9:128-129 Is Not Mutawatir

Tawātur (Arabic:تواتر) is the methodology for gathering information. It refers to collecting information from multiple sources and corroborating it to determine whether something should be accepted as true. While this term is utilized heavily for Hadith, it was also utilized in the compilation of the Quran by Zaid bin Thabit.

This standard was used throughout the Quran's compilation. Every verse had numerous witnesses who memorized and could vouch for its authenticity, as well as parchments with the verse. This is true for every single verse of the Quran except the two verses added to the end of Sura 9, Bara’a, where the only witness was Abu Khuzaima.

We read the following excerpt on page 84 of M.M. Al-Azami's History of the Qur'anic Text under the Heder "vi. Authentication of the Qur'an: The Case of the Last Two Verses from Sura Bara'a."

While no scholarly consensus exists on the number of channels or individuals needed to attain tawātur, the gist is to achieve absolute certainty and prerequisites for this may differ based on time, place, and the circumstances at hand. Scholars generally insist on at least half a dozen channels while preferring that this figure be much higher, since greater numbers make falsification less likely and more difficult. So we return to Sūra Barā’a, where the two concluding verses were verified and entered into the Suhuf based solely on Abū Khuzaima’s parchment (and the obligatory witnesses), backed by the memories of Zaid and some other huffāz. But in a matter as weighty as the Qur’ān how can we accept one scrap of parchment and a few Companions’ memories as sufficient grounds for tawātur? Suppose that in a small class of two or three students a professor recites a short, memorable poem and we, directly after the lecture, individually quiz every student about it; if they all recite the same thing then we have our absolute certainty that this is what the professor taught. The same can be extended to the written word or any combination of written and oral sources, provided of course that no collusion has occurred between the players, and this is a concept that I myself have demonstrated in classrooms empirically. Such was the case with Sūra Barā’a in that the unanimity of the sources on hand, relatively meagre though they were, provided enough grounds for certainty. And to counter any fears of collusion there is a logical argument: these two verses do not hold anything new theologically, do not speak praise of a particular tribe or family, do not provide information that is not available elsewhere within the Qur’ān. A conspiracy to invent such verses is irrational because no conceivable benefit could have arisen from fabricating them. Under these circumstances and given that Allah personally vouches for the Companions’ honesty in His Book, we can infer that there was indeed sufficient tawātur to sanction these verses.

The title, "vi. Authentication of the Qur'an: The Case of the Last Two Verses from Sura Bara'a," indicates that scholars know they have to address the elephant in the room regarding why these two verses were accepted as part of the Quran and that a case needs to be made for such a decision. This shows uncertainty and doubt regarding whether these two verses should be included in the Quran, which is not the case for any other verses of the Quran.

The author then makes false claims in an attempt to bolster these two verses' legitimacy. Here are the corrections to these false claims.

• None of the Hadith indicates that Abū Khuzaima had a parchment.

• In the most sound Hadith of this narration by Bukhari, it never indicates that Zaid or any of the other companions knew this verse.

• This passage also avoids addressing the Hadith that despite these verses being added to Sura Barā’a, they were not part of the sura.

The author then makes another false claim, stating that there is no controversy over the content of these sentences because they don't give praise or hold anything new theologically, and therefore, there is no reason someone would want to add these verses fraudulently. Except this is factually inaccurate.

While 9:129 is pretty much a copy-and-paste of other verses, 9:128 utilizes two of the same attributes of God, Compassionate ( رَءُوفٌ ) "Ra'uf" and Merciful ( رَحِيمٌ ) "Raheem,” towards the prophet. To claim that these verses do not elevate a person is a gross distortion, as we do not have a single instance in the Quran where the exact same paired attributes used for God are used towards any other entity, like is depicted in 9:128. This would make 9:128 not only elevate Muhammad but also have new theological implications.

[9:128] There certainly has come to you a messenger from among yourselves. He is concerned by your suffering, anxious for your well-being, and to the believers compassionate, merficul.

لَقَدْ جَآءَكُمْ رَسُولٌۭ مِّنْ أَنفُسِكُمْ عَزِيزٌ عَلَيْهِ مَا عَنِتُّمْ حَرِيصٌ عَلَيْكُم بِٱلْمُؤْمِنِينَ رَءُوفٌۭ رَّحِيمٌۭ

The combination "Ra'uf, Raheem" is used eight times in the Quran exclusively for God (2:143, 9:117, 16:7, 16:47, 22:65, 24:20, 57:9, 59:10), including just a few verses earlier in 9:117.

[9:117] GOD has redeemed the prophet, and the immigrants (Muhãjireen) and the supporters who hosted them and gave them refuge (Ansãr), who followed him during the difficult times. That is when the hearts of some of them almost wavered. But He has redeemed them, for He is to them Compassionate, Merciful.

لَقَدْ تَابَ اللَّهُ عَلَى النَّبِيِّ وَالْمُهَاجِرِينَ وَالْأَنْصَارِ الَّذِينَ اتَّبَعُوهُ فِي سَاعَةِ الْعُسْرَةِ مِنْ بَعْدِ مَا كَادَ يَزِيغُ قُلُوبُ فَرِيقٍ مِنْهُمْ ثُمَّ تَابَ عَلَيْهِمْ إِنَّهُ بِهِمْ رَءُوفٌ رَحِيمٌ

The author lastly appeals to the infallibility of the companions by their mere fact of being companions. This goes against the Quran, where we are told in the same Sura Bara'a that there were hypocrites among the prophet's companions, and he was not even aware of them.

[9:101] Among the Arabs around you, there are hypocrites. Also, among the city dwellers, there are those who are accustomed to hypocrisy. You do not know them, but we know them. We will double the retribution for them, then they end up committed to a terrible retribution.

وَمِمَّنْ حَوْلَكُم مِّنَ ٱلْأَعْرَابِ مُنَـٰفِقُونَ وَمِنْ أَهْلِ ٱلْمَدِينَةِ مَرَدُوا۟ عَلَى ٱلنِّفَاقِ لَا تَعْلَمُهُمْ نَحْنُ نَعْلَمُهُمْ سَنُعَذِّبُهُم مَّرَّتَيْنِ ثُمَّ يُرَدُّونَ إِلَىٰ عَذَابٍ عَظِيمٍ

Also, if this was enough of a reason, then why was this not also the case for the narrations in which Umar was pushing to include the stoning verse in the Quran?