PREFACE
entertained a different opinion, he was alone in this case, and his opinion was not supported by a single other companion of the Holy Prophet. This is not only clear from their support of ‘Usman, but we have it also on record that “not a single other companion followed Ibn-i-Mas’ud in this opinion” (see Fat-hul-Bari under the report quoted above). And, as we have seen, even Ubayy opposed Ibn-i-Mas'ud on this point. It is rather an interesting ciroumstance that the two men, who are said to have differed from the other companions on one or éwo points, did not agree among themselves: each objected to the opinion of the other on the point on which he differed. The result is, that if they differed at all, neither of them had his views supported by any other companion on the points in which he differed, and his solitary opinion stands condemned by the consensus of opinion of the whole body of the companions.
Against Ibn-i-Mas’ud’s view there are other circumstances also, It is clear from many of the reports that the two chapters objected to by Tbn-i-Mas’ud_ were well known to the companions as part of the Divine revelation. There are reports which tell us that the Holy Prophet used to recite these two chapters in his prayers. Now, it is an established fact that he always followed the recital of the Ldtihah with some other portion of the Qur-dn, and since these two chapters were so recited, it follows conclusively that they were regarded as part of the Qur-an by the Holy Prophet. Ibn-i-Mas’ud based his opinion on certain grounds, but he was wrong. One report ascribes to him the words: “ Surely the Holy Prophet, may peace and the blessings of God be upon him, said that they [the two chapters] taught men how to seek refuge in the Lord.” The reference in these words of Ibn-i-Mas’ud is to 16:98: “So when you recite the Qur-in, seek refuge with Allah from the accursed devil,” so that he thought that the two chapters were only meant to teach how to seek refuge in the Lord. But it does not follow from this commandment of the Holy Qur-an that they were not part of the Qur-an, and the mistake made by Ibn-i-Mas’ud thus becomes manifest. It has been suggested by Qazi Abu Bakr Bagalani, and Qazi ’Ayad entertains the same view, that Tbn-i-Mas’ud did not deny their being part of the Qur-dn, but only objected to their being written in the same column because he had not, probably, heard the Holy Prophet ordering them to be written down. It may be further mentioned that some of the reports speaking of Ibn-i-Mas’ud’s views with regard to these two chapters describe him as “ blotting them out” from his copy, as if it were an afterthought on his part that these two chapters should not be written in the Qur-dn. Be that as it may, the conclusion is undeniable that Ibn-i-Mas’ud’s view was not supported by @ single other companion, and accordingly his opinion, standing thus condemned by the agreement of all the companions, is utterly devoid of. weight, and must be rejected.as erroneous. As regards his omission from his copy of the Qur-4n of the Fatihah, or the opening chapter, no reliable report bears testimony to it, and the only report which speaks of it belongs to the unreliable class. If the report be true, the error may have arisen from the circumstance that the Fatihah was looked upon as a kind of abridgment of the whole Qur-dn, and therefore Ibn-i-Mas’ud did not write it with the rest of the Qur-an. In view of the great importance universall: attached to the Fatikah, it is impossible to think that any Muslim boul ever have entertained the idea that it did not form part of the Divine revelation.
The third objection is a mere conjecture. What the Holy Prophet intended, he pointed out to the scribes who wrote the Holy Qur-dn and to others of his companions who committed it to memory. Had the
