are a clear evidence of the falsity of the report. He is made to say, "We used to recite a súra," indicating that he was not the only man who could recite the whole of that chapter by heart, but that there were others too. In fact, by "we" he means the companions of the Holy Prophet. The alleged chapter, therefore, must have been well known to the companions. Supposing it was possible that Abu Musa Ash'ari should forget the whole of it with the exception of a single passage, how was it that all the other companions also forgot it at the same time? None of the companions makes the slightest mention of such a chapter having ever formed a part of the Qur-án; none, including Abu Musa Ash'ari, brought it to the notice of Zaid in the time of Abu Bakr, at the time when public announcement was made that any one who had received any portion of the Qur-án from the Holy Prophet should bring such portion, or in the time of 'Us̲man, when a large number of companions were associated with Zaid to assist him in making copies of the Holy Qur-án. No reciter of the Qur-án ever pointed out that such an important chapter was missing from the Holy Book. Even the codices of Ibn-i-Mas'ud and Ubayy, with their alleged differences, did not contain any trace of such a chapter. Not a single voice out of thousands of the companions was raised in support of Abu Musa, if he ever uttered these words. And, wonder of wonders, men who made long journeys for the sake of ordinary reports made no inquiry about these long chapters of the Qur-án which Abu Musa had unfortunately forgotten. And how was it that Abu Musa himself, who had forgotten these chapters, did not care in the least for their recovery? In fact, the statements made in the report are too absurd to be believed by any sensible person for a single moment. Thus both external and internal evidence clearly show the report to be absolutely false, and not a tittle of evidence can be produced in support of its authenticity or truth. The mere fact that Muslim has recorded it in his collection is no evidence, for, as I have shown, even Muslim did not give it any credit.
A detailed critical examination of the remaining two reports would perhaps be tiresome, and from what has already been written on one, the reader can easily see how unreliable reports of this sort are. It will, therefore, be sufficient to consider briefly the internal evidence which the remaining two reports supply. According to one of these, 'Ayesha is reported to have said that there was a verse in the Holy Qur-án plainly saying that ten known acts of suckling were effective in marriage prohibitions; that this injunction was abrogated by another, by which the number was reduced to five, and that this was recited in the Qur-án at the death of the Holy Prophet. This report must have been wrongly attributed to 'Ayesha. The statement attributed to 'Ayesha in the report gives us to understand clearly that the verse was recited by others than herself. In fact, if there had been any such verse, it could not have remained unknown to the companions generally, for it contained an injunction of daily application. On the other hand, it would have been the best known of all verses. It contained an injunction as to marriage prohibition, and in a society in which the infants were generally suckled by others than their mothers, it was of the utmost importance that everybody should know which were the women with whom marriage was forbidden by reason of foster relationship. Hence the knowledge of the verse could not be limited to a single person. The collectors of reports have laid down a principle that when an event from the very circumstances of the case ought to be known by a large number of people who all disclaim a knowledge of it, this is clear evidence of its fabrication. This principle is a very reasonable one, and it will be easily seen that, judged by it,
