Ibn Mas’ud, al-Fatiha, and al-Mu’awwidhatain

Waqar Akbar Cheema

Abstract

The absence of three surahs from the mushaf of the revered companion Ibn Mas‘ud has long been a focal point in debates surrounding the history of the Qur’anic text. Critics have often used this to question the narrative of its flawless preservation, while others defend his omission as reflecting personal practice rather than theological dissent. But what did Ibn Mas‘ud himself believe about these surahs? And does the evidence truly challenge the Qur’an’s preservation? This presentation delves into the reports and testimonies, offering insights that may reshape how this issue is understood, ultimately addressing whether this omission bears any weight on the Qur’an’s preservation.

1. Introduction

One of the key topics in discussions on the history of the Qur’anic text is the issue of Ibn Mas‘ud’s (d. 33/653) mushaf, not including Surah al-Fatiha and the Mu‘awwidhatayn (Surahs al-Falaq and al-Nas). In his seminal work on Qur’anic sciences, al-Itqan fi ‘Ulum al-Qur’an, Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti (d. 911/1505) recorded the widely known assertion that Ibn Mas‘ud’s mushaf did not include these three surahs in his copy of the Qur’an.^[1]

Both classical scholars and modern researchers have widely discussed this issue. Most traditional scholars reject these reports outright or offer interpretations besides their immediate apparent impressions the reports create.

Some emphasise that, despite his high status, Ibn Mas‘ud was ultimately a fallible human with limitations. Meanwhile, orientalists and external critics regard this as clear evidence against the Muslim orthodoxy’s claims regarding the Qur’anic text’s history.

Reports of this nature are also cited by those who argue that the Qur’anic text underwent a degree of fluidity in its early stages. While some view it as minor discrepancies in the compilation process, others suggest that the early Qur’anic text was far more malleable than traditionally acknowledged. Accordingly, such views do not align with the standard positions held within the Islamic scholarly tradition, where the preservation of the Qur’anic text is seen as definitive and consistent.

More recently, Muslims familiar with the early texts and critical engagements have adopted a more ‘dispassionate’ approach. They contrast their perspective with the traditional Muslim discourse, which they see as lacking a critical tone. They seek to normalise such observations, positioning them merely as contributions to objective research.

This study aims to provide a holistic analysis of the available information. It addresses Ibn Mas‘ud’s position, the factors that may have influenced it, and how it has been interpreted over time. We will begin by examining the issue of al-Fatiha before discussing the case of the Mu‘awwidhatain. We will also highlight aspects of the discussion on the former that may offer insights into the latter.

2. Ibn Mas‘ud and the Writing of Surah al-Fatiha in his Mushaf

Al-Fatiha refers to ‘al-fatiha al-kitab’ (opening of the Book/Qur’an).’ Its status is such an established one in Islam that no Muslim can be negligent about it. It is recited repeatedly in every salah (prayer) multiple times daily.

2.1 Ibn Mas‘ud Recognised al-Fatiha as Part of the Qur’an

Al-Fatiha’s status as a part of the Qur’an is established from the Qur’an itself. In Surah al-Hijr, it is said:

وَلَقَدْ آتَيْنَاكَ سَبْعًا مِنَ الْمَثَانِي وَالْقُرْآنَ الْعَظِيمَ
~

We have given you the seven oft-repeated verses and the glorious Qur‘an. (15:87)

On this al-Suyuti records:

وأخرج ابن الضريس ، وَابن جَرِير ، وَابن المنذر ، وَابن مردويه عن ابن مسعود في قوله : {ولقد آتيناك سبعا من المثاني} قال : فاتحة الكتاب {والقرآن العظيم} قال : سائر القرآن.

~

Ibn al-Durais, Ibn Jarir [al-Tabari], Ibn al-Mundhir, and Ibn Marduwaih narrated from Ibn Mas‘ud regarding Allah’s words [in 15:87]: ‘The seven oft-repeated verses’ refers to the Opening of the Book (al-Fatiha al-kitab), and ‘the glorious Qur’an’ refers to the rest of the Qur’an.^[2]

Accordingly, Ibn Mas‘ud recited al-Fatiha, as confirmed by several master reciters (qurra’), including Asim. Moreover, we have specific reports stating the obvious that he recited surah al-Fatiha regularly in daily prayers and funeral prayers.^[3]

This confirms that, in Ibn Mas‘ud’s view, surah al-Fatiha was indeed part of the Qur’an, just as it is in the view of the rest of the Muslim community.

2.2 Why Did Ibn Mas‘ud Exclude Surah al-Fatiha from his Mushaf?

If Ibn Mas‘ud recognised Surah al-Fatiha as part of the Qur’an, why did he not include it in his mushaf? The explanation comes from Ibn Mas‘ud himself. A narration recorded by ‘Abd b. Humaid (d. 249/863) has that:

عن إبراهيم قال: كان عبدالله لا يكتب فاتحة الكتاب في المصحف وقال : لو كتبتها لكتبت في أول كل شيء

~

Ibrahim [al-Nakha‘i] narrated that Ibn Mas‘ud did not write the Fatiḥa of the Book (Surah al-Fatiha) in his mushaf, explaining: “If I were to write it, I would have to write it at the beginning of every surah.”^[4]

Al-Qurtubi (d. 671/1273), likewise, preserved Abu Bakr ibn al-Anbari’s (d. 328/940) narration along with its complete isnad, which says:

عن إبراهيم قال: قيل لعبد الله بن مسعود: لم لم تكتب فاتحة الكتاب في مصحفك؟ قال: لو كتبتها لكتبتها مع كل سورة.

~

On the authority of Ibrahim, who said: It was said to Abdullah b. Mas‘ud, “Why have you not written the Fatihah of the Book in your copy of the Qur’an?” He replied, “If I had written it, I would have written it with every surah.” ^[5]

Similarly, Abu al-Fadl al-Razi (d. 454/1062), though without citing a source, records a statement of Ibn Mas‘ud:

ما علمت أحدا ينسى فاكتب

~

I have not known anyone forgetting it that would make me write it.^[6]

Thus, we learn that if he did not write a certain thing in his mushaf, it does not mean it was not part of the Qur’an to his understanding. This is a vital point I will ask the readers to bear in mind.

3. Ibn Mas‘ud and al-Mu‘awwidhatain

Like Surah al-Fatiha, the final two surahs, al-Falaq and al-Nas, were not included in Ibn Mas‘ud’s mushaf. However, unlike al-Fatiha, it is argued that these two surahs, collectively known as al-Mu‘awwidhatayn, were not considered part of the Qur’an in Ibn Mas‘ud’s view. This argument is based on two sets of reports.

3.1 Zirr’s Report from Ubayy

Al-Bukhari related:

عن زر، قال: سألت أبي بن كعب، قلت: يا أبا المنذر إن أخاك ابن مسعود يقول كذا وكذا، فقال أبي: سألت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال لي: «قيل لي فقلت» قال: فنحن نقول كما قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم

~

Zirr said, I asked Ubayy b. Ka‘b: Abu al-Mundhir, your brother Ibn Mas‘ud says such and such. Ubayy said. I asked the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), who said: “It was said to me; therefore, I say it.” Ubayy then said: “We say as was said by the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ).”^[7]

Several narrations of this report only mention Zirr’s question and Ubayy’s response without referencing Ibn Mas‘ud or his stance.^[8] However, other versions mention Ibn Mas‘ud’s stance, though with varying levels of detail and phrasing.

Some narrations, including one in Sahih al-Bukhari, mention that Zirr told Ubayy about Ibn Mas‘ud’s take on al-Mu‘awwidhatain without stating it; “He says such and such” (yaqulu fiha kadha wa kadha).^[9] Others state he told him, “Ibn Mas‘ud would not write al-Mu‘awwidhatain in his mushaf” (kana la yaktubu al-mu‘awwidhatain fi mushafihi).^[10]Another phrases it as, “The two surahs that are not in the mushaf of Abdullah” (al-surtan allatan laisata fi mushaf ‘abdullah).^[11] Another set of narrations has it as “He would erase them from the mushaf” (yahkihima mina al-mushaf).^[12]

Less common – effectively odd— narrations even include statements such as, “And he would say: ‘Why do you add to it what is not from it?’” (wa yaqulu: lima taziduna fihi ma laisa minhu),^[13] “They are not from the Qur’an” (innahuma laisata min al-qur’an),^[14]  or “Do not add to the Qur’an what is not from it” (la tulhiqu bil-qur’an ma laisa minhu).^[15]

3.2 Reports from Ibn Mas‘ud’s Students

Reports from other students of Ibn Mas‘ud’s students also convey his conduct on the issue. As narrated by Abu Ishaq al-Sabi‘i, ‘Abdul Rahman b. Yazid al-Nakha‘i said:

رأيت عبد الله يحك المعوذتين من المصحف ويقول: لا تخلطوا به ما ليس منه

~

I saw ‘Abdullah erasing al-Mu‘awwidhatain from the mushaf, and he said: ‘Do not mix into it what is not from it.’^[16]

The above is how most narrations have it.^[17] One narration puts the final remarks of Ibn Mas‘ud as, “Why do you add what is not in it?” (lima taziduna ma laisa fihi?),^[18] and another puts it as “It is not permissible to recite what is not from it.” (la yahillu qira’atu ma laisa minhu).^[19] Some put the final remarks as “they are not from the Book of Allah” (innahuma laisata min kitabillah).^[20]

The variation across narrations of the report confirms paraphrasing and subjective understanding of subsequent narrators. In essence, however, the report is the same as that of Zirr, as indicated by Ibn Marduwaih. Amidst various versions of Zirr’s report, he mentioned the narration from ‘Abdul Rahman b. Yazid from ‘Abdullah, and rather than relating it in full, he simply noted, “Likewise.”^[21]

Another narration that comes from Abu Ishaq al-Sabi‘i, from ‘Abdul Rahman al-Sulami who related:

أنه: كان يقول: ” لا تخلطوا بالقرآن ما ليس فيه، فإنما هما معوذتان تعوذ بهما النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم: قل أعوذ برب الفلق، وقل أعوذ برب الناس “، وكان عبد الله يمحوهما من المصحف

~

‘Abdullah b. Mas‘ud used to say: Do not mix into the Qur’an what is not part of it, for they are only two supplications with which the Prophet ((ﷺ)) sought refuge: “Say, I seek refuge with the Lord of the daybreak,” and “Say, I seek refuge with the Lord of mankind,” and ‘Abdullah would erase them from the mushaf.^[22]

Similarly ‘Alqama says about Ibn Mas‘ud:

أنه كان يحك المعوذتين من المصحف ويقول: «إنما أمر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أن يتعوذ بهما» ، وكان عبد الله لا يقرأ بهما

~

He would erase al-Mu‘awwidhatain from the mushaf and say: The Prophet (ﷺ) was commanded to seek refuge through them. ‘Abdullah would not recite them.^[23]

Ibn Sirin likewise reports it:

عن ابن سيرين ، قال : كان ابن مسعود لا يكتب المعوذتين.

~

Ibn Sirin said that Ibn Mas‘ud did not write al-Mu‘wwidhatain.^[24]

Unlike the report from Zirr, these reports focus on including the two surahs in the mushaf, with other remarks serving as secondary or supplementary comments. As a result, the latter are paraphrased, making it challenging to ascertain their original intent and significance.

3.3 The Import of These Reports

The narrations above leave little room for interpretation beyond acknowledging that Ibn Mas‘ud, at least at some point, disputed the Qur’anic status of words in al-Mu‘awwidhatain. However, a closer look reveals that the issue was not with the surahs in their entirety but rather with the word qul at their beginning.

Ubayy’s report provides the key. When asked by Zirr, he relayed the Prophet’s (ﷺ) response: “It was said to me, so I said it.” This statement, on its own, does not explicitly affirm the surahs’ Qur’anic status as a whole.

Some other narrations, however, provide leads. One with al-Humaidi reads:

قال إني سألت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال قيل لي «قل» فقلت: فنحن نقول كما قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم

~

He said, I asked the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), and he said to me, “It was said to me, ‘Say,  (qul)’, so I said it.” Therefore, we say, as the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said.”^[25]

The emphasis on qul suggests that Ubayy’s inquiry—and thus Zirr’s question regarding Ibn Mas‘ud—was specifically about the inclusion of qul rather than the surahs themselves. Had the issue been about the Qur’anic status of surahs in full, the Prophet (ﷺ) would have clarified it, as he did when ‘Uqba b. ‘Amir questioned him about these surahs. On that occasion, the Prophet (ﷺ) demonstrated their Qur’anic status by reciting them in prayer^[26] and asking ‘Uqba if he had duly noted it.^[27] Here, however, his response focused solely on qul, reinforcing that this was the point of contention.

That the core issue—even about Ibn Mas‘ud’s stance—was not the Qur’anicity of the two surahs as a whole but rather the status of qul at their beginning is further reinforced by scholars who, despite taking the report to imply doubt over the surahs’ Qur’anicity, acknowledged that it was not categorical in this regard. Al-Tahawi (d. 321/933) states:

فكان ما روينا عن أبي في هذه الآثار من جوابه زرا ما قد ذكر فيها مما ليس فيه إثبات منه أنهما من القرآن ولا إخراج لهما منه

~

What we have narrated from Ubayy in these reports, in his response to Zirr, includes what has been mentioned therein. However, it neither affirms nor denies that the two surahs are part of the Qur’an. ^[28]

Likewise, Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani (d. 852/) admits:

وليس في جواب أبي تصريح بالمراد

Ubayy’s response does not explicitly clarify the intended meaning. ^[29]

However, scholars such as Makki b. Abi Talib (d. 437/1045) and al-Biqa‘i (d. 885/1480) correctly grasped the core issue. Makki noted:

ومعنى ذلك – والله أعلم – ” أنهما سألا النبي  صلى الله عليه وسلم  عن إثبات ” قل ” في أولهما، فقال النبي عليه السلام: قيل: لي: ” قُلْ أَعوذُ “، فقلت: [أي]: قيل لي: اقرأ {قُلْ أَعُوذُ} فقرأها، بإثبات ” قل ” على أنها أمر به.

~

It means they both asked the Prophet (ﷺ) about including “qul” at the beginning of these surahs. The Prophet (ﷺ) replied: It was said to me: “Say, I seek refuge,” so I said it. [i.e.,] It was said to me: Recite, “Say I seek refuge,” and I recited it, confirming that he had been commanded to recite (the word) “qul” (as well). ^[30]

Al-Biqa‘i went further, explicitly refuting the notion that Ibn Mas‘ud denied the surahs entirely:

وعندي: أن ظاهر هذه الأخبار غير مراد، وأن ابن مسعود رضي الله عنه إنما كان ينكر كلمة “قل” فقط في أولهما، ويحكهما من الصحف من المعوذتين، وأن قرءته كانت كذلك، وكان يستدل على صحة قراءته لهما التي أخذها عن النبي – صلى الله عليه وسلم -، وسهو غيره في نقل قل، بأن النبي – صلى الله عليه وسلم – أمر أن يتعوذ بهما، والمتعوذ لا يناسب أن يأمر من يتعوذ به بالقول. وعلى ذلك ينطبق قول النبي – صلى الله عليه وسلم – لما سئل: “قيل لي فقلت ” أي كما قال لي الملك، لا أسقط شيئاً مما نطق به، لأنه كلام الله، ولو كان عبد الله رضي الله عنه ينكر جميع المعوذتين، لم يطابق قول أبي رضي الله عنه: ” سألت رسول الله – صلى الله عليه وسلم – فقال: قيل لي فقلت ” قول من سأله،

~

To me, the apparent meaning of these reports is not as intended. Ibn Mas‘ud only denied the word “qul” at the beginning of the two surahs and erased only this much of the Mu‘awwidhatain from the suhuf. His recitation was also consistent with this. To affirm the correctness of his recitation of the two surahs as he had received from the Prophet (ﷺ) while regarding the recitation of “qul” by others as an oversight, he sought evidence in the fact that the Prophet (ﷺ) had commanded seeking refuge through them, and it is not fitting for the one seeking refuge to be instructed to say it. Accordingly, the Prophet’s (ﷺ) statement when asked—“It was said to me, and I said,” i.e., just as the angel said to me—indicates that he did not omit anything from what was revealed, as it is the Word of Allah. Had Ibn Mas‘ud indeed denied the entirety of the Mu‘awwidhatain, Ubayy’s response—“I asked the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), and he said: ‘It was said to me, so I said it’”—would not have aligned with the nature of the question.^[31]

Al-Biqa‘ goes on to highlight that if Ibn Mas‘ud had truly denied the surahs outright, Ubayy’s response would have been hopelessly ineffective—simply relaying the Prophet’s (ﷺ) words, “It was said to me, so I said it,” proves nothing since everything said to and by the Prophet (ﷺ) was not Qur’an.^[32]

 The flaw becomes even starker when we realise the Prophet (ﷺ) had answered Ubayy the same way. Are we to believe that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), tasked with delivering the Qur’an, responded to a fundamental question about revelation with an argument that doesn’t actually establish it? If the issue was the Qur’anic status of al-Mu‘awwidhatain, direct confirmation was needed. Instead, the Prophet’s (ﷺ) reply makes far more sense if the only question at hand was whether qul itself was part of the surahs.

These explanations clarify that Ibn Mas‘ud recognised the Qur’anic status of al-Mu‘awwidhatain but (initially) objected to including the word qul. This position, coupled with the omission of these surahs from his mushaf, akin to his treatment of Surah al-Fatiha, led to misconceptions about his stance. Fortunately, scholars like Makki b. Abi Talib and al-Biqa‘i have effectively clarified this misunderstanding, though regrettably, their explanation has not gained widespread recognition.

As for the inconsistently worded additions, if not disregarded as anomalous (shadh), they can be reconciled through the broader implication of the consistent wording. Accordingly, “kitab Allah” may refer to the mushaf itself, as al-Baqillani (d. 403/1013) and Qadi ‘Iyad (d. 544/1149) suggested. Ibn Hajar acknowledged this as a plausible interpretation.^[33]

As for Ibn Mas‘ud’s erasure, it is also best understood as applying only to qul in both surahs. This aligns with Zirr’s report to Ubayy, where he mentioned the erasure by Ibn Mas‘ud before the discussion that, as explained, revolved around qul. Logically, the erasure also pertained to qul rather than the entire surahs. This interpretation finds further support in reports like that of Abu Jamrah, where Ibrahim al-Nakha‘i instructed the removal of extraneous material at the beginning of the surahs from the mushaf, citing Ibn Mas‘ud’s aversion to mixing anything non-Quranic with the text.^[34]

3.4 Ibn Mas‘ud’s Subsequent Retraction on the Word “Qul.”

However, Ibn Mas‘ud subsequently changed his position regarding the word “qul” at the beginning of al-Mu‘awwidhatain and acknowledged its Qur’anicity. This is evident from the fact that al-Mu‘awwidhatain start with the word “qul” in the recitations widely transmitted through Ibn Mas‘ud. Moreover, a report also points out how the change was effected.  In a narration recorded by al-Tabarani (d.360/971), we read:

عن إسماعيل بن مسلم، عن سيار أبي الحكم، عن زر بن حبيش، عن عبد الله بن مسعود، أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم سئل عن هاتين السورتين، فقال: «قيل لي فقلت، فقولوا كما قلت»

~

Isma‘il b. Muslim mentioned on the authority of Sayyar Abi al-Hakam from Zirr ibn Hubaish, who reported from Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud, that the Prophet (ﷺ) was asked about the two surahs, and he replied: “It was said to me, so I said it; therefore, you say it as I said it.”^[35]

This report bears similarities to Zirr’s narration from Ubayy, leading some to consider it a case of mistaken attribution by a narrator.^[36] Criticism of the report also arises due to the presence of Isma‘il b. Muslim al-Makki, in its chain of narrators, who was often criticised for his memory issues and, therefore, viewed as a weak narrator. However, Ahmad Shakir (d. 1957) mitigates this criticism by highlighting the praise one of Isma‘il’s prominent students gave for his memorisation of hadith.^[37] Moreover, Al-Tirmidhi (d. 279/892) graded one of Isma‘il’s reports as hasan, and Ahmad Shakir graded another of his narrations similarly.^[38] This demonstrates that while Isma‘il’s narrations may require scrutiny, they should not be dismissed outright, which was also the view of a group of early hadith scholars, as noted by the Basran hadith master, al-Bazzar (d. 292/905).^[39]

Here, two points merit attention. First, Zirr’s reports from Ubayy are transmitted through narrators such as ‘Asim b. Bahdala or ‘Abda b. Abi Lubaba, whereas the report of Ibn Mas‘ud is conveyed through Abu al-Hakam Sayyar. Abu al-Hakam is unanimously regarded as a trustworthy and meticulous narrator.^[40] Notably, he does not appear in the transmission chains of Zirr’s reports from Ubayy in any source, making it highly improbable that a later narrator would mistakenly attribute this report to him. Second, in this report, Ibn Mas‘ud refers to the question posed to the Prophet (ﷺ) in the third person, contrasting with Zirr’s report from Ubayy, where Ubayy narrates the incident directly. These observations regarding both the isnad and the matn (content) strongly suggest that the narrator did not err in attributing this report to Ibn Mas‘ud.

This distinction is particularly significant because it implies that Ibn Mas‘ud was only aware that the Prophet (ﷺ) had been asked about the word “qul” without personally witnessing the incident. It is plausible that Zirr, having learned the details from Ubayy, later shared them with Ibn Mas‘ud, influencing Ibn Mas‘ud’s position on the issue. Zirr then conveyed Ibn Mas‘ud’s revised understanding to others, including the context that shaped this change.

Nevertheless, it bears reiteration that this report serves only as corroboration. It is already well established that Ibn Mas‘ud recited both Surahs, al-Falaq and al-Nas, starting with the word “qul,” as evidenced by all the widely transmitted qira’at attributed to him.

Ibn Mas‘ud’s retraction on “qul” reflects his intellectual integrity. He readily revised his views when corrected, as seen in his reversal of a legal ruling on marriage.^[41]  His statement—“One who rejects a single letter of the Qur’an has rejected it entirely” ^[42] —underscores his caution in matters of the Qur’an. Given his diligence in verifying such issues, it was only natural for him to change his position on the word “qul” when informed of the Prophet’s (ﷺ) clarification.

3.5 Ibn Mas‘ud and Recitation of al-Mu‘awwidhatain in Ritual Prayers

As for the varying remarks following the mention of Ibn Mas‘ud omitting the two surahs in the report of ‘Abdul Rahman bin Yazid, they can be interpreted as referring only to the word “qul,” as insisted by Al-Biqāʿī, who noted that Ibn Mas‘ud’s omission of “the two” or his not reciting “the two” pertained solely to “qul” at the beginning of both surahs. However, ‘Alqama’s statement that “Ibn Mas‘ud would not recite them” (wa kana ‘Abdullah la yaqra’ bihima) warrants closer attention. This remark connects Ibn Mas‘ud’s stance to the surahs’ function as supplications for seeking refuge (ta‘udh), suggesting that his take was not confined to the word “qul” alone.

Note that the report does not have much qualification and context. Another early source, however, assures us that this was only about the obligatory ritual prayers (salah). Muqatil b. Suleman (d. 150/767) noted in his tafsir.

وكان ابن مسعود لا يقرأ بهما فى المكتوبة.

~

Ibn Mas‘ud would not recite them in the obligatory prayers (al-maktuba).^[43]

This practice was seemingly rooted in his knowledge of the Prophetic precedent. From what has reached us, the Prophet (ﷺ) rarely, if ever, recited al-Mu‘awwidhatain in obligatory congregational prayers—that is, in public.

The report from ‘Uqba b. ‘Amir stating that the Prophet (ﷺ) recited them while leading Fajr prayer pertains to a journey where Ibn Mas‘ud may not have been present.^[44] Likewise, Mu‘adh’s report of the Prophet (ﷺ) reciting Surah al-Falaq in Fajr prayer also originates from an expedition.^[45] As for the report attributed to Ibn ‘Umar that the Prophet (ﷺ) recited al-Mu‘awwidhatain while leading the Maghrib prayer, it is transmitted through an extremely weak chain.^[46]

This is significant because it confirms that Ibn Mas‘ud had not heard the Prophet (ﷺ) recite the two surahs in obligatory prayers. Therefore, he, too, refrained from reciting them in such prayers. It may also explain his initial hesitation in reciting them with the word “qul”—even though he must have heard the surahs from the Prophet (ﷺ) outside of prayer, he might have understood it only as an instruction to recite the subsequent words of the surahs rather than repeating the word “qul” as well.

It is worth noting that, at least in Kufa, al-Mu‘awwidhatain were not commonly recited aloud in congregational prayers for decades. This is evident from the following narration;

عن إبراهيم، قال: أول من جهر بالمعوذتين في [الصلاة] المكتوبة ابن زياد.

~

Ibrahim [al-Nakha‘i] said: “The first person to recite al-Mu‘awwidhatain aloud in obligatory prayers was [‘Ubaid Allah] Ibn Ziyad.”^[47]

Likewise, the Basran Hanzala al-Sadusi informed ‘Ikrima that people objected to his recitation of al-Mu‘awwidhatain in the obligatory Maghrib prayer. In response, ‘Ikrima reassured him, saying, “What harm is there in that? Recite them, for they are from the Qur’an.”^[48] His reply, however, does not indicate awareness of a Prophetic precedent for their recitation in prayer.

Further, outside the two Iraqs too, the two surahs were not always considered sufficient for essential recitation in prayers. We learn that:

أن مجاهدا كان يكره أن يقرأ بالمعوذات وحدها حتى يجعل معها سورة أخرى.

~

Mujahid disliked reciting the Mu‘awwidhat alone and preferred to pair them with another surah.^[49]

Quoting this, al-Baqilani rightly points out that just as Mujahid’s practice does not imply any doubt about the Qur’anic status of al-Mu‘awwidhatayn, Ibn Mas‘ud’s omission of them in obligatory prayers does not suggest otherwise either.^[50]

3.6 Ibn Mas‘ud and Virtues of al-Mu‘awwidhatain

That Ibn Mas‘ud recognised al-Mu‘awwidhatain as part of the Qur’an is supported by a Prophetic statement related from him by al-Dailami (d. 509/1115) on the virtues of the two surahs. It is reproduced below along with the later part of its isnad.

حدثنا إسحاق بن أبي إسرائيل عن محمد بن جابر عن حماد عن إبراهيم عن علقمة عن ابن مسعود قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: “استكثروا من النورين (أو: السورتين) يبلغكم الله بهما في الآخرة، المعوذتين ينوران القبر، ويطردان الشيطان، ويزيدان في الحسنات والدرجات، يثقلان الميزان، ويدلان صاحبهما إلى الجنة.”

~

Ishaq b. Abi Isra’il related on the authority of Muhammad b. Jabir, on the authority of Hammad, on the authority of Ibrahim, on the authority of ‘Alqamah, from Ibn Mas‘ud, who said: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: “Increase in reciting the two lights (or: two surahs), for through them, Allah will elevate you in the Hereafter. Al-Mu‘awwidhatain illuminate the grave, drive away Satan, increase good deeds and ranks, weigh heavily in the scales, and guide their reciter to Paradise.”^[51]

Quoting it in his selection of uncommon reports (gharaib) in al-Dailami’s work, Ibn Hajar points out that it includes a narrator Muhammad b. Jabir [al-Yamami]. Although Muhammad b. Jabir is generally criticised; Ibn ‘Adi highlights that his reports from Ishaq b. Abi Isra’il, as is the case here, were based on a written compilation of reports deemed good (kitab ahadith saliha). Additionally, Ishaq himself valued him highly, and prominent scholars also narrated from him. ^[52] Perhaps this explains why Ibn Hajar noted his presence in the chain without further comment.^[53]

Though uncommon and uncorroborated (gharib), this report is significant as it frames al-Mu‘awwidhatain beyond mere protective invocations without assigning hyperbolic rewards that might undermine its credibility, further confirming Ibn Mas‘ud’s recognition of them as part of the Qur’an.

4. Comparison between Ibn Mas‘ud’s Conduct on al-Fatiha and al-Mu‘awwidhatain

It may be argued that Ibn Mas‘ud’s stance on writing al-Fatiha should not be equated with his position on al-Mu‘awwidhatain, as the Qur’anic status of al-Fatiha was never in question. In contrast, his view on al-Mu‘awwidhatain prompted discussion, as evidenced by several of his students affirming their Qur’anicity—suggesting that some clarification was needed.

عن إبراهيم ، قال : قلت للأسود : من القرآن هما ؟ قال : نعم ، يعني المعوذتين.

~

Ibrahim [al-Nakha‘i] said: I asked Al-Aswad, “Are they part of the Qur’an?” meaning al-Mu‘awwidhatain. He replied, “Yes.”^[54]

Similarly, al-Sha‘bi also had to state that they were part of the Qur’an.^[55]

In response, it suffices to note that the case of al-Mu‘awwidhatain was somewhat different, as Ibn Mas‘ud initially doubted the Qur’anicity of their opening word “qul.” This confusion was only resolved after Zirr inquired Ubayy and relayed the Prophet’s (ﷺ) clarification to Ibn Mas‘ud. However, it led to misgivings about his stance on the two surahs. The confusion itself was short-lived and clarified, but the suggestion of his different position was relayed. Moreover, Ibn Mas‘ud’s adherence to the Prophetic precedent of not reciting these surahs in obligatory prayers further fueled the controversy. Nevertheless, the root of the issue lay in his choice not to reduce them to writing—just as he had done with al-Fatiha.

This is reinforced by the fact that al-Nakha‘i, who asked al-Aswad about the Qur’anicity of Surahs al-Falaq and al-Nas, similarly inquired about al-Fatiha. Al-Suyuti records that ‘Abd b. Humaid related in his tafsir:

عن إبراهيم قال : سألت الأسود عن فاتحة الكتاب أمن القرآن هي قال : نعم.

~

Ibrahim [al-Nakha‘i] said: I asked Al-Aswad, “Is Surah al-Fatiha part of the Qur’an?” He replied, “Yes.”

Likewise, Abu al-Fadl al-Razi records Ibn Mas‘ud’s responses regarding both cases, affirming their proximity in his estimation. About al-Fatiha;

ما علمت أحدا ينسى فاكتب

~

I have not known anyone forgetting it that would make me write it. ^[56]

And regarding al-Mu‘awwidhatain,

صارتا عوذة كالعاذة فلا تنسى

~

The two have become like other protective invocations and are thus not forgotten. ^[57]

The above reports highlight why Ibn Qutaiba wrestled with the implications of Ibn Mas‘ud’s omission of al-Fatiha from his mushaf. While he readily accepted that Ibn Mas‘ud’s omission of al-Mu‘awwidhatain stemmed from a mistaken belief that they were merely supplications, he doubted the claim regarding al-Fatiha, arguing that a scholar of his rank could not have been ignorant of its Qur’anic status. To reconcile this, he suggested that Ibn Mas‘ud saw no need to write al-Fatiha, as its preservation was not a concern.^[58]  Had Ibn Qutaiba extended the same reasoning to al-Mu‘awwidhatain, he might have reconsidered his hasty conclusion.

That Ibn Mas‘ud’s conduct on al-Fatiha and al-Mu‘awwidhatain was essentially the same also finds an early confirmation in a statement of Qatada (d. 118/736),  related by Sa‘id b. Bashir (d. 169/786):

وحدثنا قتادة: أنّ هاتين السورتين {الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ}  والمعوذتين، ليس هو في مصحف عبد الله بن مسعود، وكان ابن مسعود يقرؤها.

~

Qatada narrated to us: “That these two surahs “Alhamdulillahi rabbi al-alamin …” (al-Fatiha) and al-Mu‘awwidhatain were not in the mushaf of ‘Abdullah b. Mas‘ud; however, Ibn Mas‘ud used to recite them.”^[59]

This aligns with the practical reality that al-Fatiha and al-Mu‘awwidhatain were among the most frequently recited surahs. Al-Fatiha was an essential part of daily prayers. At the same time, al-Mu‘awwidhatain were recited after every prayer, in the morning and evening, before sleeping, upon waking, and during moments of vulnerability—whether seeking protection from strong winds and darkness, recovering from illness, or even after being stung by hazardous creatures. ^[60]  

Given their widespread recitation, memorisation was firmly established, which may explain why Ibn Mas‘ud saw no necessity in recording them in his mushaf. This reflects the broader reality of Qur’anic preservation as the Prophet (ﷺ) himself related that Allah had told him, “I have revealed to you a Book that cannot be washed away with water; you recite it while asleep and awake” (wa anzaltu ‘alaika kitaban la yaghsiluhu al-ma’, taqra’uhu na’iman wa yaqzan).”^[61] This statement underscores that the Qur’an was primarily preserved in memory, independent of its physical inscription.

5. Why this Discussion Matters?

In the end, one might ask why so much discussion around Ibn Mas‘ud’s position when he was just one among thousands of Companions. While he was undoubtedly a master reciter and a great scholar, he remained a fallible human. Why not take the reports at face value and move on? Two key factors prevent such an approach and warrant a more profound examination.

First, Ibn Mas‘ud’s recitation was foundational to multiple widely transmitted readings (qirā’āt) that trace back to the Prophet (ﷺ). The canonical recitations of ‘Asim,  Hamza,  al-Kisa’i, and Khalaf—all linked to Ibn Mas‘ud—include al-Mu‘awwidhatain.^[62] Given that the chains of transmission for qirā’āt are, by the general agreement of the scholars, regarded as the strongest in Islamic scholarship,^[63] this affirms that Ibn Mas‘ud not only recited but transmitted al-Fatiha and al-Mu‘awwidhatain as part of the Qur’an.

To suggest that Ibn Mas‘ud’s students might have taken al-Mu‘awwidhatayn from other Companions is undue scepticism or an oversimplification disregarding the essentials of transmission-based Islamic scholarship.

This was underscored by al-Khattabi (d. 388/998), as noted by al-Qurtubi, when he said about the master reciters:

وكل منهم قد عزا قراءته التي اختارها إلى رجل من الصحابة قرأها على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، لم يستثن من جملة القرآن شيئا، فأسند عاصم قراءته إلى علي بن أبي طالب وعبدالله بن مسعود رضي الله عنهما.

~

Each of them traced their reading back to a Companion who read it to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and did not exclude anything from the entire Quran. Thus, ‘Asim attributed his recitation to ‘Ali b. Abi Talib and ‘Abdullah b. Mas‘ud …^[64]

This affirms that the attribution of transmission of qirā’āt was not a process of random borrowing but a rigorously preserved tradition, ensuring that what was received from a teacher was upheld with precision, leaving no room for arbitrary attributions, omissions, or additions. Thus, it directly contradicts the notion that Ibn Mas‘ud’s students, who transmitted recitations on his authority, might have learned al-Mu‘awwidhatayn from other sources rather than through him.

Second, as discussed above, the primary basis for attributing doubt about al-Mu‘awwidhatayn to Ibn Mas‘ud—the report from Zirr via Ubayy—is far from definitive. Its apparent meaning does not align with the widely accepted attribution to Ibn Mas‘ud and warrants reconsideration.

Considering both concerns together is essential and dispels the common-place assumption that Ibn Mas‘ud’s view on al-Mu‘awwidhatain was at odds with the established position.

6. Scholarly Perspectives and the Final Analysis

Early scholars recognized that Ibn Masʿud’s omission of the surahs was a matter of documentation rather than denial. As already noted, Qatada (117/735) explicitly stated that Ibn Masʿud recited them despite not writing them. However, some later scholars framed the issue differently—Sufyan b. ʿUyaina (198/814), Ibn Qutaiba (276/889), and al-Bazzar (292/905) argued that Ibn Masʿud’s omission stemmed from his lack of appreciation of the Qur’anic status of the surahs due to their other prescriptions, and in this, he was at odds with the rest of the companions. ^[65] The pre-modern al-Alusi (1270/1854) also settled the discussion in favour of consensus without seeing the attribution of denial to Ibn Masʿud as much of a problem.^[66]

Yazid ibn Harun (206/821), when asked about Ibn Masʿud’s stance, dismissed any controversy by suggesting that he had not learned the entire Qur’an till his death.^[67] Though problematic, this statement reflects a natural reluctance to accept that a leading companion denied any part of the Qur’an.

Al-Bukhari (256/870) seemed to find the implication problematic—he included a version of the Zirr-Ubayy report that replaced the articulation of Ibn Masʿud’s stance with a vague phrase (kadha wa kadha), suggesting scepticism about its explicit wording. Muhammad Awwama (b. 1940) has indicated that al-Bukhari himself edited the report with this consideration in mind.^[68]  While the observation does not truly hold, given that other sources also record the narration similarly,^[69] the broader point remains valid as al-Bukhari is well known for making subtle points through his careful selection of narrations.^[70]

Others, including Abu Fadl al-Razi (454/1062) and al-Baihaqi (458/1066), suggested that the omission was merely a matter of documentation in his mushaf, not a denial—an explanation supported by his approach to writing al-Fatihah.^[71] 

Al-Baqillani, approaching the issue epistemologically, argued that the overwhelming transmission of the qira’at takes precedence over ambiguities in isolated reports. He proposed multiple explanations for the confusion.^[72] Meanwhile, Makki ibn Abi Talib critically examined the Zirr-Ubayy report and highlighted that it did not support the common assumption about Ibn Masʿud’s denying al-Mu‘awwidhatain in their entirety. Ibn Hazm (456/1064) and al-Nawawi (676/1277) dismissed the attribution outright, contrasting it with the fact that Ibn Masʿud’s widely transmitted recitation included the surahs.^[73] Like al-Tahawi before him, Ibn Hajar acknowledged the ambiguity but did not fully explore its implications. Instead, he took earlier impressions at face value and sought to reconcile them, leading many later scholars to follow the same approach.^[74]

Building on al-Baqillani of Iraq and Andalusian Makki b. Abi Talib, the Damascene al-Biqaʿi, pinpointed the decisive detail: the Zirr-Ubayy report only suggested that Ibn Masʿud’s concern was with qul, not the surahs themselves. This oversight also led many to miss a key narration from Ismaʿil b. Muslim (d. after 150/767), which indicates that Ibn Masʿud later retracted his hesitation regarding qul. This resolves the tension between the reports and the well-established qira’at traditions affirming the surahs.

While Ibn Kathir (774/1373) vaguely alluded to the possibility of a retraction,^[75] it was al-Biqaʿi’s analysis—along with Ismaʿil b. Muslim’s report—that clarified the matter entirely. In the end, however, al-Nawawi’s statement remains decisive:

أجمع المسلمون على أن المعوذتين والفاتحة وسائر السور المكتوبة في المصحف قرآن وأن من جحد شيئا منه كفر وما نقل عن ابن مسعود في الفاتحة والمعوذتين باطل ليس بصحيح عنه.  قال ابن حزم في أول كتابه المحلي: هذا كذب على ابن مسعود موضوع وإنما صح عنه قراءة عاصم عن زر عن ابن مسعود وفيها الفاتحة والمعوذتان

~

The Muslims have unanimously agreed that the Mu‘awwidhatain, al-Fatiha, and all the other surahs written in the mushaf are part of the Qur’an and that whoever denies any part of it is a disbeliever. What has been transmitted from Ibn Mas‘ud regarding al-Fatiha and the Mu‘awwidhatayn is false and not proven from him. Ibn Hazm, at the beginning of al-Muhalla, stated: “This is a fabrication falsely ascribed to Ibn Masʿud; what is authentically transmitted from him is the recitation of ʿAsim from Zirr on the authority of Ibn Masʿud, which includes al-Fatiha and the Mu‘awwidhatain.^[76]

This is the crux of the matter. The entire discussion above is essentially a takhrij (qualification / source-tracing) for this established position, with the essential details drawn from early available sources.

These details confirm that while Ibn Masʿud may have omitted al-Fatiha and the Muʿawwidhatayn from his mushaf, he nevertheless affirmed their Qur’anic status without doubt.

References & Notes:

^[1] Al-Suyuti, Abu Bakr Jalal al-Din, al-Itqan fi ‘Ulum al-Qur’an, (Cairo: Al-Hay’a al-Misriyya al-‘Amma li’l-Kitab, 1974) Vol.1, 226, 270-273. For a comment on his own position, see note 74 below.

^[2] Al-Suyuti, Durr al-Manthur fi Tafsir bil-Mathur, (Beirut: Dar al-Fikr) Vol.5, 94; Also, Al-‘Asqalāni, Ibn Hajar, al-Maṭālib al-‘Aliya, Edited by Sa’d b. Nasir al-Shathri et al. (Riyadh: Dar al-Asima, 1998) Vol.14, 431 Hadith 3516.

^[3] Al-Shaibani, Muhammad b. al-Hasan, Muwatta Malik riwayah Muhammad bin al-Hasan, (Cairo: Maktaba al-‘Ilmiyya) no. 120; Ibn Abi Shaiba, Abu Bakr, al-Musannaf, Ed. Muhammad ‘Awwama (Beirut: Dar al-Qurtuba, 2006) Hadith 3743, 3772, 11512;

^[4] Al-Suyuti, Abu Bakr Jalal al-Din, Durr al-Manthur fi Tafsir bil-Mathur, (Beirut: Dar al-Fekr, n.d.) Vol.1, 10.

^[5] Al-Qurtubi, Abu ‘Abdullah, al-Jami‘ li Ahkam al-Qur’an, (Cairo: Dar al-Kutab al-Misriyya, 1964) Vol.1, 115; Ibn Kathir, ‘Imad al-Din, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-Azim, (Riyadh: Dar al-Taiba, 1999) Vol.1, 103.

^[6] Abu al-Fadl al-Razi, Ma‘ani al-Ahruf al-Sab‘a, (Qatar: Ministry of Awqaf and Religious Affairs, 2011) 528

^[7] Al-Bukhari, al-Sahih, Hadith 4977; 4976.

^[8] As in the narrations of;

(1) ‘Asim b. Bahdala from Zirr, transmitted by;

(i) Sufyan al-Thawri. See, al-San‘ani, ‘Abdul Razzaq, al-Tafsir, (Beirut: DKI, 1419) Vol.3, 479 no. 3752; al-San‘ani, ‘Abdul Razzaq, al-Musannaf, (Dabhel: Majlis al-‘Ilmi, 1983) Hadith 6040; Ibn Marduwaih, al-Tafsir al-Musnad, Vol.4, 390 no. 2538;

(ii) Ma‘mar b. Rashid. See, al-San‘ani, al-Tafsir, Vol.3, 479 no. 3753; al-San‘ani, al-Musannaf, Hadith 6040;

(iii) Shu‘ba. See, al-Tiyalsi, Abu Dawud, al-Musnad, (Cairo: Dar Hijr, 1999) Hadith 543; Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, Hadith 21185; Ibn Marduwaih, al-Tafsir al-Musnad, (Istanbul: Dar Ibn ‘Asaker, 2021) Vol.4, 388 no. 2533;

(iv) Al-A‘mash. See, Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, Hadith 21188 (From the additions by Ahmad’s son ‘Abdullah); Al-Mustaghfiri, Fada’il al-Qur’an, (Beirut: Dar Ibn Hazm, 2008) 742-3 no. 1119; Abu al-Shaikh al-Asbahani, Dhikr al-Aqran, (Beirut: DKI, 1996) 39 no. 103; Ibn Marduwaih, al-Tafsir al-Musnad, Vol.4, 389 no. 2535, 2541;

(v) Harun b. Sa‘d. See, Ibn Marduwaih, al-Tafsir al-Musnad, Vol.4, 389-90 no. 2535, 2537;

(vi) Qais b. Rabi‘. See, Ibn Marduwaih, al-Tafsir al-Musnad, Vol.4, 390 no. 2539; and

(vii) Sufyan b. ‘Uyaina via

(a) Qutaiba b. Sa‘id. See, al-Bukhari, al-Sahih, Hadith 4976; al-Nasa’i, Abu ‘Abdul Rahman, al-Sunan al-Kubra, (Beirut: al-Resalah Publishers, 2001) Vol.10, 351 Hadith 11653;

(b) ‘Abdul Rahman b. Mahdi. See, Abu ‘Ubaid, Qasim b. Sallam, Fada’il al-Qur’an, 272; Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, Hadith 21183; Al-Mustaghfiri, Abu al-‘Abbas, Fada’il al-Qur’an, 742 no. 1116

(c) Waki‘. See, Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, Hadith 21182; al-Mahamili, Husain b. Isma‘il, al-Amali, (Amman: al-Maktaba al-Islamiya, 1412) Hadith 471;

(d) Sa‘id b. Mansur. See, Ibn Marduwaih, al-Tafsir al-Musnad, Vol.4, 389 no. 2534; and

(2) ‘Abda b. Abi Lubaba from Zirr, transmitted by Sufyan b. ‘Uyaina via

(a) Sa‘dan b. Nasr. See, al-Baihaqi, Abu Bakr, al-Sunan al-Kubra, (Beirut: DKI, 2003) Hadith 4044; and

(b) ‘Ubaid Ullah b. ‘Umar al-Qawariri. See, Al-Mustaghfiri, Fada’il al-Qur’an, 741 no. 1115

(3) Minhal b. ‘Amr. See, Ibn Marduwaih, al-Tafsir al-Musnad, Vol.4, 382 no. 2527

(4) Abi Razin [Mas‘ud b. Malik]. See, Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, Hadith 21184; Ibn Marduwaih, al-Tafsir al-Musnad, Vol.4, 387 no. 2531.

In Ibn Marduwaih’s version, the report comes through Hudhaifa b. al-Yaman rather than Ubayy, likely due to an error by his student al-Zubair b. ‘Adi’s student, ‘Amr b. Abi Qais was known for making mistakes and lapses. See, al-Dhahabi, Shams al-Din, Mizan al-I‘tidal fi Naqd al-Rijal, (Beirut: Dar al-Ma‘rifa, 1963) Vol.3, 385

In Ahmad’s version, however, the narrator from al-Zubair is Sufyan al-Thawri, and his narration identifies the companion as Ubayy, which seems more reliable.

(5) Al-Hakam b. ‘Utaiba. See, Ibn al-Qaisarani, Abu al-Fadl al-Maqdisi, Atraf al-Gharaib wa al-Afarad min Hadith Rasul Allah li al-Imam al-Daraqutni, (Beirut: DKI, 1998) Vol.1, 386 no. 594.

^[9] As in the narrations of ‘Asim b. Bahdala from Zirr, transmitted by Sufyan b. ‘Uyaina via;

(a) ‘Ali b. ‘Abdullah al-Madini. See, al-Bukhari, al-Sahih, Hadith 4977.

(b) Muhammad b. Mansur al-Jawwar. See, al-Dawlabi, Abu Bishr, al-Kuna wa al-Asma’, (Beirut: Dar Ibn Hazm, 2000) Vol.1, 232 no. 418

(c) Muhammad b. ‘Abdullah b. Yazid. See al-Dawlabi, al-Kuna wa al-Asma’, Vol.1, 232 no. 418

(d) ‘Abdul Jabbar b. al-‘Ala’. See, Al-‘Asqalani, Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari bi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, (Beirut: Dar al-Ma‘rifa, 1379 AH) Vol.8, 742 citing al-Isma‘ili’s Mustakhraj ‘ala Sahih al-Bukhari.

^[10] As in the narrations of ‘Asim b. Bahdala from Zirr, transmitted by;

(i) Hammad Salama. See, Ibn al-Durais, Fada’il al-Qur’an, (Damascus: Dar al-Fekr, 1987) no. 291; Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, Hadith 21186; al-Shashi, Huthaim b. Kulaib, al-Musnad, Ed. Mahfuz al-Rahman Zain Ullah (Madina: Maktaba ‘Ulum wa al-Hikam, 1410 AH) Hadith 1469; Al-Busti, Ibn Hibban, al-Sahih, (Beirut: Al-Resalah Publishers, 1988) Hadith 797;

(ii) Zaid Abi Unaisa. See, al-Shashi, al-Musnad, Hadith 1471-1472; al-Tabarani, Abu al-Qasim, Mu‘jam al-Awsat, (Cairo: Dar al-Haramain, n.d.) Vol.2, 27 Hadith 1121; Vol.4, 331 Hadith 4351; Ibn Marduwaih, al-Tafsir al-Musnad, Vol.4, 387 no. 2530;

(iii) Abu Hamza al-Sukri. See, Al-Mustaghfiri, Fada’il al-Qur’an, 743 no. 1120

(iv) Za’ida b. Qudama. See, Ibn Abi Shaiba, al-Musannaf, Hadith 30828; and

(v) Shiban b. ‘Abdul Rahman. See, al-Shashi, al-Musnad, Hadith 1468;

(vi) ‘Ikrima b. Ibrahim. See, Ibn Marduwaih, al-Tafsir al-Musnad, Vol.4, 386 no. 2529;

(vii) Abu ‘Awana [al-Waddah b. ‘Abdullah al-Yashkuri]. See, Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, Hadith 21187; Ibn Marduwaih, al-Tafsir al-Musnad, Vol.4, 388 no. 2532;

(viii) Al-Nu‘man b. Rashid al-Jazari . See, Ibn Marduwaih, Abu Bakr, Juz’ fihi Ahadith Abi Muhammad ‘Abdullah b. Muhammad b. Ja‘far b. Hayyan, (Riyadh: Maktaba al-Rushd, 1414 AH) 70 (no. 19)

^[11] As in a narration of ‘Asim b. Bahdala from Zirr, transmitted by Malik b. Mighwal. See, al-Tahawi, Sharh Mushkil al-Athar, Hadith 121; al-Shashi, al-Musnad, Hadith 1470

^[12] As in the narrations of ‘Asim b. Bahdala from Zirr, transmitted by;

(i) Mansur b. al-Mu‘tamir. See, Al-Mustaghfiri, Fada’il al-Qur’an, 323 no. 362;

(ii) Muhammad b. Khalid. See, Ibn Marduwaih, al-Tafsir al-Musnad, Vol.4, 389 no. 2535-6;

and the narration of ‘Asim and ‘Abda together transmitted by

(iii) Sufyan b. ‘Uyaina via

(a) al-Shafi‘i. See, al-Tahawi, Abu Ja‘far, Sharh Mushkil al-Athar, (Beirut: Al-Resalah Publishers, 1994) Hadith 118; al-Baihaqi, Abu Bakr, Ma‘rifa al-Sunan wa al-Athar, (Cairo: Dar al-Wafa, 1991) Hadith 4838

(b) al-Humaidi. See, al-Humaidi, Abu Bakr, al-Musnad, (Damascus: Dar al-Saqa, 1996) Hadith 378; al-Tahawi, Sharh Mushkil al-Athar, Hadith 119; al-Baihaqi, al-Sunan al-Kubra, Hadith 4045; and

(c) Ahmad b. Hanbal. See, Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, Hadith 21189.

^[13] Only in a narration of Mansur b. al- Mu‘tamir from ‘Asim from Zirr. See, Al-Mustaghfiri, Fada’il al-Qur’an, 323 no. 362;

^[14] Only in a narration of Mansur b. al- Mu‘tamir from ‘Asim from Zirr. See, Al-Busti, Ibn Hibban, al-Sahih, Hadith 4429;

^[15] Only in a narration of Abu Bakr b. ‘Ayyash from ‘Asim from Zirr. See, al-Tahawi, Sharh Mushkil al-Athar, Hadith 120;

^[16] Al-Shafi‘i, Muhammad b. Idris, al-Umm, (Beirut: Dar al-Ma‘rifa, 1990) Vol.7, 199; Ibn Abi Shaiba, al-Musannaf, Hadith 30831; Al-Mustaghfiri, Fada’il al-Qur’an, 742 no. 1118; al-Tabarani, Abu al-Qasim, al-Mu‘jam al-Kabir, (Cairo: Maktaba Ibn Taimiya, 1994)  Vol.9, 234 Hadith 9149;

^[17] As in the narrations (from al-Sabi‘i) by;

(1) Shu‘ba. See, al-Tabarani, al-Mu‘jam al-Kabir, no. 9149;

(2) Abu al-Ahwas. See, Ibn Abi Shaiba, al-Musannaf, no. 30831

(3) Sufyan al-Thawri via Waki‘. See, See, Al-Shafi‘i, al-Umm, Vol.7, 199.

^[18] As in the narration by Sufyan al-Thawri via Abu Nu‘aim Fadl b. Dukain. See, Al-Tabarani, al-Mu‘jam al-Kabir, Vol.9, 235 Hadith 9148

^[19] As in the narration of Sufyan al-Thawri via Abu ‘Asim. See, Ibn Shabbah, Abu Zaid, Tarikh al-Madina, (Jeddah: Syed Ahmad Mahmud, 1399 AH) Vol.3, 1010-11;

^[20] As in the narration (from al-Sabi‘i) by al-A‘mash. See, Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, Hadith 21188 (From the additions by Ahmad’s son ‘Abdullah); Abu al-Shaikh al-Asbahani, Dhikr al-Aqran, (Beirut: DKI, 1996) 39 no. 102; al-Tabarani, al-Mu‘jam al-Kabir, Vol.9, 235 Hadith 9150; Ibn Marduwaih, al-Tafsir al-Musnad, Vol.4, 389 no. 2541; al-Baihaqi, Abu Bakr, Ma‘rifa al-Sunan wa al-Athar, Hadith 4839; Ibn ‘Asakir, Abu al-Qasim, Tarikh Damishq, (Beirut: Dar al-Fekr, 1995) Vol.51, 36.

^[21] Ibn Marduwaih, al-Tafsir al-Musnad, Vol.4, 390 no., 2537.

^[22] Al-Tabarani, al-Mu‘jam al-Kabir, Vol.9, 235 Hadith 9151

^[23] Al-Bazzar, Abu Bakr, al-Musnad, (Madina: Maktaba al-‘Ulum wa al-Hikam, 1997) Vol.5, 29 Hadith 1586; al-Tabarani, al-Mu‘jam al-Kabir, Vol.9, 235 Hadith 9152; Al-‘Asqalāni, Ibn Hajar, al-Maṭālib al-‘Aliya, Edited by Sa’d b. Nasir al-Shathri et al. (Riyadh: Dar al-Asima, 1998) Vol.15, 484 Hadith 3795; Ibn Marduwaih, al-Tafsir al-Musnad, Vol.4, 385 no. 2528; Ibn Kathir, ‘Imad al-Din, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-Azim, (Riyadh: Dar al-Taiba, 1999) Vol.8, 530-531

^[24] Ibn Abi Shaiba, al-Musannaf, no. 30838; Also, Abu ‘Ubaid, Qasim b. Sallam, Fada’il al-Qur’an, (Beirut: Dar Ibn Kathir, 1995) 318.

^[25] al-Humaidi, al-Musnad, Hadith 378;

^[26] Ibn Khuzaima, Abu Bakr, al-Sahih, (Beirut: Makatab al-Islami, 2003) Hadith 536; Al-Hakim, Abu ‘Abdullah, al-Mustadrak, (Beirut: DKI, 1990) Hadith 876 ; Al-Mustaghfiri, Fada’il al-Qur’an, Vol.2, 739, 748 no. 1109, 1131;

^[27] Al-Sijistani, Abu Dawud, al-Sunan, Hadith 1462; al-Nasa’i, Abu ‘Abdul Rahman, al-Sunan, Hadith 5436-7; Ibn Abi Shaiba, al-Musannaf, no. 3708, 30837; Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, Hadith 17296, 17350;

^[28] Al-Tahawi, Abu Ja‘far, Sharh Mushkil al-Athar, (Beirut: Al-Resalah Publishers, 1994) Vol.1, 67-69;

^[29] Al-‘Asqalani, Fath al-Bari, Vol.8, 743;

^[30] Makki b. Abi Talib, Abu Muhammad, al-Hidaya fi Bulugh al-Nihaya, (Sharjah: Sharjah University, 2008) Vol.12, 8505;

^[31] Al-Biqaʿi, Burhan al-Din, Masa‘id al-Nazar lil-Ishraf  ‘ala Maqasid Al-Suwar, (Riyadh: Maktabat al-Ma‘arif, 1987) Vol.3, 313

^[32] Al-Biqaʿi, Masa‘id al-Nazar lil-Ishraf  ‘ala Maqasid Al-Suwar, Vol.3, 313

^[33] Al-‘Asqalani, Fath al-Bari, Vol.8, 743;

^[34] Ibn Abi Dawud, Abu Bakr, Kitab al-Masahif, (Kuwait: Gheras, 2006) 554 no. 403

^[35] Al-Tabarani, al-Mu‘jam al-Kabir, Vol.10, 132 Hadith 10211; al-Tabarani, Mu‘jam al-Awsat, Vol.4, 12 Hadith 3488;

^[36] Al-‘Asqalani, Fath al-Bari, Vol.8, 743;

^[37] Al-Tirmidhi, Abu ‘Isa, al-Jami‘ al-Sahih bi Tahqiq wa Sharh Ahmad Muhammad Shakir, (Cairo: Maktaba Mustafa al-Babi, 1937) Vol.1, 452-454; See also, Ibn Sa’d, Muhammad, al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, (Beirut: Dar al-Kotob al-‘Ilmiyah, 1990) Vol.7, 203;

^[38] Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, Edited by Ahmad Muhammad Shakir, (Cairo: Dar al-Hadith, 1995) Vol.2, 321 Hadith 1689

^[39] He says, “He was not the best in memory, but a group has accepted his reports” (innahu laisa bil-hafiz wa qad ihtamala al-jama‘ah hadithahu). Al-Bazzar, al-Musnad, Vol.13, 219 (no. 6698). Also see, Ibid.,Vol.17, 179. He also says: “He has been criticised, yet a large group of scholars narrated from him” (qad tukullima fihi wa rawa ‘anhu jama‘ah kathirah min ahl al-‘ilm). See, Ibid., Vol.11, 113.

^[40] al-Mizzi, Jamal al-Din, Tahdhib al-Kamal fi Asma’ al-Rijal, Ed. Bashar ‘Awad Ma‘ruf, (Beirut: al-Resalah Publishers, 1980) Vol.12, 313-315; Al-‘Asqalani, Fath al-Bari, Vol.1, 436;

^[41] Malik b. Anas, al-Muwatta, (Abu Dhabi, Moassasah Zaid bin Nahyan, 2004) Vol.3, 763 no. 1951.

^[42] al-San‘ani, ‘Abdul Razzaq, al-Musannaf, Hadith 15946; al-Tabari, Abu Ja’far, Jami‘ al-Bayan fi Tafsir ay al-Qur’an, (Beirut: al-Resalah Publishers, 2000) Vol.1, 55 no. 58. Also see, Abu ‘Ubaid, Fada’il al-Qur’an, 355; Ibn Abi Shaiba, al-Musannaf, no. 30733; Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, Hadith 3845; al-Tabari, Jami‘ al-Bayan, Vol.1, 28 no. 18; Al-Tabarani, al-Mu‘jam al-Kabir, Vol.10, 97 Hadith 10076

^[43] Muqatil b. Suleman, al-Tafsir, (Beirut: Dar Ihya’ al-Turath, 1423 AH) Vol.4, 935.

^[44] Al-Sijistani, Abu Dawud, al-Sunan, Hadith 1462; Ibn Abi Shaiba, al-Musannaf, no. 3708, 30837; Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, Hadith 20745;

^[45] Muhammad Taqi Usmani (supervisor), Al-Mudawwana al-Jami‘a li’l-Ahadith al-Marwiyya ‘an al-Nabi al-Karim, (Karachi/Damascus: Maktaba Dar al-‘Ulum/Dar al-Qalam, 2021), Vol. 1, 639, nos. 2664/1, 2665 citing Sa‘id b. Mansur and Ibn Marduwaih.

^[46] Al-Mustaghfiri, Fada’il al-Qur’an, Vol.2, 742 no. 1132; Ibn al-Muqri’, Abu Bakr, al-Mu‘jam, (Riyadh: Maktaba al-Rushd, 1998) 180 no. 544; Four successive narrators in the isnad for this report namely, Ali b. Jamil, Khalid b. Hayyan, ‘Ubaida b. Hassan, and ‘Abdullah b. Kurz are all weak. Cf. Al-Daraqutni, Abu al-Hasan, al-‘Ilal al-Warida fi al-Ahadith al-Nabawiyya, (Dammam: Dar Ibn Jawzi, 2006) Vol.13, 26-27

^[47] Ibn Abi Shaiba, al-Musannaf, no. 36909; Ibn ‘Asakir, Tarikh Damishq, Vol.37, 445; Ibn Kathir, Abu al-Fida’, al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya, (Qatar: Ministry of Awqaf and Religious Affairs, 2015) Vol.9, 37.

^[48] Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, Hadith 2550

^[49] Ibn Abi Shaiba, al-Musannaf, no. 30833;

^[50] Al-Baqilani, Abu Bakr, al-Intisar li al-Qur’an, (Beirut: DKI, 2012) 276

^[51] Al-‘Asqalani, Ibn Hajar, Al-Gharaib al-Multaqatah min Musnad al-Firdaws, (Dubai: Dar Al Ber Society, 2022) Vol.1, 402 Hadith 142.

In Musnad al-Firdaws, it comes with the wording “Recite the two surahs abundantly, for Allah will benefit you in the Hereafter.”(astakthiru min al-suratain yanfa‘ukum Allah fi al-akhirah) See, al-Dailami, Shairwaih b. Shahrdar, Kitab Firdaws al-Akhbar bi-Ma’thur al-Khitab al-Mukhraj ‘ala Kitab al-Shihab, (Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-‘Arabi, 1987) 119 (no. 264). Also al-Hindi, Ali al-Muttaqi, Kanzul ‘Ummal, (Beirut: al-Resalah Publishers, 1981) Hadith 2743.

A secondary source has it as, “Recite the Al-Mu‘awwidhatain abundantly, for Allah will benefit you through them in the Hereafter.” (astakthiru min al-mu‘awwidhatain yanfa‘ukum Allah bihima fi al-akhirah). See, Al-Safuri, ‘Abd al-Rahman b. ‘Abd al-Salam, Nuzhat al-Majalis wa-Muntakhab al-Nafa’is, (Cairo: Al-Matba‘ah al-Kastiliyyah, 1866) Vol.2, 124

^[52] Ibn ‘Adi, Abu Ahmad al-Jurjani, Al-Kamil fi Du‘afa al-Rijal, (Beirut: DKI, 1997) Vol.7, 330-331, 342

^[53] Cf. Ibn Hajar’s commented about him elsewhere as, “Truthful (saduq), but he lost his books, so his memory deteriorated, and he made many errors. He later became blind and had to be prompted. Abu Hatim preferred him over Ibn Lahi‘ah.” See, al-‘Asqalani, Ibn Hajar, Taqrib al-Tahdhib, (Halab: Dar al-Rashid, 1986) 471 no. 5777

^[54] Ibn Abi Shaiba, al-Musannaf, no. 30832;

^[55] Ibn Abi Shaiba, al-Musannaf, no. 30829-30;

^[56] Abu al-Fadl al-Razi, Ma‘ani al-Ahruf al-Sab‘a, 528

^[57] Abu al-Fadl al-Razi, Ma‘ani al-Ahruf al-Sab‘a, 528

^[58] Ibn Qutaibah Al-Dainawari, Ta’wil Mushkil al-Qur’an, (Beirut: DKI, 1978) Vol.1, 34-35

^[59] Sa’id ibn Bashir, Juz fihi dhikr ma unzila min al-Quran bi-Makka wa-l-Madina, riwaya Sa’id bin Bashir ‘an Qatada bin Di’ama wa Matar al-Warraq, Edited by Muhammad b. Abdullah al-Sari‘. (Riyadh: Tafsir Centre for Qur’anic Studies, 1441 /2020) 36 no. 17.

I am grateful to my friend, Farid al-Bahraini, for bringing this vital reference to my attention.

^[60] Al-Tarhuni, Muhammad b. Rizq, Mawsu‘a Fada’il Suwar wa Ayat al-Qur’an – al-Qism al-Sahih, (Dammam/Jeddah: Dar Ibn al-Qayyim/Maktaba al-‘Ilm, 1409/1414 AH) Vol.2, 371-389, 490-506

^[61] Muslim b. Hajjaj, al-Sahih, Hadith 2865 (63)

^[62] Ibn al-Jazari, Ghayat al-Nihayah fi Tabaqat al-Qurra’. (Cairo: Dar al-Lu’lu’a, 2017) Vol. 2, 529.

^[63] Al-Ansari, Muhammad b. Nizamuddin, Fawatih al-Rahamut bi Sharh Musallam al-Thabut (Beirut: DKI, 2002) Vol.2, 12.

^[64] Al-Khattabi, Abu Suleman, ‘Alam ul-Hadith, (Makkah: Jami‘a Umm al-Qura’, 1988) Vol.3, 1855; Al-Qurtubi, al-Jami‘ li Ahkam al-Qur’an, Vol.1, 59

^[65] Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, Vol.35, 118 no. 21189; Ibn Qutaibah Al-Dainawari,, Ta’wil Mushkil al-Qur’an, Vol.1, 34; Al-Bazzar, al-Musnad, Vol.5, 29 (no. 1586).

^[66] Al-Alusi, Shahab al-Din Mahmud, Ruh al-Ma‘ani fi Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Azim wa Sab‘a al-Mathani, (Beirut: DKI, 1415 AH) Vol.1, 26-27; Vol. 15, 517

^[67] Al-Qurtubi, al-Jami‘ li Ahkam al-Qur’an, Vol.1, 53

^[68] ‘Awwama, Muhammad, Hadhf Taraf min al-Hadith al-Wahid Ikhtisaran lahu aw I‘lanan, (Jeddah: Dar al-Minhaj, 2017) 15-17;

^[69] See citations at note 9 above.

^[70] al-Hila, Dr. Nur Mahmud, Juhud al-Muhaddithin fi Dabt Alfaz al-Ahadith al-Nabawiyya-  Sahih al-Bukhari Anmudhajan, (Amman: Dar al-Rayaheen, 2022) 435-548

^[71] Abu al-Fadl al-Razi, Ma‘ani al-Ahruf al-Sab‘a, 528; al-Baihaqi, Abu Bakr, Dala’il al-Nubuwwa, (Beirut: DKI, 1405 AH) Vol.7, 154;

^[72] Al-Baqilani, al-Intisar li al-Qur’an, 259-280

^[73] See the quotation and corresponding citations below

^[74] It is noteworthy that al-Suyuti recognised Ibn Hajar’s acknowledgement of ambiguity in Ubayy’s response. However, he, too, failed to grasp that this ambiguity arose from assuming the statement referred to the entirety of al-Mu‘awwidhatain. See Al-Tawshih Sharh al-Jami‘ al-Sahih (Riyadh: Maktaba al-Rushd, 1998), Vol. 7, 3163. Consequently, he treated Ibn Mas‘ud’s presumed denial of the two surahs as a fact. See Tafsir al-Baydawi ma‘ Hashiyat al-Suyuti Nawahid al-Abkar wa-Shawarid al-Afkar (Istanbul: Maktaba al-Irshad, 2022), Vol. 1, 80.

Interestingly, a recent Principal of Dar al-‘Ulum Deoband, Mufti Sa’id Ahmad Palanpuri (d. 2020), highlighted the qul-specific import of the hadith in his Urdu commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari. See Palanpuri, Tuhfah al-Qari Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, (Deoband: Maktaba Hijaz, 2014), Vol. 9, p. 638.

^[75] Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-Azim, Vol.8, 531.

^[76] Al-Nawawi, Yahya b. Sharaf, al-Majmu‘ Sharh al-Muhadhdhab, (Riyadh: Bait al-Afkar al-Dawliyya, 2005) Vol.1, 712; Also see, Ibn Hazm, Abu Muhammad, al-Muhalla bi al-Athar, (Beirut: Dar al-Fekr, n.d.) Vol.1, 32

Revised on March 02, 2025.