that it had been abrogated. The Companions of the Prophet (PBUH) and the scholars are unanimous that the stoning verse was abrogated in the sense that its recitation was discontinued, and it was never part of the Qurʾānic text to begin with. However, the ruling of stoning the married adulterers remained in effect as part of the Sunnah. Imām ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī said: “Its recitation was abrogated, but its ruling remained. And what ʿUmar feared has happened, as the Kharijites and some of the Muʿtazilites rejected stoning.’’²¹ Imām an-Nawawī said: “Its recitation was abrogated, yet its ruling remained. The Companions of the Prophet (PBUH) refraining from writing this verse is clear evidence that what is abrogated [in recitation] is not to be recorded in the Qurʾān. Moreover, ʿUmar’s statement about stoning while on the pulpit, along with the silence of the Companions present who did not oppose him, serves as evidence for the ruling on stoning [still being binding].’’²² ʿUmar’s statement about stoning, made while on the pulpit, as referred to by an-Nawawī, appears in the following tradition. ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbbās reported: “ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb, while seated on the pulpit of the Messenger of Allāh (peace and blessings be upon him), said: ‘Indeed, Allāh sent Muḥammad (peace and blessings be upon him) with the Truth and revealed the Book to him, and among what was revealed to him was the verse of stoning. We recited it, memorized it, and comprehended it. The Messenger of Allāh (peace and blessings be upon him) carried out stoning, and we carried it out after him. Hence, I fear that, were a long age to pass over the people, one might say, “We do not find stoning in the Book of Allāh,” and thus they would go astray by abandoning a prescribed ordinance which Allāh has revealed. Indeed, stoning in the Book of Allāh is a punishment incumbent upon whoever commits adultery while being married, whether man or woman, when the evidence is established, or there is pregnancy, or a confession.’”²³ As is evident from the wording of this tradition, and as noted earlier, not all of Allah’s revelations to His Prophet (PBUH) were Qurʾān. Firstly, ʿUmar stated, “Indeed, Allah sent Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) with the Truth.” Here, “the Truth” refers to all forms of revelation, encompassing both the Qurʾān and the sayings of the Prophet (PBUH).ʿUmar then said, “and He revealed the Book to him.’’ In Arabic, the word “wa” (و) is primarily a simple conjunction meaning “and,’’ though in exegetical contexts it can indicate a close connection or an explanatory link. Here, it links the two statements, while “He revealed the Book to him’’ specifically refers to the Qurʾān, distinguishing it from other forms of revelation received by the Prophet (PBUH). Next, ʿUmar stated, “and among what was revealed to him was the verse of stoning.” In this instance, “what was revealed to him’’ includes both types of revelation, not solely the Qurʾān, as indicated again by the conjunction “and’’ linking the two phrases. Moreover, the “verse” concerning stoning is preserved in a saying of the Prophet (PBUH). Abū Umāmah ibn Sahl ibn Ḥunayf narrated that his aunt told him: “the Messenger of Allah taught us to recite: “The married man and the married woman, if they commit adultery, stone them both utterly [to death].”²⁴Hence, ʿUmar’s assertion, “and among what was revealed to him was the verse of stoning,’’ does not imply that this verse was part of the Qurʾān which the Prophet (PBUH) instructed the scribes of revelation to record. Indeed, no authentic ḥadīth affirms that the Prophet (PBUH) considered this verse part of the Qurʾān or that angel Gabriel reviewed it with him as he did with the actual Qurʾān. The term “unzila” (literally, “was revealed”) used by ʿUmar regarding the stoning verse does not denote Qurʾānic revelation, for the Prophet (PBUH)’s instructions were divinely sanctioned without necessarily being Qurʾān. Regarding Caliph ʿUmar’s statement, “stoning in the Book of Allah is a punishment incumbent upon…,” this indicates that the punishment of stoning is clearly established in Ḥadīth (Sunnah), as the Companions regarded rulings established in Ḥadīth as authoritative, akin to those in the Qurʾān. The following tradition illustrates this: On the authority of ʿAbd Allāh [ibn Masʿūd], he said, “Allah cursed the women who practice tattooing and those who have themselves tattooed, those who pluck their eyebrows, and those who create artificial gaps between their teeth to enhance their beauty, thereby altering Allah’s creation.” This reached a woman from Banū Asad, known as Umm Yaʿqūb, who came and said, “I have heard that you have cursed such-and-such.” He replied, “And why should I not curse those whom the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) cursed, and who are [cursed] in Allah’s Book?” She said, “I have read what is between the two tablets (i.e., the covers of the Qurʾānic codex), and I did not find in it what you are saying.” He said, “Verily, if you had [thoroughly] read it [the Qurʾān], you would have definitely found it. Have you not read: {And whatever the Messenger gives you, take it; and whatever he forbids you, refrain from it} (Qurʾān 59:7)?” She said, “Yes, I have.” He said, “Then indeed, he has forbidden it.”²⁵ Incidentally, there is no sharʿī (Islamic legal) or ʿaqlī (rational) objection to the concept of abrogation of recitation, whereby the ritual recitation of certain divine verses is discontinued while the rulings they contain remain in force. However, with regard to the stoning verse, the evidence indicates that it was never part of the Qurʾān’s text to begin with. Indeed, it is inconceivable to suggest that the Companions, who sacrificed everything for Islam, would have deliberately convened to corrupt the Qurʾān by removing this verse. One cannot help but wonder what motive they could possibly have had in doing so, particularly when its law was to remain binding and enforced. Given that the stoning ruling continues to be in effect to this day, it is utterly implausible that they removed the verse out of a desire to disregard its law. It is well established that the Companions enforced the ḥadd (prescribed punishment) of stoning even after the Prophet (PBUH)’s passing. How could they enforce a ruling derived from a verse they allegedly removed? This demonstrates that the recitation of the stoning verse was meant to be abrogated, which explains why it was never written, while its ruling continues to be operative.

In a nutshell, the verses on the ten and five sucklings that establish marital prohibition, as well as the verse on stoning, are neither missing nor lost; rather, they were abrogated with the permission of the Prophet (PBUH). If they had been lost, forgotten, or deliberately removed, how is it that the ḥadīths—reports from the Companions—explicitly record their consensus that these verses were not part of the Qurʾān? How could they speak of something they had supposedly forgotten? Without a doubt, neither ʿĀʾishah nor ʿUmar ever suggested that verses were missing when the Qurʾān was compiled, for everyone was instructed to bring forth whatever they had memorized or recorded in their personal manuscripts, and fulfilling this duty was, according to Islamic belief, a responsibility toward Allah, His Messenger (PBUH), and the Caliph of the believers. It is therefore inconceivable that ʿĀʾishah, ʿUmar, or any of the Companions, would have remained silent had they believed that even a single verse was missing from the Qurʾān. Indeed, had there been any missing verse, it would have been inevitable for at least some of the Companions to know of it and report it to the committee that compiled the Qurʾān—a committee that itself included Companions who were ḥuffāẓ (sing. ḥāfiẓ, those who had memorized the Qurʾān in its entirety). Needless to say, Zayd ibn Thābit—the head of the committee, the Prophet (PBUH)’s chief scribe of revelation, and himself a ḥāfiẓ—would have been the first to know of such a matter. It is therefore unreasonable to suggest that the codex, which was unanimously accepted by all the Companions, including the ḥuffāẓ and the owners of personal manuscripts, is incomplete. To sum up, there are no lost or missing verses in the Qurʾān. The abrogated verses were never intended to be part of the Qurʾān in the first place, and their abrogation occurred by the permission of the Prophet (PBUH). In other words, the will of the Lord was executed through His Messenger (PBUH). Thus, such verses cannot be described as missing or lost, for that would imply that they were somehow overlooked or forgotten by the Prophet (PBUH) and his Companions. Indeed, the existence of verses whose recitation was abrogated does not in any way suggest that the Qurʾān is incomplete. These verses were very few in number and are reported to have been abrogated specifically with respect to their recitation as Qurʾān, while the rulings they contained remained in force. The Companions of the Prophet (PBUH) who compiled the Qurʾān into a single codex knew of them and also knew that they were not to be included in the codex. Evidently, they could only have learned this from the Prophet (PBUH) himself, for he did not depart from this world without first clarifying definitively what belongs to the Qurʾān and what does not. As this was determined by the divine wisdom, we, Muslims, must fully submit to the divine will, trusting that the Qurʾān we possess today is complete and preserved, for it is Allah Who has promised to safeguard it. It should be noted that the compilation of the Qurʾān was carried out in such a public and transparent manner that any verse that deserved inclusion would have been included, and any verse present in the codex was included because it rightfully belonged there. In essence, this means that what is in the Qurʾān is exactly what was meant to be there, and what is not included was never intended to be part of it. This is further evidenced by the numerous copies of the Qurʾān from early Islam, particularly from the first century, all of which confirm the same basic text that we read today. We do not find any copies with extra verses or missing ones. That is, while we might encounter an incomplete codex, or fragments of what was once a complete codex, we do not find any verses that are extraneous or added later. In short, the Qurʾān as it exists today contains only what was originally revealed as Qurʾān. Regarding the narrations cited by the enemies of Islam to question the completeness of the Qurʾān’s preservation in writing after the Prophet (PBUH), they do not in any way undermine the impeccability of the Qurʾān’s preservation. Indeed, the reporting (i.e., preservation and transmission) of abrogated verses—and the careful distinction between abrogation in recitation (i.e., removal from the Qurʾānic text) and abrogation in ruling—serves as clear evidence of the honesty and precision of the Companions who compiled the Qurʾān. In brief, the Companions were well aware that some divine revelations received by the Prophet (PBUH) were abrogated in terms of recitation, some in terms of ruling, and some in terms of both. Consequently, the Qurʾān was compiled in its current form in the presence of the Companions without any dispute, for there was consensus that the abrogated verses were not to be included.