be borne in mind that the fabrication was effected at a later period by the zindeeqs. In the case of one of these reports, the character of whose first reporter has been laid bare, we have seen that he was accused of being a zindeeq. Yet Muslim accepted his authority, though he did not attach much weight to it. One reason of this, probably, was that at the time when Muslim wrote his hidden feelings had not been seen into. It was in this way that some false reports derogatory to the dignity of Islam found currency and gained credit. But in most cases critical inquiry regarding the narrators of reports has successfully sifted the unreliable from the reliable reports. And, even if external evidence did not exist, a critical study of such reports is in itself sufficient. And lastly, when differing statements clash with one another, we have to see on which side the weight of evidence lies. For instance, take the report traced back to Abu Musa Ash'ari. Even if Muslim himself had not discredited it, even if Suwaid were not known to be a zindeeq, we should have, on the one hand, the evidence of Abu Musa Ash'ari that two chapters were recited by the companions, but that he had forgotten them at the time when he mentioned this circumstance; and on the other hand we have the evidence of all the companions disclaiming all knowledge of any such chapters. No reciter of the Qur-án, no one who possessed any transcription of the Holy Book, had ever heard of them. How can the evidence of one man carry any weight against the unanimous testimony of all the companions?—especially when that evidence relates to a circumstance the existence of which, if it ever existed, must have come to the knowledge of a very large number. Had there been the evidence of even two or three companions, there might have been cause for doubt in the mind of the historian, but such a claim made on the evidence of a single person, when negatived by the evidence of thousands of better informed witnesses, is the most preposterous claim that has ever been made. And what is true of this one report is true of every other report belonging to the same class. In each case we have the evidence of only one person, whose testimony is quite unsupported. Abu Musa Ash'ari is said to have asserted that two chapters were lost: there is nobody else to support him; 'Ayesha is alleged to have asserted the loss of some verses: she cannot produce the evidence of a single other witness from among thousands of companions; and so with all the others. Where Ibn-i-Mas'ud makes an assertion, Ubayy's evidence, along with that of the whole body of companions, goes against him, and where Ubayy makes an assertion, Ibn-i-Mas'ud's evidence, along with that of all the rest of the companions, contradicts him. In fact, each of these reports has but a single companion to support it. It may be added that the evidence of one witness could not prove that any verse really belonged to the Holy Qur-án, for it is a fact borne out by numerous reports that every verse of the Qur-án was widely published at the time of its revelation, and was secured in the memories of many reciters. The anecdote related at the end of the report, speaking of Zaid’s collection in the time of Abu Bakr, which is to the effect that a certain verse of the chapter entitled Bará'at was not found in the possession of anybody except Abu Khuzaima, does not negative this conclusion, for, as I have already shown, it is the verse in writing that is meant there, as other reports show that there was a considerable number of men who could recite the whole of the Qur-án from memory. In short, the evidence of a single companion as against the unanimous testimony of all the others is absolutely devoid of weight.
The third criterion by which such reports may be judged is to ascertain how far early practice supports the conclusions to which they give rise. The
