The Apostasy of ‘Abdullah ibn Sa‘d ibn Abi Sarh: Why Muhammad’s Revelation Scribe Left Islam

Introduction

Islamic tradition presents ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Sarh not merely as an ordinary Companion, but as an educated Qurayshi and one of Muhammad’s scribes of revelation. This identification raises a profound question: why would someone entrusted with recording revelation abandon the religion and accuse Muhammad of allowing him to participate in composing that very message? If he genuinely wrote down the Qur’an at Muhammad’s direction, he should have had firsthand experience of how revelation was spoken, heard, recorded, and checked. Reports that his doubts arose from that experience cannot simply be dismissed as the story of an individual losing his faith. They directly challenge the Qur’an’s claimed divine origin and the reliability of the process through which its text was recorded.

If Muhammad was himself illiterate, how did he ensure that his scribe wrote precisely the words he had dictated? An illiterate person cannot inspect another person’s writing by reading it, but can have the writer read it aloud for verification. This makes the question more specific: was the written text routinely read back? If so, how were altered words detected? And if altered wording was read back and nevertheless approved, the problem extends beyond a scribe’s carelessness or the prophet’s illiteracy. It reaches the fundamental question of which words were accepted as revelation, and by what standard. For a text whose every word is claimed to have come from Allah, the allegation that a writer’s suggestions or substitutions were accepted is extremely serious.

Several early Islamic exegetical and historical accounts preserve allegations that ‘Abdullah deliberately changed words. Some describe him substituting one divine attribute for another; others report that Muhammad approved the altered text as equivalent or acceptable after it was read aloud to him. Drawing on this experience, ‘Abdullah claimed that he too could produce statements like those proclaimed in Muhammad’s name. The uncomfortable question is this: if revelation truly descended from Allah in specific words, how could a scribe’s chosen alternatives acquire the same status? Does similarity of meaning make two different formulations the same divine utterance? If the scribe’s suggestions were acceptable, where did his contribution to the Qur’an’s wording end and the alleged divine instruction begin? How could that boundary be established?

This also brings into view Islamic reports concerning Muhammad’s memory and his forgetting Qur’anic verses. A message was spoken, a scribe wrote it down, and the writing was then read aloud again for approval: the entire arrangement depended on human memory, hearing, linguistic understanding, and mutual trust. Yet the religious claim presents the product of this human process as the unchanged word of an infallible God. To test that claim, it is not enough to say that Allah preserved it. We need answers about how preservation actually worked, which alterations were rejected, which were accepted, and what evidence establishes this. If ‘Abdullah’s allegation was true, it also raises the question of whether any part of the present text contains a formulation composed or selected by a scribe. If it was false, demonstrating its falsity likewise requires verifiable grounds beyond religious allegiance.

‘Abdullah’s doubts did not end with the allegation of verbal substitutions. Islamic works also preserve an account in which a phrase of praise in Surah al-Mu’minun was accepted as part of revelation after he himself uttered it. According to this narrative, he wondered: if Muhammad receives revelation, how should I explain the same words emerging from my own mouth? And if Muhammad composes these statements himself, then I too can speak as he does. He consequently returned to Mecca and used his experience to challenge Muhammad’s claim to prophethood. Was this merely an individual’s rebellion, or an allegation deeply unsettling for Islam because it arose from the experience of someone responsible for recording revelation? The question is not whether to assume in advance that any individual was truthful or dishonest, but how well the history offered in support of a religious claim withstands scrutiny of that claim.

---

Surah al-Mu’minun: The Allegation of Human Intervention

One of the widely discussed accounts associated with ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Sarh’s apostasy concerns the recording of verses 12–14 of Surah al-Mu’minun. The passage describes human creation in God’s first-person voice: the sperm-drop, the clot, the lump of flesh, the bones, their covering with flesh, and finally the development into another creation. In the Arabic text, these actions are expressed through verb forms meaning ‘We’; many Bengali translations render them with ‘I’. The verse’s concluding sentence, however, is: ‘So blessed is Allah, the best of creators!’ The language shifts from an account of the speaker’s own creative acts to praise of Allah by name. When this shift is read alongside the account preserved in Islamic exegesis of a human being spontaneously uttering that praise, the issue extends beyond literary ornament. It becomes a question about the sentence’s origin and its acceptance as revelation. ^[1]

According to the account, while Muhammad was instructing ‘Abdullah to write the verses about human creation, the description impressed ‘Abdullah, who exclaimed, ‘Fa-tabaraka Allahu ahsanu al-khaliqin’—‘So blessed is Allah, the best of creators!’ Muhammad then stated that this sentence too had been revealed to him. The Bengali account in Tafsir al-Mazhari also includes an instruction to record it. The significance of the episode is that the correspondence between a phrase uttered as the writer’s own response and the language claimed as revelation led the writer himself to doubt. When a scribe can formulate a sentence from his own understanding, what criterion distinguishes divine revelation from human composition in that same sentence? The account raises the question of whether any means of verifying its origin existed beyond Muhammad’s declaration. ^[2]

Surah al-Mu’minun, verse 14:
ثُمَّ خَلَقْنَا النُّطْفَةَ عَلَقَةً فَخَلَقْنَا الْعَلَقَةَ مُضْغَةً فَخَلَقْنَا الْمُضْغَةَ عِظَامًا فَكَسَوْنَا الْعِظَامَ لَحْمًا ثُمَّ أَنْشَأْنَاهُ خَلْقًا آخَرَ فَتَبَارَكَ اللَّهُ أَحْسَنُ الْخَالِقِينَ

Then We made the sperm-drop into a clinging clot, and We made the clot into a lump [of flesh], and We made [from] the lump, bones, and We covered the bones with flesh; then We developed him into another creation. So blessed is Allāh, the best of creators.
— Saheeh International

Then I transform the sperm-drop into congealed blood; then transform the lump of flesh into bones; then cover the bones with flesh; then develop him into a new creation. How great, then, is Allah, the best of creators!
— Taisirul Quran (translated from the Bengali rendering)

Then I transform the sperm-drop into a blood-clot; then transform the blood-clot into a lump of flesh and transform the lump of flesh into a skeleton; then cover the skeleton with flesh; finally, fashion him into another creation. How blessed, then, is Allah, the most accomplished creator!
— Sheikh Mujibur Rahman (translated from the Bengali rendering)

Then I transform the sperm-drop into an ‘alaqah. Then transform the ‘alaqah into a lump of flesh. Then transform the lump of flesh into bones. Then cover the bones with flesh. Thereafter, fashion him into another creation. So blessed is Allah, the best of creators!
— Rawai al-Bayan (translated from the Bengali rendering)

In the English and various Bengali translations, the creative acts are narrated in the first person, while the concluding sentence praises Allah by name. A change of grammatical person is not the same as a change of actual speaker: a speaker can refer to himself by name. But this linguistic observation does not resolve the episode preserved about ‘Abdullah. The allegation is more specific: the scribe uttered the sentence praising Allah as his own response, and Muhammad identified it as a sentence revealed to him. The question, therefore, is not simply why the verse uses the third person, but how the claimed divine origin of a sentence spontaneously spoken by a human being can be verified. Declaring the correspondence with human speech miraculous does not establish what caused it.

---

The Account in Tafsir al-Mazhari

The Bengali translation of Tafsir al-Mazhari provides a detailed account of the episode. Its discussion brings together the allegation that ‘Abdullah changed words, his utterance of a phrase of praise on hearing the verses about human creation, the instruction to record that phrase, and his consequent apostasy. It then adds his return to Islam, ‘Uthman’s intercession, and an account of his religious standing later in life. Notably, although the work praises ‘Abdullah’s subsequent life, it does not omit the troubling episode in which his doubts arose while recording revelation. The claim concerning his later faith cannot therefore erase the logical questions raised by the earlier allegation. The fact that someone later returned to belief does not itself determine which statements concerning his previous experience were true or false. ^[3]

It then says: ‘And who is more unjust than one who says, “I too shall send down the like of what Allah has sent down”?’ Al-Baghawi said that this statement was revealed concerning ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Sarh.
When ‘Abdullah embraced Islam, the Messenger appointed him to record the Qur’an. But he was not trustworthy. When the Messenger said ‘sami‘an basiran’ [hearing, seeing], he wrote ‘‘aliman hakiman’ [knowing, wise]. Again, when the Messenger said ‘‘aliman hakiman’, he wrote ‘ghafuran rahiman’ [forgiving, merciful]. One day the verse ‘Wa-laqad khalaqna al-insana min sulalatin min tin’ [I have created man from an extract of clay] was revealed. The Messenger instructed him to write down the newly revealed verse. ‘Abdullah was greatly impressed by this verse about human creation. He suddenly exclaimed, ‘Fa-tabaraka Allahu ahsanu al-khaliqin’ [How excellent a creator Allah is]. The Messenger said, ‘Record this sentence too. This verse has also just been revealed.’ Hearing this, ‘Abdullah thought: ‘How astonishing! Revelation descends upon me too, then.’ This line of thought led him to apostasy, and he joined the polytheists. ‘Ikrimah, Ibn Jarir, and al-Suddi also mentioned this episode. Its details will be given in the appropriate place.
Al-Baghawi stated that before the conquest of Mecca, when the Messenger was staying at Marr al-Zahran, the repentant ‘Abdullah returned and embraced Islam again. Hafiz Fath al-Din ibn Sayyid al-Nas stated in his biography of the Messenger that ‘Uthman interceded for ‘Abdullah at that time, and the Messenger accepted his intercession. In later life ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Sarh was a sincere believer. No one subsequently doubted his acceptance of Islam. Finally, he died while prostrating.

---

Al-Wahidi’s Account: Doubt Arising from the Scribe’s Own Words

In Asbab al-Nuzul, al-Wahidi mentions the episode while explaining part of Surah al-An‘am 6:93. The logic of ‘Abdullah’s doubt is explicitly expressed in the account he preserves: if Muhammad was truthful, the same words emerging from my mouth mean that I too received revelation; if he was lying, I too could say what he said. The importance of this statement is that ‘Abdullah’s apostasy is not explained solely through greed, hostility, or arbitrary disobedience. A specific experience while recording revelation is presented as the source of his doubt. Al-Wahidi identifies this as a statement attributed to Ibn ‘Abbas through al-Kalbi. Reading the complete account makes clear that the correspondence between a human utterance and alleged revelation is the central issue in the narrative. ^[4]

Original Arabic:
قَوْلُهُ تَعَالَى: (وَمَنْ قَالَ سَأُنْزِلُ مِثْلَ مَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ). نَزَلَتْ فِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ سَعْدِ بْنِ أَبِي سَرْحٍ، كَانَ قَدْ تَكَلَّمَ بِالْإِسْلَامِ، فَدَعَاهُ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ – صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ – ذَاتَ يَوْمٍ يَكْتُبُ لَهُ شَيْئًا، فَلَمَّا نَزَلَتِ الْآيَةُ الَّتِي فِي الْمُؤْمِنُونَ: (وَلَقَدْ خَلَقْنَا الْإِنْسَانَ مِنْ سُلَالَةٍ) أَمْلَاهَا عَلَيْهِ، فَلَمَّا انْتَهَى إِلَى قَوْلِهِ: (ثُمَّ أَنْشَأْنَاهُ خَلْقًا آخَرَ) عَجِبَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ فِي تَفْصِيلِ خَلْقِ الْإِنْسَانِ، فَقَالَ: تَبَارَكَ اللَّهُ أَحْسَنُ الْخَالِقِينَ، فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ – صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ -: (هَكَذَا أُنْزِلَتْ عَلَيَّ)، فَشَكَّ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ حِينَئِذٍ وَقَالَ: لَئِنْ كَانَ مُحَمَّدٌ صَادِقًا لَقَدْ أُوحِيَ إِلَيَّ كَمَا أُوحِيَ إِلَيْهِ، وَلَئِنْ كَانَ كَذَّابًا لَقَدْ قُلْتُ كَمَا قَالَ، وَذَلِكَ قَوْلُهُ: (وَمَنْ قَالَ سَأُنْزِلُ مِثْلَ مَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ) وَارْتَدَّ عَنِ الْإِسْلَامِ، وَهَذَا قَوْلُ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ فِي رِوَايَةِ الْكَلْبِيِّ.

English translation:
God’s statement, ‘And whoever says, “I will reveal the like of what God has revealed,”’ was revealed concerning ‘Abdullah ibn Sa‘d ibn Abi Sarh. He had professed Islam. One day, the Messenger of God summoned him to write something down. When the verse in Surah al-Mu’minun, ‘We created man from an extract,’ was revealed, he instructed him to write it. When he reached ‘Then We developed him into another creation,’ ‘Abdullah marvelled at the detailed description of human creation and said, ‘Blessed is God, the best of creators!’ The Messenger of God then said, ‘This is how it was revealed to me.’ At that point, ‘Abdullah began to doubt and said, ‘If Muhammad is truthful, then revelation has come to me just as it has come to him. If he is a liar, then I have said what he has said.’ This is the meaning of the statement, ‘And whoever says, “I will reveal the like of what God has revealed.”’ He abandoned Islam. This is Ibn ‘Abbas’s statement as transmitted in al-Kalbi’s account.

In al-Wahidi’s account, Muhammad’s statement is, ‘This is how it was revealed to me.’ These words do not establish precisely whether he had received the phrase before or after ‘Abdullah uttered it. What the account does clearly describe, however, is the experience confronting ‘Abdullah: he expressed a sentence arising from his own understanding, and Muhammad identified that sentence as the wording of revelation. What evidence, beyond the speaker’s assertion, establishes that a sentence a human being can naturally formulate is the word of God? The incident supplies no answer. This is precisely where ‘Abdullah’s doubt lies: if the same sentence can arise from his own mind, why must a separate supernatural origin be assumed when it comes from Muhammad’s mouth? Answering this question requires more than attributing the coincidence to ‘God’s will,’ because that explanation already presupposes the existence of the God and the authenticity of the revelation under examination.

The account also helps distinguish two separate claims. One is that the scribe himself uttered a sentence; the other is that a humanly composed sentence thereby entered the Qur’an. Al-Wahidi’s narrative describes the first event and shows how it gave rise to ‘Abdullah’s second doubt. Refuting that doubt requires a verifiable explanation of his experience. Calling him an apostate, pointing to his later acceptance of Islam, or assuming Muhammad’s declaration to be true from the outset supplies no such explanation of the sentence’s origin. The burden of establishing the authenticity of a claim to revelation rests with the claimant; morally condemning the scribe who expressed doubt does not discharge that burden.

---

Al-Tabari’s Account: The Allegation of Approval after the Altered Text Was Read Back

The question of human intervention is not confined to the expression of praise in Surah al-Mu’minun. In his Jami‘ al-Bayan, commenting on verse 93 of Surah al-An‘am, al-Tabari preserves an account attributed to ‘Ikrimah that explicitly describes ‘Abdullah’s substitution of words and his reading of the altered text back to Muhammad. It alleges that he wrote ‘Forgiving, Merciful’ in place of expressions such as ‘Mighty, Wise,’ and that Muhammad approved the text after hearing it, saying, ‘Yes, it is the same.’ This account matters because it goes beyond the question of whether Muhammad’s inability to read prevented him from inspecting the written text. According to the allegation, the substituted words reached his ears, and he nevertheless accepted them. Alongside the question of whether a procedure for checking the text existed, it therefore raises the question of what principle made different words acceptable during that checking process. ^[5]

Original Arabic:
١٣٥٥٥ – حدثنا القاسم قال: حدثنا الحسين، قال حدثني حجاج، عن ابن جريج، عن عكرمة قوله: «ومن أظلم ممن افترى على الله كذبا أو قال أوحي إلي ولم يوح إليه شيء»، قال: نزلت في مسيلمة أخي بني عدي بن حنيفة، فيما كان يسجع ويتكهن به. «ومن قال سأنزل مثل ما أنزل الله» نزلت في عبد الله بن سعد بن أبي سرح، أخي بني عامر بن لؤي، كان كتب للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم، وكان فيما يملى «عزيز حكيم» فيكتب «غفور رحيم» فيغيره، ثم يقرأ عليه «كذا وكذا» لما حول، فيقول: «نعم، سواء». فرجع عن الإسلام ولحق بقريش وقال لهم: لقد كان ينزل عليه «عزيز حكيم» فأحوله، ثم أقرأ ما كتبت، فيقول: «نعم سواء»! ثم رجع إلى الإسلام قبل فتح مكة، إذ نزل النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بمر.

English translation:
13555—Al-Qasim related to us: al-Husayn related to us; he said: Hajjaj related to me, through Ibn Jurayj, from ‘Ikrimah. Concerning the statement, ‘Whoever fabricates a lie about God or says, “Revelation has come to me,” when no revelation has come to him,’ he said: this was revealed concerning Musaylimah of Banu ‘Adi ibn Hanifah, who spoke in rhymed prose and delivered utterances like a soothsayer. As for ‘Whoever says, “I will reveal the like of what God has revealed,”’ this was revealed concerning ‘Abdullah ibn Sa‘d ibn Abi Sarh of Banu ‘Amir ibn Lu’ayy. He used to write for the Prophet. When what he was instructed to write included ‘Mighty, Wise,’ he would write ‘Forgiving, Merciful,’ making substitutions in this way. He would then read the altered passage back to him, and he would say, ‘Yes, it is the same.’ ‘Abdullah subsequently abandoned Islam and joined the Quraysh. He told them: ‘“Mighty, Wise” would be revealed to him, and I would change it. Then I would read back what I had written, and he would say, “Yes, it is the same!”’ Later, before the conquest of Mecca, while the Prophet was staying at a place called Marr, he accepted Islam again.

Al-Tabari’s next report, 13556, preserves another version of the allegation through al-Suddi, together with additional events said to follow ‘Abdullah’s apostasy. Here the substitutions concern “Hearing, Knowing” and “Knowing, Wise.” The account then connects information given about ‘Ammar and al-Zubayr, their torture, and Surah al-Nahl 16:106. The account of torture belongs to this particular al-Suddi report; it is absent from the preceding ‘Ikrimah report 13555. ^[6]

Original Arabic:
١٣٥٥٦ – حدثني محمد بن الحسين قال، حدثنا أحمد بن المفضل قال: حدثنا أسباط، عن السدي: «ومن أظلم ممن افترى على الله كذبًا أو قال أوحي إليّ ولم يوحَ إليه شيء» إلى قوله: «تُجْزَوْنَ عَذَابَ الْهُونِ». قال: نزلت في عبد الله بن سعد بن أبي سرح، أسلم، وكان يكتب للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم، فكان إذا أملى عليه: «سميعًا عليمًا»، كتب هو: «عليمًا حكيمًا»، وإذا قال: «عليمًا حكيمًا» كتب: «سميعًا عليمًا»، فشكّ وكفر، وقال: إن كان محمد يوحى إليه فقد أوحي إليّ، وإن كان الله ينزله فقد أنزلت مثل ما أنزل الله! قال محمد: «سميعًا عليمًا» فقلت أنا: «عليمًا حكيمًا»! فلحق بالمشركين، ووشى بعمار وجبير عند ابن الحضرمي، أو لبني عبد الدار. فأخذوهم فعُذِّبوا حتى كفروا، وجُدِعت أذن عمار يومئذ. فانطلق عمار إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فأخبره بما لقي، والذي أعطاهم من الكفر، فأبى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أن يتولاه، فأنزل الله في شأن ابن أبي سرح وعمار وأصحابه: «مَنْ كَفَرَ بِاللَّهِ مِنْ بَعْدِ إِيمَانِهِ إِلا مَنْ أُكْرِهَ وَقَلْبُهُ مُطْمَئِنٌّ بِالإِيمَانِ وَلَكِنْ مَنْ شَرَحَ بِالْكُفْرِ صَدْرًا» [النحل: ١٠٦]، فالذي أكره: عمار وأصحابه، والذي شرح بالكفر صدرًا فهو ابن أبي سرح.

English translation:
13556—Muhammad ibn al-Husayn related to me; Ahmad ibn al-Mufaddal narrated; Asbat transmitted from al-Suddi. Concerning the passage beginning “Who is more unjust than one who invents a lie against God, or says revelation has come to me when none has come” and ending “You shall be given a humiliating punishment,” al-Suddi said: It was revealed concerning ‘Abdullah ibn Sa‘d ibn Abi Sarh. He had embraced Islam and wrote for Muhammad. When dictated “Hearing, Knowing,” he wrote “Knowing, Wise,” and when dictated “Knowing, Wise,” he wrote “Hearing, Knowing.” He then doubted and disbelieved, saying, “If Muhammad receives revelation, I receive revelation too! If God has revealed this, I have revealed something like what God has revealed! Muhammad said ‘Hearing, Knowing,’ and I said ‘Knowing, Wise.’” He then joined the polytheists and informed Ibn al-Hadrami, or Banu ‘Abd al-Dar, about ‘Ammar and al-Zubayr. They were seized and tortured until they were compelled to utter words of disbelief; ‘Ammar’s ear was also mutilated that day. ‘Ammar went to Muhammad and told him about his torture and the words of disbelief he had been forced to speak. Muhammad refused to take his side. Subsequently the verse “Whoever disbelieves in God after having believed—except one compelled while his heart remains firm in faith, but whoever willingly embraces disbelief…” (al-Nahl 16:106) was revealed concerning Ibn Abi Sarh, ‘Ammar, and his companions. Al-Suddi said that ‘Ammar and his companions were those who were forced, while Ibn Abi Sarh was the one who willingly accepted disbelief.

The distinction between al-Tabari’s two reports is specific: in 13555, ‘Ikrimah alleges that altered writing was read back and approved as “the same”; in 13556, al-Suddi relates different attribute-pairs, apostasy, and an additional sequence involving persecution. The second report expands the range of stories associated with ‘Abdullah, but its additional details cannot be treated as though they also appeared in the first.

The two pairs of words used here are neither identical in wording nor exactly identical in meaning. ‘Mighty, Wise’ and ‘Forgiving, Merciful’ may both be used as attributes of God, but substituting one description for another changes what a sentence says. The religious acceptability of both expressions of praise does not establish that both pairs of words were equally revealed in a particular verse. For a text presented as God’s specific words, the distinction between what was actually spoken and what the scribe subsequently selected is fundamental. If the allegation is true, the approval ‘Yes, it is the same’ creates the problem of granting a humanly selected alternative the status of revelation. If the allegation is false, the grounds for rejecting it must address this particular account. Simply beginning with the proposition that the Qur’an cannot have been altered makes the claim serve as its own proof.

Although al-Tabari preserves these allegations, he describes ‘Abdullah’s claim as false in his own interpretation. The fact that the allegation appears in al-Tabari’s work is therefore distinct from the claim that al-Tabari regarded it as true. Yet his religious judgment does not, by itself, establish the allegation’s historical falsity. What matters is that this challenge arising from a revelation scribe’s experience is preserved within the Islamic exegetical tradition itself. Examining these accounts shows that the doubt concerned more than whether a scribe could change words with his pen. It concerned the basis on which the Prophet approved altered or spontaneously uttered words as the language of revelation. ^[7]

The question of Muhammad’s memory is also relevant here. Islamic hadith literature contains accounts of his forgetting certain Qur’anic verses and recalling them after hearing someone else recite them. There is nothing unusual about the limitations of human memory. But declaring a process dependent on human memory to be preservation beyond error requires evidence for that guarantee. Because ‘Abdullah’s allegation includes alteration of the written text and its subsequent reading aloud, the question becomes more specific: if different words were approved after being heard, was that approval based on an accurate memory of the previously heard revelation, or on the acceptability of their meaning? These two methods do not produce the same result. The first attempts to preserve a particular text; the second allows humanly selected wording to be accepted. The relevant accounts are discussed in detail in Shongshoy’s article ‘Muhammad Used to Forget Qur’anic Verses’.

Later Muslim rhetoricians discussed such shifts in grammatical person and address under the term iltifat. Classifying a linguistic feature, however, is a different task from determining the historical origin of a particular sentence. The term iltifat can describe how the wording changes within a verse; it cannot establish whether the incident attributed to ‘Abdullah occurred or whether the sentence he uttered was accepted as part of revelation. Here, the Islamic exegetical tradition itself preserves the claim that the same sentence came from a human being’s mouth. Naming a rhetorical device does not settle that claim. ‘Abdullah’s doubt ultimately returns to the fundamental questions of whether human beings can compose Qur’anic sentences and how human composition can be distinguished from an allegedly divine text.

---

Other Classical Commentaries and Transmission Strands Preserving Allegations of Altered Revelation

The allegation that ‘Abdullah ibn Sa‘d ibn Abi Sarh altered revelation is not confined to an isolated report in al-Tabari or al-Wahidi. Across a long tradition of Islamic exegesis, works on the occasions of revelation, biographies, and historical compilations, accounts connect his apostasy with his experience as a scribe of revelation. Their central structure is broadly similar: ‘Abdullah wrote revelation for Muhammad, substituted words for those dictated to him or found that a phrase he himself had uttered coincided with the language of revelation, and consequently began to question the claimed source of Muhammad’s message. The substitutions are not identical in every report, nor is the person credited with first uttering the phrase always the same. Those differences matter: they show that several textual versions and transmission strands circulated within Islamic literature.

In particular, an early exegete, Ibn Abi Hatim, preserves a report through Abu Khalaf al-A‘ma in which ‘Abdullah says he wrote the Qur’an as he wished. The same compilation also records an allegation of specific substitutions through al-Suddi. Later authors, including al-Baghawi, al-Qurtubi, al-Razi, al-Baydawi, al-Suyuti, and Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, preserved the incident or parts of it. A distinct version also appears in the Shi‘i Tafsir al-Qummi. This is therefore not an allegation subsequently invented outside Islamic literature: it is a controversy preserved in Islamic books for centuries. The relationships between earlier sources and later citations, and between shared and distinct transmission lines, can be identified and examined.

---

Ibn Abi Hatim’s Tafsir: The Claim of Writing the Qur’an as He Wished

In Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Azim, Ibn Abi Hatim al-Razi records several reports concerning ‘Abdullah’s apostasy and allegations about recording revelation under Surah al-An‘am 6:93. Report 7624 is particularly significant. Its chain includes Ibn Abi Hatim’s father, Ibn Nufayl al-Harrani, Miskin ibn Bukayr, Ma‘an ibn Rifa‘a, and Abu Khalaf al-A‘ma. Instead of giving a detailed example involving two specific pairs of words, it attributes a broader allegation to ‘Abdullah himself. When people in Mecca asked how he had written the Qur’an for Muhammad, he replied that he had written as he pleased. ^[8]

Original Arabic:
٧٦٢٤ – حَدَّثَنَا أَبِي، ثَنَا ابْنُ نُفَيْلٍ الْحَرَّانِيُّ، ثَنَا مِسْكِينُ بْنُ بُكَيْرٍ، عَنْ مُعَانِ بْنِ رِفَاعَةَ، قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ أَبَا خَلَفٍ الْأَعْمَى، قَالَ: كَانَ ابْنُ أَبِي سَرْحٍ يَكْتُبُ لِلنَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ الْوَحْيَ، فَأَتَى أَهْلَ مَكَّةَ فَقَالُوا: يَا ابْنَ أَبِي السَّرْحِ، كَيْفَ كَتَبْتَ لِابْنِ أَبِي كَبْشَةَ الْقُرْآنَ؟ قَالَ: كُنْتُ أَكْتُبُ كَيْفَ شِئْتُ، فَأَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى: «وَمَنْ أَظْلَمُ مِمَّنِ افْتَرَى عَلَى اللَّهِ كَذِبًا».

English translation:
7624—Ibn Abi Hatim’s father reported; Ibn Nufayl al-Harrani transmitted through Miskin ibn Bukayr from Ma‘an ibn Rifa‘a. Ma‘an said: I heard Abu Khalaf al-A‘ma say that Ibn Abi Sarh used to write revelation for Muhammad. He then went to the people of Mecca. They asked, “Ibn Abi Sarh, how did you write the Qur’an for Ibn Abi Kabsha?” He replied, “I used to write however I wished.” Then God revealed the verse, “Who is more unjust than one who invents a lie against God?”

The significance of this assertion becomes clearer alongside al-Tabari’s report 13555. In al-Tabari’s ‘Ikrimah strand, Muhammad allegedly approved particular substituted wording after it was read back to him. In the Abu Khalaf strand preserved by Ibn Abi Hatim, the claim is more general: the scribe says that he was free to write as he wished. These are not verbatim copies of one another. The first describes a particular episode of checking and approval; the second concerns the degree of control the scribe claimed over his work. Whether the allegation was historically true is a separate question, but its preservation in early exegesis is clear.

Report 7626 in the same compilation provides another detailed account, this time through al-Suddi. It says that ‘Abdullah accepted Islam and wrote for Muhammad. When dictated “Hearing, Knowing,” he would write “Knowing, Wise,” and he would also reverse the substitution. He then fell into doubt and said that if Muhammad received revelation, so had he. Ibn Abi Hatim transmitted the report through Ahmad ibn al-Mufaddal and Asbat from al-Suddi. Al-Tabari’s report 13556 follows the same Ahmad ibn al-Mufaddal–Asbat–al-Suddi sequence. Their appearance in two compilations is thus not two independent attestations of the underlying report but the preservation of the same al-Suddi transmission in different works. ^{[9] [10]}

Original Arabic:
٧٦٢٦ – أَخْبَرَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ عُثْمَانَ بْنِ حَكِيمٍ الْأَوْدِيُّ، فِيمَا كَتَبَ إِلَيَّ، ثَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ الْمُفَضَّلِ، ثَنَا أَسْبَاطٌ، عَنِ السُّدِّيِّ، قَوْلَهُ: «وَمَنْ أَظْلَمُ مِمَّنِ افْتَرَى عَلَى اللَّهِ كَذِبًا أَوْ قَالَ أُوحِيَ إِلَيَّ وَلَمْ يُوحَ إِلَيْهِ شَيْءٌ» قَالَ: نَزَلَتْ فِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ سَعْدِ بْنِ أَبِي سَرْحٍ الْقُرَشِيِّ، أَسْلَمَ وَكَانَ يَكْتُبُ لِلنَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، فَكَانَ إِذَا أَمْلَى عَلَيْهِ سَمِيعًا عَلِيمًا كَتَبَ: عَلِيمًا حَكِيمًا، وَإِذَا قَالَ: عَلِيمًا حَكِيمًا كَتَبَ: سَمِيعًا عَلِيمًا، فَشَكَّ وَكَفَرَ: إِنْ كَانَ مُحَمَّدٌ يُوحَى إِلَيْهِ فَقَدْ أُوحِيَ إِلَيَّ.

English translation:
7626—Ahmad ibn ‘Uthman ibn Hakim al-Awdi wrote to me; Ahmad ibn al-Mufaddal narrated through Asbat from al-Suddi. Regarding “Who is more unjust than one who fabricates a lie against God or says, ‘Revelation has come to me,’ when nothing has been revealed to him,” al-Suddi said: It was revealed concerning ‘Abdullah ibn Sa‘d ibn Abi Sarh, of the Quraysh. He accepted Islam and wrote for Muhammad. When dictated “Hearing, Knowing,” he would write “Knowing, Wise”; when dictated “Knowing, Wise,” he would write “Hearing, Knowing.” He consequently doubted and disbelieved, saying, “If revelation has come to Muhammad, then revelation has come to me as well.”

These substitutions concern more than spelling or pronunciation. Sami‘ denotes hearing, ‘alim knowledge, and hakim wisdom. All are divine attributes, but they do not mean the same thing; replacing one with another changes the precise statement. That distinction is fundamental where a text is said to have been revealed in specific words. Ibn Abi Hatim’s two reports therefore preserve related but different allegations: a claim of freedom to write as one wished and an account of particular attribute-pairs being substituted.

---

Al-Baghawi’s Tafsir: Substituted Words and the Instruction to Record the Scribe’s Phrase

In Ma‘alim al-Tanzil, al-Baghawi relates ‘Abdullah’s work as a revelation scribe, the alleged substitutions, and the utterance of the final phrase of Surah al-Mu’minun within one continuous account under al-An‘am 6:93. According to his wording, when Muhammad dictated “Hearing, Seeing,” ‘Abdullah wrote “Knowing, Wise”; when dictated “Knowing, Wise,” he wrote “Forgiving, Merciful.” Thus at least three different pairs of attributes appear. Al-Baghawi’s wording does not exactly match either al-Tabari’s ‘Ikrimah or his al-Suddi version. ^[11]

Original Arabic:
قوله تعالى: «ومن قال سأنزل مثل ما أنزل الله» قيل: نزلت في عبد الله بن سعد بن أبي سرح، وكان قد أسلم وكان يكتب للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم، وكان إذ أملى عليه: سميعا بصيرا، كتب عليما حكيما، وإذا قال: عليما حكيما، كتب: غفورا رحيما، فلما نزلت: «ولقد خلقنا الإنسان من سلالة من طين» [المؤمنون: ١٢] أملاها عليه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، فعجب عبد الله من تفصيل خلق الإنسان، فقال: تبارك الله أحسن الخالقين، فقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم: اكتبها فهكذا نزلت، فشك عبد الله، وقال: لئن كان محمد صادقا فقد أوحي إلي كما أوحي إليه، فارتد عن الإسلام ولحق بالمشركين، ثم رجع عبد الله إلى الإسلام قبل فتح مكة إذ نزل النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بمر الظهران.

English translation:
“And whoever says, ‘I shall reveal the like of what God has revealed’”—it is said that this was revealed concerning ‘Abdullah ibn Sa‘d ibn Abi Sarh. He embraced Islam and wrote for Muhammad. When dictated “Hearing, Seeing,” he wrote “Knowing, Wise,” and when dictated “Knowing, Wise,” he wrote “Forgiving, Merciful.” When “We have created man from an extract of clay” in Surah al-Mu’minun was revealed, Muhammad instructed him to write it. Astonished by the detailed account of human creation, ‘Abdullah exclaimed, “Blessed is God, the best of creators!” Muhammad said, “Write it down; this is how it was revealed.” ‘Abdullah began to doubt and said, “If Muhammad is truthful, revelation has come to me just as it has come to him.” He then abandoned Islam and joined the polytheists. Before the conquest of Mecca, when Muhammad was staying at Marr al-Zahran, ‘Abdullah returned to Islam.

Al-Baghawi’s account does not end with the substitutions. He continues with the dictation of the verses concerning creation in Surah al-Mu’minun. Upon hearing the stages of creation, ‘Abdullah spontaneously praised God as the best of creators. Muhammad then instructed him to record that phrase and said that it had been revealed in that form. ‘Abdullah’s subsequent doubt, apostasy, and association with the polytheists follow. Al-Baghawi also places his return to Islam before the conquest of Mecca, when Muhammad was staying at Marr al-Zahran. The account thus contains a connected narrative: scribal responsibility, altered words, a spontaneous exclamation, its identification as revelation, apostasy, and eventual return.

Al-Baghawi’s account presents a particular problem: the distinction between the precise wording dictated by Muhammad and the alternatives selected by the writer. Both pairs of words might constitute praise of God, but that is different from saying that both sets of words were revealed for the same location in a text. The former concerns religious acceptability; the latter concerns the alleged divine origin of a particular wording. The scribe’s doubts in this narrative concern the second issue.

---

Al-Qurtubi’s Tafsir: Three People Credited with the Same Phrase of Praise

Al-Qurtubi’s al-Jami‘ li-Ahkam al-Qur’an discusses ‘Abdullah’s story in two important places. Under al-An‘am 6:93, he identifies ‘Abdullah as a scribe of revelation and describes his astonishment while writing the verses of Surah al-Mu’minun, followed by his apostasy. He mentions an account attributed to Ibn ‘Abbas through al-Kalbi. He also quotes a report from Shurahbil ibn Sa‘d through Ibn Ishaq describing the apostasy, the order to kill ‘Abdullah at the conquest of Mecca, and his obtaining protection through ‘Uthman. Al-Qurtubi therefore preserves both the allegation concerning the source of revelation and the subsequent political and punitive sequence. ^[12]

Original Arabic:
قوله تعالى: «ومن قال سأنزل مثل ما أنزل الله» «من» في موضع خفض، أي ومن أظلم ممن قال سأنزل، والمراد عبد الله بن أبي سرح الذي كان يكتب الوحي لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ثم ارتد ولحق بالمشركين. وسبب ذلك فيما ذكر المفسرون أنه لما نزلت الآية التي في «المؤمنون»: «ولقد خلقنا الإنسان من سلالة من طين» دعاه النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فأملاها عليه، فلما انتهى إلى قوله «ثم أنشأناه خلقا آخر» عجب عبد الله في تفصيل خلق الإنسان فقال: فتبارك الله أحسن الخالقين. فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: وهكذا أنزلت علي، فشك عبد الله حينئذ وقال: لئن كان محمد صادقا لقد أوحي إلي كما أوحي إليه، ولئن كان كاذبا لقد قلت كما قال. فارتد عن الإسلام ولحق بالمشركين، فذلك قوله: «ومن قال سأنزل مثل ما أنزل الله» رواه الكلبي عن ابن عباس. وذكره محمد بن إسحاق قال حدثني شرحبيل قال: نزلت في عبد الله بن سعد بن أبي سرح «ومن قال سأنزل مثل ما أنزل الله» ارتد عن الإسلام، فلما دخل رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم مكة أمر بقتله وقتل عبد الله بن خطل ومقيس بن صبابة ولو وجدوا تحت أستار الكعبة، ففر عبد الله بن أبي سرح إلى عثمان رضي الله عنه، وكان أخاه من الرضاعة، أرضعت أمه عثمان، فغيبه عثمان حتى أتى به رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بعد ما اطمأن أهل مكة فاستأمنه له، فصمت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم طويلا ثم قال: نعم.

English translation:
Regarding “Whoever says, ‘I shall reveal the like of what God has revealed,’” the word “whoever” is connected to the earlier phrase, “Who is more unjust?” The person intended is ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Sarh. He used to write revelation for Muhammad, then apostatised and joined the polytheists. According to the commentators, the cause was this: when “We created man from an extract of clay” in Surah al-Mu’minun was revealed, Muhammad summoned him to write it. On reaching “Then We developed him into another creation,” ‘Abdullah marvelled at the detailed account of human creation and said, “Blessed is God, the best of creators!” Muhammad replied, “It has been revealed to me in precisely this form.” ‘Abdullah doubted and said, “If Muhammad is truthful, revelation has come to me just as it has come to him; and if he is a liar, I have spoken as he has spoken.” He then abandoned Islam and joined the polytheists. Al-Kalbi related this from Ibn ‘Abbas. Muhammad ibn Ishaq also recorded the episode and said: Shurahbil told me that “I shall reveal the like of what God has revealed” was revealed concerning ‘Abdullah ibn Sa‘d ibn Abi Sarh. He apostatised. When Muhammad entered Mecca, he ordered that ‘Abdullah, ‘Abdullah ibn Khatal, and Miqyas ibn Subabah be killed even if found beneath the covering of the Kaaba. ‘Abdullah fled to ‘Uthman, whose mother had nursed him, making them foster brothers through breastfeeding. ‘Uthman hid him until the people of Mecca had settled down, then brought him to Muhammad and sought protection for him. Muhammad remained silent for a long time before saying, “Yes.”

Al-Qurtubi’s second, and still more significant, discussion occurs under al-Mu’minun 23:14. There the first utterance of fa-tabaraka Allahu ahsanu al-khaliqin is not attributed exclusively to ‘Abdullah. Al-Qurtubi records an account concerning ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab: upon hearing the beginning of the verse, ‘Umar himself praised God as the best of creators, and Muhammad declared that it had been revealed in that form. Al-Qurtubi then records an attribution of the same statement to Mu‘adh ibn Jabal and finally to ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Sarh, in whose case the incident is connected to apostasy. At least three different people are thus credited in his commentary with spontaneously uttering the phrase. ^[13]

Original Arabic:
الرابعة: قوله تعالى: «فتبارك الله أحسن الخالقين» يروى أن عمر بن الخطاب لما سمع صدر الآية إلى قوله: «خلقا آخر» قال: فتبارك الله أحسن الخالقين؛ فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: هكذا أنزلت. وفي مسند الطيالسي: ونزلت «ولقد خلقنا الإنسان من سلالة من طين» الآية؛ فلما نزلت قلت أنا: تبارك الله أحسن الخالقين؛ فنزلت «فتبارك الله أحسن الخالقين». ويروى أن قائل ذلك معاذ بن جبل. وروي أن قائل ذلك عبد الله بن أبي سرح، وبهذا السبب ارتد وقال: آتي بمثل ما يأتي محمد؛ وفيه نزل «ومن أظلم ممن افترى على الله كذبا أو قال أوحي إلي ولم يوح إليه شيء ومن قال سأنزل مثل ما أنزل الله» على ما تقدم بيانه في «الأنعام».

English translation:
Fourth issue: “So blessed is God, the best of creators.” It is reported that when ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab heard the opening of the verse up to “another creation,” he said, “So blessed is God, the best of creators!” Muhammad said, “This is how it was revealed.” The version in the Musnad of al-Tayalisi says: When “We created man from an extract of clay” was revealed, I said, “Blessed is God, the best of creators”; subsequently the words “So blessed is God, the best of creators” were revealed. It is also related that Mu‘adh ibn Jabal uttered these words; another report attributes them to ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Sarh. It was on this account that he apostatised, saying, “I can bring the like of what Muhammad brings.” Concerning him, the verse “Whoever fabricates a lie against God, says revelation has come to him when nothing has been revealed, or says he will reveal the like of what God has revealed” was revealed, as explained earlier in the commentary on Surah al-An‘am.

Al-Qurtubi does not say that all three men uttered the words at the same moment. He preserves competing attributions of a similar episode to different individuals. The difference of identity matters. If it happened to ‘Abdullah, the personal cause of doubt described by al-Wahidi and al-Baghawi belongs to that narrative. If it happened to ‘Umar, the correspondence between his words and the Qur’an was presented as agreement rather than as a cause of apostasy. The Mu‘adh account likewise does not connect the coincidence with apostasy. A similar experience is thus attributed to different people and associated with different consequences.

In his commentary on this passage, Ibn Kathir also preserves the attributions to ‘Umar and Mu‘adh. The Mu‘adh narrative has Zayd ibn Thabit writing revelation. Ibn Kathir raises a specific chronological objection: Surah al-Mu’minun was revealed in Mecca, whereas Zayd’s service as a scribe and Mu‘adh’s conversion belong to the Medinan period. He additionally points to Jabir al-Ju‘fi in the transmission and to the chronological inconsistency. This presents a historical problem for the version attributed to Mu‘adh. It does not erase the fact that al-Qurtubi preserves the competing attributions; it brings into sharper focus how the identity of the person credited with the phrase shifted between reports. ^[14]

---

Fakhr al-Din al-Razi: Connecting the Scribe’s Doubts to a Qur’anic Verse

Under Surah al-An‘am 6:93 in Mafatih al-Ghayb, Fakhr al-Din al-Razi separately discusses claims of receiving false revelation, producing statements equivalent to Muhammad’s revelation, and challenging religious authority. He associates “I shall reveal the like of what God has revealed” with the claim attributed to al-Nadr ibn al-Harith that he could compose something similar to the Qur’an. He then introduces the story of ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Sarh as another report in circulation. ^[15]

Original Arabic:
والنوع الثالث: قوله: «سأنزل مثل ما أنزل الله» قال المفسرون: المراد ما قاله النضر بن الحرث وهو قوله: «لو نشاء لقلنا مثل هذا» وقوله في القرآن: إنه من أساطير الأولين، وكل أحد يمكنه الإتيان بمثله، وحاصله: أن هذا القائل يدعي معارضة القرآن. وروي أيضا أن عبد الله بن سعد بن أبي سرح كان يكتب الوحي للرسول عليه الصلاة والسلام، فلما نزل قوله: «ولقد خلقنا الإنسان من سلالة من طين» أملاه الرسول عليه السلام، فلما انتهى إلى قوله: «ثم أنشأناه خلقا آخر» عجب عبد الله منه فقال: فتبارك الله أحسن الخالقين! فقال الرسول: هكذا أنزلت الآية، فسكت عبد الله وقال: إن كان محمد صادقا، فقد أوحي إلي، وإن كان كاذبا فقد عارضته، فهذا هو المراد من قوله: «سأنزل مثل ما أنزل».

English translation:
The third category concerns the statement “I shall reveal the like of what God has revealed.” The commentators say it relates to the words of al-Nadr ibn al-Harith, who said, “If we wished, we could say something like this”; he called the Qur’an tales of the ancients and claimed that any person could produce something similar. In other words, he claimed to be able to rival the Qur’an. It is also reported that ‘Abdullah ibn Sa‘d ibn Abi Sarh wrote revelation for Muhammad. When “We created man from an extract of clay” was revealed, Muhammad directed him to record it. On reaching “Then We developed him into another creation,” ‘Abdullah exclaimed in amazement, “Blessed is God, the best of creators!” Muhammad replied, “That is how the verse was revealed.” ‘Abdullah fell silent and thought, “If Muhammad is truthful, revelation has come to me too; if he is a liar, I have spoken something to rival his speech.” This is what is intended by “I shall reveal the like of what God has revealed.”

In al-Razi’s treatment, ‘Abdullah was recording the description of creation in Surah al-Mu’minun. When the dictation reached “Then We developed him into another creation,” he praised God as the best of creators. Muhammad said that this too had been revealed. ‘Abdullah then expressed his doubt: if Muhammad were truthful, he too had received revelation; if Muhammad were lying, he had managed to compose equivalent speech. Al-Razi places the narrative within the discussion of the claim to produce something comparable to the Qur’an.

What matters about al-Razi’s report is the logic of the scribe’s doubt. ‘Abdullah was not simply claiming that he could compose an elegant religious sentence; he had spoken a sentence that Muhammad identified as something revealed to himself. The question is therefore not the limit of human eloquence but the method for distinguishing a naturally produced human utterance from an alleged divine revelation. Al-Razi includes this allegation in his commentary, irrespective of the broader theological commitments of his interpretation.

---

Al-Baydawi’s Tafsir: The Instruction to Write Down the Phrase

Nasir al-Din al-Baydawi’s Anwar al-Tanzil wa Asrar al-Ta’wil also discusses ‘Abdullah under al-An‘am 6:93, identifying him as one of Muhammad’s scribes of revelation. In al-Baydawi’s account, ‘Abdullah uttered the phrase of praise while writing the passage about human creation in Surah al-Mu’minun, and Muhammad told him to record it. The instruction is important: the incident does not stop at an exchange of words but describes a sentence spoken by the scribe being entered into the written revelation. ^[16]

Original Arabic:
«ومن أظلم ممن افترى على الله كذبا» فزعم أنه بعثه نبيا كمسيلمة والأسود العنسي، أو اختلق عليه أحكاما كعمرو بن لحي ومتابعيه. «أو قال أوحي إلي ولم يوح إليه شيء» كعبد الله بن سعد بن أبي سرح (كان يكتب لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فلما نزلت «ولقد خلقنا الإنسان من سلالة من طين» فلما بلغ قوله: «ثم أنشأناه خلقا آخر» قال عبد الله «فتبارك الله أحسن الخالقين» تعجبا من تفصيل خلق الإنسان فقال عليه الصلاة والسلام: اكتبها فكذلك نزلت، فشك عبد الله وقال لئن كان محمد صادقا لقد أوحي إلي كما أوحي إليه ولئن كان كاذبا لقد قلت كما قال). «ومن قال سأنزل مثل ما أنزل الله» كالذين قالوا لو نشاء لقلنا مثل هذا.

English translation:
“Who is more unjust than one who fabricates a lie against God?”—such as Musaylimah and al-Aswad al-‘Ansi, who claimed that God had sent them as prophets, or ‘Amr ibn Luhayy and his followers, who invented religious rulings in God’s name. “Or says revelation has come to me when nothing has been revealed to him”—such as ‘Abdullah ibn Sa‘d ibn Abi Sarh, who wrote for Muhammad. When “We created man from an extract of clay” was revealed and the dictation reached “Then We developed him into another creation,” ‘Abdullah, astonished by the detailed description of human creation, said, “Blessed is God, the best of creators.” Muhammad said, “Write it down; that is how it was revealed.” ‘Abdullah doubted and said, “If Muhammad is truthful, revelation has come to me as it has to him; if he is a liar, I too have spoken as he did.” “And whoever says, ‘I shall reveal the like of what God has revealed’”—such as those who said, “If we wished, we could say something like this.”

In al-Baydawi’s account, the scribe’s utterance, Muhammad’s approval, and the instruction to write it down are inseparable. The report does not establish precisely whether Muhammad had already known the phrase before ‘Abdullah uttered it. But as experienced by ‘Abdullah, words spoken from his own understanding were being accepted as part of revelation. Al-Baydawi preserves the central structure of the experience linked to the scribe’s apostasy. This account is closely related to al-Wahidi’s; it is not another independent eyewitness testimony. Its principal importance lies in preserving and transmitting the allegation within classical exegetical literature.

---

Al-Suyuti’s al-Durr al-Manthur: Multiple Earlier Compilations and Transmission Strands

In al-Durr al-Manthur fi al-Tafsir bi-l-Ma’thur, Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti brings together reports from several earlier compilers and narrators under al-An‘am 6:93. His cited authorities include al-Hakim, Ibn Abi Hatim, ‘Abd ibn Humayd, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, and Abu al-Shaykh. They preserve several types of report about ‘Abdullah: his apostasy and refuge with ‘Uthman through Shurahbil ibn Sa‘d; the claim of writing as he wished through Abu Khalaf al-A‘ma; substitutions through al-Suddi; and the alleged approval of altered wording after it was read back through ‘Ikrimah. ^[17]

The Abu Khalaf report that al-Suyuti quotes from Ibn Abi Hatim is particularly significant. People in Mecca ask ‘Abdullah how he wrote the Qur’an for Muhammad, and he claims to have written as he pleased. The same discussion includes al-Suddi’s account of substituting divine attributes and the doubts that followed, as well as ‘Ikrimah’s report of substitutions being read back to Muhammad and approved. At least three different narrative forms of the allegation thus appear together in one compilation.

Original Arabic:
أخرج الحاكم في المستدرك، عن شرحبيل بن سعد قال: نزلت في عبد الله بن أبي سرح: «ومن أظلم ممن افترى على الله كذبا أو قال أوحي إلي ولم يوح إليه شيء» الآية، فلما دخل رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم مكة فر إلى عثمان أخيه من الرضاعة، فغيبه عنده حتى اطمأن أهل مكة ثم استأمن له.

وأخرج ابن أبي حاتم، عن أبي خلف الأعمى قال: كان ابن أبي سرح يكتب للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم الوحي، فأتى أهل مكة، فقالوا: يا ابن أبي سرح، كيف كتبت لابن أبي كبشة القرآن؟ قال: كنت أكتب كيف شئت، فأنزل الله «ومن أظلم ممن افترى على الله كذبا».

وأخرج ابن أبي حاتم، عن السدي في قوله: «ومن أظلم ممن افترى على الله كذبا أو قال أوحي إلي ولم يوح إليه شيء» قال: نزلت في عبد الله بن سعد بن أبي سرح القرشي، أسلم، وكان يكتب للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم، فكان إذا أملى عليه «سميعا عليما» كتب «عليما حكيما» وإذا قال «عليما حكيما» كتب «سميعا عليما» فشك وكفر وقال: إن كان محمد يوحى إليه فقد أوحي إلي.

وأخرج عبد بن حميد، وابن المنذر، عن ابن جريج في قوله: «ومن أظلم ممن افترى على الله كذبا أو قال أوحي إلي ولم يوح إليه شيء» قال: نزلت في مسيلمة الكذاب ونحوه ممن دعا إلى مثل ما دعا إليه، «ومن قال سأنزل مثل ما أنزل الله» قال: نزلت في عبد الله بن سعد بن أبي سرح.

وأخرج عبد بن حميد وابن جرير وأبو الشيخ عن قتادة في قوله: «ومن أظلم» الآية، قال: ذكر لنا أن هذه الآية نزلت في مسيلمة.

وأخرج ابن جرير وأبو الشيخ عن عكرمة في قوله: «ومن أظلم ممن افترى على الله كذبا أو قال أوحي إلي ولم يوح إليه شيء» قال: نزلت في مسيلمة فيما كان يسجع ويتكهن به، «ومن قال سأنزل مثل ما أنزل الله» قال: نزلت في عبد الله بن سعد بن أبي سرح، كان يكتب للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فكان فيما يملى: «عزيز حكيم» فيكتب: «غفور رحيم» فيغيره ثم يقرأ عليه كذا وكذا لما حول فيقول: نعم سواء، فرجع عن الإسلام ولحق بقريش.

English translation:
Al-Hakim reported in his Mustadrak from Shurahbil ibn Sa‘d that “Whoever fabricates a lie against God or says revelation has come to him when nothing has been revealed” was revealed concerning ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Sarh. When Muhammad entered Mecca, ‘Abdullah fled to his foster brother ‘Uthman, who hid him until the people of Mecca had calmed down and subsequently sought protection for him. Ibn Abi Hatim reported from Abu Khalaf al-A‘ma that Ibn Abi Sarh wrote revelation for Muhammad. The Meccans asked how he had written the Qur’an for Muhammad. ‘Abdullah replied, “I wrote as I wished.” Subsequently the verse “Whoever fabricates a lie against God” was revealed. Ibn Abi Hatim also reported from al-Suddi that the verse was revealed concerning ‘Abdullah ibn Sa‘d ibn Abi Sarh of the Quraysh. He accepted Islam and wrote for Muhammad. When told to write “Hearing, Knowing,” he wrote “Knowing, Wise,” and vice versa. He then doubted and disbelieved, saying, “If Muhammad receives revelation, so do I.” ‘Abd ibn Humayd and Ibn al-Mundhir reported from Ibn Jurayj that the opening part of the verse concerns Musaylimah and others claiming prophethood, while “I shall reveal the like of what God has revealed” concerns ‘Abdullah ibn Sa‘d. ‘Abd ibn Humayd, Ibn Jarir, and Abu al-Shaykh reported from Qatadah that they had heard the verse was revealed concerning Musaylimah. Ibn Jarir and Abu al-Shaykh reported from ‘Ikrimah that the first part concerns the rhymed, soothsayer-like utterances of Musaylimah, while the later phrase “I shall reveal the like of what God has revealed” concerns ‘Abdullah ibn Sa‘d. He used to write for Muhammad. When dictated “Mighty, Wise,” he would write “Forgiving, Merciful”; he then read back the altered text, and Muhammad would say, “Yes, the same.” ‘Abdullah then abandoned Islam and joined the Quraysh.

The relationship between the sources quoted by al-Suyuti is clear. His citation of Ibn Abi Hatim does not constitute another eyewitness for the same statement of Abu Khalaf. Similarly, later repetitions of Ibn Jarir’s ‘Ikrimah report or the al-Suddi account preserve them in additional books without multiplying their underlying transmission strands. Al-Suyuti’s chief contribution is to bring together the earlier authorities and identify them by name, allowing the circulation of the allegations to be traced through their sources.

The contents of the reports attributed to Abu Khalaf, al-Suddi, and ‘Ikrimah also differ. Abu Khalaf preserves the scribe’s declaration of freedom to write as he wished; al-Suddi gives specific word substitutions and the doubt said to result; and ‘Ikrimah reports altered writing being read back and approved. These are related forms of the same central allegation, but they supply different kinds of information: claimed discretion, particular substitutions, and the verification and approval process.

---

Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr’s al-Isti‘ab: “I Used to Direct Muhammad Wherever I Wished”

In al-Isti‘ab fi Ma‘rifat al-Ashab, Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr directly preserves the allegation of altered revelation in his biography of ‘Abdullah ibn Sa‘d ibn Abi Sarh. Unlike the preceding works, this is a biographical collection devoted to the Companions, not a Qur’anic commentary. It discusses his lineage, conversion, work as a revelation scribe, apostasy, return to the Quraysh in Mecca, the order for his killing, and his survival through ‘Uthman’s intervention. The allegation’s presence in biographical literature, beyond commentaries, is relevant to its wider transmission and reception. ^[18]

Original Arabic:
أسلم قبل الفتح، وهاجر، وكان يكتب الوحي لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، ثم ارتد مشركا، وصار إلى قريش بمكة، فقال لهم: إني كنت أصرف محمدا حيث أريد، كان يملي علي: «عزيز حكيم» فأقول: أو «عليم حكيم»؟ فيقول: نعم، كل صواب. فلما كان يوم الفتح أمر رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بقتله، وقتل عبد الله بن خطل، ومقيس بن حبابة، ولو وجدوا تحت أستار الكعبة، ففر عبد الله بن سعد بن أبي السرح إلى عثمان، وكان أخاه من الرضاعة، أرضعت أمه عثمان، فغيبه عثمان حتى أتى به رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بعد ما اطمأن أهل مكة، فاستأمنه له، فصمت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم طويلا، ثم قال: نعم. فلما انصرف عثمان قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لمن حوله: ما صمت إلا ليقوم إليه بعضكم فيضرب عنقه. وقال رجل من الأنصار: فهلا أومأت إلي يا رسول الله؟ فقال: إن النبي لا ينبغي أن يكون له خائنة الأعين. وأسلم عبد الله بن سعد بن أبي السرح أيام الفتح، فحسن إسلامه، فلم يظهر منه شيء ينكر عليه بعد ذلك، وهو أحد النجباء العقلاء الكرماء من قريش، ثم ولاه عثمان بعد ذلك مصر في سنة خمس وعشرين، وفتح على يديه إفريقية سنة سبع وعشرين.

English translation:
Before the conquest of Mecca, he embraced Islam and emigrated. He wrote revelation for Muhammad, then abandoned Islam and joined the Quraysh in Mecca. He told them, “I used to direct Muhammad wherever I wished. He would dictate ‘Mighty, Wise’ to me, and I would ask, ‘Will ‘Knowing, Wise’ do?’ He would say, ‘Yes, all are correct.’” On the day of the conquest of Mecca, Muhammad ordered that ‘Abdullah, ‘Abdullah ibn Khatal, and Miqyas ibn Hubabah be killed even if found beneath the covering of the Kaaba. ‘Abdullah fled to ‘Uthman; ‘Uthman’s mother had nursed him, making them foster brothers through breastfeeding. ‘Uthman concealed him. When things in Mecca had settled down, ‘Uthman took him to Muhammad and sought protection for him. Muhammad remained silent for a long time and finally consented. After ‘Uthman departed, Muhammad said to those present, “I remained silent so that one of you might rise and strike off his head.” An Ansari asked, “Why did you not signal to me with your eyes?” He replied, “Treachery with the eyes is not fitting for a prophet.” ‘Abdullah returned to Islam at the conquest of Mecca. Afterwards his practice of Islam was sound and nothing objectionable was reported of him. He was among the discerning, distinguished, and generous men of the Quraysh. ‘Uthman later appointed him governor of Egypt in 25 AH, and parts of Africa were conquered under his command in 27 AH.

There is an important distinction here. In al-Tabari’s ‘Ikrimah report, ‘Abdullah makes an alteration and reads the result back for approval; in Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr’s biography, he proposes an alternative and Muhammad allegedly calls it correct. One account involves approval after a unilateral substitution; the other involves oral approval of a proposed replacement. Both raise the same underlying question concerning the immutability of particular words.

Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr immediately continues with the order to kill ‘Abdullah at the conquest of Mecca, permission to kill him even beneath the Kaaba’s covering, ‘Uthman’s protection, Muhammad’s prolonged silence, and the eventual grant of safety. He does not separate the allegation about writing revelation from the subsequent apostasy and punitive episode. Preserving an accusation does not itself mean that the biographer personally affirmed each allegation as historically true. What is firmly established is that “I used to direct Muhammad wherever I wished” was preserved under ‘Abdullah’s name in classical biographical literature about the Companions.

---

Tafsir al-Qummi: Allegations of Word Substitution and Muhammad’s Approval in Shi‘i Tradition

An allegation that ‘Abdullah ibn Sa‘d ibn Abi Sarh altered revelation also appears in the Shi‘i Tafsir al-Qummi. Under al-An‘am 6:93, the preserved report passes from ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Qummi’s father through Safwan, Ibn Miskan, and Abu Basir to Abu ‘Abdullah. It describes ‘Abdullah as ‘Uthman’s foster brother through breastfeeding, a skilled writer with fine handwriting, and a person summoned to record revelation for Muhammad. In this version he comes to Medina and accepts Islam, a locational detail that differs from accounts of his scribal activity in Mecca. ^[19]

Original Arabic:
قوله: «ومن أظلم ممن افترى على الله كذبا أو قال أوحي إلي ولم يوح إليه شيء ومن قال سأنزل مثل ما أنزل الله» فإنها نزلت في عبد الله بن سعد بن أبي سرح وكان أخا عثمان بن عفان من الرضاعة، حدثني أبي عن صفوان عن ابن مسكان عن أبي بصير عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام قال: إن عبد الله بن سعد بن أبي سرح أخا عثمان بن عفان من الرضاعة قدم المدينة وأسلم وكان له خط حسن وكان إذا نزل الوحي على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله دعاه فكتب ما يمليه عليه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله من الوحي وكان إذا قال له رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله سميع بصير يكتب سميع عليم وإذا قال والله بما تعملون خبير يكتب بصير، ويفرق بين التاء والياء وكان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله يقول هو واحد، فارتد كافرا ورجع إلى مكة وقال لقريش والله ما يدري محمد ما يقول أنا أقول مثل ما يقول فلا ينكر علي ذلك فأنا أنزل مثل ما أنزل الله فأنزل الله على نبيه صلى الله عليه وآله في ذلك «ومن أظلم ممن افترى على الله كذبا» الخ فلما فتح رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله مكة أمر رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله بقتله، فجاء به عثمان قد أخذ بيده ورسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله في المسجد فقال يا رسول الله اعف عنه فسكت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله ثم أعاد فسكت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله ثم أعاد فقال هو لك، فلما مر قال رسول الله لأصحابه ألم أقل من رآه فليقتله، فقال رجل كانت عيني إليك يا رسول الله أن تشير إلي فأقتله، فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله إن الأنبياء لا يقتلون بالإشارة، فكان من الطلقاء.

English translation:
“Whoever fabricates a lie against God, says revelation has come to him when none has been revealed, or says ‘I shall reveal the like of what God has revealed’”—this verse concerns ‘Abdullah ibn Sa‘d ibn Abi Sarh, the foster brother of ‘Uthman. Al-Qummi’s father transmitted through Safwan, Ibn Miskan, and Abu Basir from Abu ‘Abdullah: ‘Abdullah came to Medina and embraced Islam. His handwriting was fine. When revelation came to Muhammad, he would summon ‘Abdullah to record it. If he dictated “Hearing, Seeing,” ‘Abdullah would write “Hearing, Knowing”; if he said “God is Aware of what you do,” ‘Abdullah would write “Seeing.” He would also interchange the letters ta’ and ya’. Muhammad would say, “It is the same.” ‘Abdullah then disbelieved, abandoned Islam, returned to Mecca, and told the Quraysh, “By God, Muhammad himself does not know what he says. I say things like his words and he does not object. I too bring down the like of what God brings down.” Then the verse “Whoever fabricates a lie against God” was revealed concerning him. When Muhammad conquered Mecca, he ordered ‘Abdullah killed. ‘Uthman took him by the hand to Muhammad in the mosque and said, “Pardon him.” Muhammad remained silent. ‘Uthman repeated the request; he remained silent. At the third request Muhammad replied, “I leave him to you.” After they departed, Muhammad told the Companions, “Did I not say that whoever saw him should kill him?” Someone replied, “I was waiting for a signal from your eyes.” Muhammad said, “Prophets do not arrange killings by signalling.” ‘Abdullah was subsequently included among those granted pardon.

In al-Qummi’s report the changes include not only alternative divine attributes but substitutions involving the letters ta’ and ya’. Muhammad is then said to have regarded these changes as equivalent. ‘Abdullah’s doubt is expressed sharply: after returning to Mecca, he alleges that Muhammad does not know what he is saying and does not object when the scribe produces similar speech. The report ties this to al-An‘am 6:93 and goes on to describe the killing order at the conquest, ‘Uthman’s mediation, Muhammad’s silence, and the proposed eye signal.

This version agrees with Sunni exegetical accounts on several central points: ‘Abdullah’s work recording revelation, allegations of deliberate substitution, Muhammad’s alleged approval, apostasy, return to Mecca, and rescue through ‘Uthman’s intercession. The specific replacements and the location where he embraced Islam and wrote, however, are not identical in all accounts. Al-Qummi preserves a related narrative in Shi‘i transmission, with differences in wording and sequence. Those variations show that later versions are not all verbatim reproductions of one fixed text; the historical independence of this strand requires examination of its own transmission and textual connections to the Sunni reports.

---

Convergences, Differences, and Historical Significance of the Reports

Placing the reports about ‘Abdullah ibn Sa‘d side by side reveals several distinct layers. First is his identification as a revelation scribe. Second is the allegation of word substitution, with different pairs of words in different sources. Third is the claim that Muhammad approved the scribe’s wording or proposed alternatives. Fourth is the incident of the phrase of praise in Surah al-Mu’minun and the doubt it allegedly prompted. Fifth is the ensuing apostasy, return to Mecca, order for his killing, and survival through ‘Uthman’s intercession. Each report preserves one or more of these layers. Treating every text as an identical witness to all the details would obscure the actual differences among them.

Ibn ‘Ashur raised a chronological objection to the claim that al-An‘am 6:93 was revealed specifically because of ‘Abdullah’s apostasy. He notes that Surah al-An‘am is generally Meccan, whereas ‘Abdullah’s apostasy and return to Mecca are placed after the Hijra. An assertion that the Meccan verse was revealed in response to that later event therefore conflicts with the chronology. Ibn ‘Ashur reads the verse more broadly as applying to all who make such claims, rather than to one individual alone. His objection concerns the specific occasion of revelation, not the distinct reports that ‘Abdullah served as a scribe, apostatised, or allegedly substituted words. ^[20]

Original Arabic:
وأما «من قال سأنزل مثل ما أنزل الله»، فقال الواحدي في «أسباب النزول»، عن ابن عباس وعكرمة: أنها نزلت في عبد الله بن سعد بن أبي سرح العامري وكان قد أسلم بمكة، وكان يكتب الوحي للنبيء صلى الله عليه وسلم ثم ارتد وقال: أنا أقول مثل ما أنزل الله، استهزاء، وهذا أيضا لا ينثلج له الصدر لأن عبد الله بن أبي سرح ارتد بعد الهجرة ولحق بمكة وهذه السورة مكية. وذكر القرطبي عن عكرمة، وابن عطية عن الزهراوي والمهدوي أنها نزلت في النضر بن الحارث كان يقول: أنا أعارض القرآن. وحفظوا له أقوالا، وذلك على سبيل الاستهزاء. وقد رووا أن أحدا من المشركين قال: إنما هو قول شاعر وإني سأنزل مثله؛ وكان هذا قد تكرر من المشركين كما أشار إليه القرآن، فالوجه أن المراد بالموصول العموم ليشمل كل من صدر منه هذا القول ومن يتابعهم عليه في المستقبل.

English translation:
Concerning “Whoever says, ‘I shall reveal the like of what God has revealed,’” al-Wahidi stated in his Asbab al-Nuzul, citing Ibn ‘Abbas and ‘Ikrimah, that the verse was revealed about ‘Abdullah ibn Sa‘d ibn Abi Sarh. He embraced Islam in Mecca, wrote revelation for Muhammad, then apostatised and returned to Mecca, saying mockingly, “I can say the like of what God has revealed.” But this assertion is also unsatisfactory, for ‘Abdullah apostatised and returned to Mecca after the Hijra, whereas this surah is Meccan. Al-Qurtubi transmitted from ‘Ikrimah, and Ibn ‘Atiyyah from al-Zahrabi and al-Mahdawi, that the verse concerned al-Nadr ibn al-Harith, who said, “I can challenge the Qur’an.” Some of his derisive statements have also been preserved. It is further reported that a polytheist said, “This is a poet’s speech; I too shall reveal something like it.” The Qur’an itself repeatedly indicates that the polytheists made statements of this kind. It is therefore more appropriate to understand the verse generally, encompassing everyone who made such statements and those who would follow them in the future.

Source and transmission strand	Allegation or distinctive information preserved	Source relationship
al-Tabari 13555 — ‘Ikrimah	“Mighty, Wise” changed to “Forgiving, Merciful”; approval allegedly given after altered wording was read back	The ‘Ikrimah transmission strand
al-Tabari 13556 — al-Suddi	“Hearing, Knowing” and “Knowing, Wise” exchanged; doubt, apostasy, and an additional account concerning the torture of ‘Ammar and others	Al-Suddi–Asbat transmission
Ibn Abi Hatim 7624 — Abu Khalaf	The claim of writing the Qur’an however he wished, in answer to the Meccans	Ma‘an ibn Rifa‘a–Abu Khalaf route; distinct from al-Suddi
Ibn Abi Hatim 7626 — al-Suddi	Particular divine attributes substituted and the scribe’s subsequent doubt	The same al-Suddi–Asbat strand as al-Tabari 13556
al-Baghawi — al-An‘am 6:93	Several substituted attribute-pairs and an instruction to write the phrase in al-Mu’minun 23:14	Compilation of earlier exegetical reports
al-Wahidi — al-An‘am 6:93	Doubt arising from a sentence spontaneously uttered by ‘Abdullah, followed by apostasy	Account attributed to Ibn ‘Abbas through al-Kalbi
al-Qurtubi — al-An‘am 6:93 and al-Mu’minun 23:14	Apostasy of ‘Abdullah; the same expression of praise attributed to ‘Umar, Mu‘adh, and ‘Abdullah	Collection of earlier accounts and interpretations
al-Razi and al-Baydawi	The verses on creation, the scribe’s spontaneous words, and their identification as revelation	Retellings of an earlier circulating exegetical story
al-Suyuti — al-Durr al-Manthur	Earlier reports through Abu Khalaf, al-Suddi, ‘Ikrimah, and Shurahbil assembled together	Repetition of several older compilations with source attributions
Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr — al-Isti‘ab	An alleged approval of alternative words as “all correct”; subsequent order for killing	Account preserved in a biographical compilation
Tafsir al-Qummi	Different divine attributes and letter-forms substituted, alleged approval, and the conquest episode	Shi‘i exegetical transmission

The most important distinction is between the widespread preservation of allegations and the historical truth of each detail. Al-Tabari’s ‘Ikrimah strand, Ibn Abi Hatim’s Abu Khalaf strand, and the al-Suddi report differ in wording and sequence. Later authors such as al-Baghawi, al-Qurtubi, al-Razi, al-Baydawi, and al-Suyuti preserved accounts that were already circulating. This firmly establishes that allegations against ‘Abdullah were not merely present in Islamic books, but circulated through works of exegesis, biography, and legal discussion. Determining whether every narrated detail actually happened requires further assessment of the specific chains and historical evidence.

That distinction does not dispose of the challenge to the claim of revelation. A scribe is reported to have claimed that he substituted words, proposed alternatives, and received approval for the changes. Another strand connects his spontaneous utterance to words identified as revelation to Muhammad. These allegations can be called false, but the claim of their falsity requires evidence. Dismissing them merely because Muhammad was a prophet and the Qur’an was God’s word uses the very proposition under examination as its own proof.

The preservation of these accounts in classical Islamic literature establishes two historical realities. First, ‘Abdullah ibn Sa‘d’s work as a scribe and his apostasy are familiar components of the early Islamic narrative tradition. Second, serious allegations about the precise wording of Muhammad’s revelation, the scribe’s role, and the means of identifying allegedly divine speech also circulated alongside his apostasy. Variant wording, conflicting attributions of the same episode, and subsequent acceptance or rejection of the reports show that the controversy existed within Islamic tradition itself. Where every word of a scripture is claimed to have been chosen by God, allegations that human word choice entered the recording and approval process make that claim a subject for independent historical examination. Neither religious prestige nor the accuser’s later life substitutes for such an examination.

---

The Apostasy of Another Revelation Scribe and Similar Allegations Against Muhammad

‘Abdullah ibn Sa‘d ibn Abi Sarh was not the only person whose experience of writing revelation became associated with serious allegations about the source of Muhammad’s message. Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Musnad Ahmad, and other classical hadith works preserve the case of another scribe who had been a Christian, accepted Islam, wrote for Muhammad, and eventually abandoned Islam to rejoin a previous religious community. He alleged that Muhammad knew only what he had written for him. Musnad Ahmad’s more detailed version also alleges that he changed particular words and that Muhammad approved the substitutions. The matter therefore extends beyond a scribe’s apostasy to the doubts about the origin, choice of words, and approval of revelation that the experience of writing it could provoke.

‘Abdullah ibn Abi Sarh was a Qurayshi scribe who returned to Mecca after apostasy and survived the conquest through ‘Uthman’s intercession. The man in the reports of al-Bukhari and Muslim, by contrast, is unnamed. Muslim identifies him as belonging to Banu al-Najjar and relates a story of his body repeatedly being found outside the grave after his death. Their outcomes were different, but a fundamental similarity runs through the allegations associated with them: the writer’s own role in the message proclaimed by Muhammad was called into question.

---

Sahih al-Bukhari 3617: “Muhammad Knows Only What I Wrote for Him”

In the Book of Virtues, in the chapter concerning signs of prophethood, Sahih al-Bukhari narrates this Christian scribe’s story through Anas ibn Malik. The man was originally a Christian, converted to Islam, read Surah al-Baqarah and Surah Al ‘Imran, and wrote for Muhammad. He later returned to Christianity. His statement after apostasy is particularly significant: Muhammad knew nothing except what this man had written for him. The report describes neither a public reasoned response by Muhammad nor a comparison of the disputed writings. Instead, it tells of the accuser’s death and a miraculous story in which the earth would not keep his body buried. After the body was found outside the grave three times, his people reportedly abandoned further attempts to bury it. ^[21]

Original Arabic:
حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو مَعْمَرٍ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْوَارِثِ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْعَزِيزِ، عَنْ أَنَسٍ ـ رضى الله عنه ـ قَالَ كَانَ رَجُلٌ نَصْرَانِيًّا فَأَسْلَمَ وَقَرَأَ الْبَقَرَةَ وَآلَ عِمْرَانَ، فَكَانَ يَكْتُبُ لِلنَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم، فَعَادَ نَصْرَانِيًّا فَكَانَ يَقُولُ مَا يَدْرِي مُحَمَّدٌ إِلاَّ مَا كَتَبْتُ لَهُ، فَأَمَاتَهُ اللَّهُ فَدَفَنُوهُ، فَأَصْبَحَ وَقَدْ لَفَظَتْهُ الأَرْضُ فَقَالُوا هَذَا فِعْلُ مُحَمَّدٍ وَأَصْحَابِهِ، لَمَّا هَرَبَ مِنْهُمْ نَبَشُوا عَنْ صَاحِبِنَا‏.‏ فَأَلْقَوْهُ فَحَفَرُوا لَهُ فَأَعْمَقُوا، فَأَصْبَحَ وَقَدْ لَفَظَتْهُ الأَرْضُ، فَقَالُوا هَذَا فِعْلُ مُحَمَّدٍ وَأَصْحَابِهِ نَبَشُوا عَنْ صَاحِبِنَا لَمَّا هَرَبَ مِنْهُمْ‏.‏ فَأَلْقَوْهُ فَحَفَرُوا لَهُ، وَأَعْمَقُوا لَهُ فِي الأَرْضِ مَا اسْتَطَاعُوا، فَأَصْبَحَ قَدْ لَفَظَتْهُ الأَرْضُ، فَعَلِمُوا أَنَّهُ لَيْسَ مِنَ النَّاسِ فَأَلْقَوْهُ‏.‏

English translation:
Abu Ma‘mar related to us; ‘Abd al-Warith related to us; ‘Abd al-‘Aziz narrated from Anas, who said: A man was a Christian. He accepted Islam and recited Surah al-Baqarah and Surah Al ‘Imran, and he used to write for the Prophet. He then returned to Christianity and began saying, “Muhammad knows nothing except what I wrote for him.” God caused him to die and his people buried him. In the morning the earth had cast him out. They said, “This is the work of Muhammad and his Companions. Because our man fled from them, they dug up our companion and threw him out.” They dug a deeper grave and buried him again, but the next morning the earth had cast him out. Once more they said, “Muhammad and his Companions dug up our companion because he fled from them.” They then dug as deeply as they could and buried him again, but in the morning the earth had again cast him out. They realised that this was not the work of human beings and left the body where it lay.

The wording of the allegation in al-Bukhari deserves attention. The man did not merely say that Muhammad had learned to write from him or that he was an ordinary copyist. He asserted that Muhammad knew only what he had written for him. This casts the scribe’s work as a source of Muhammad’s knowledge and proclaimed message. Normally a scribe who transcribes words dictated by Muhammad is responsible for recording them, not originating their content. In this man’s allegation the relationship is reversed: Muhammad’s knowledge and speech supposedly depended upon what the writer supplied. If true, it would raise the question of the scribe’s role in determining content. Assessing the allegation requires evidence of what the scribe wrote, what Muhammad dictated, and how their wording was determined.

The second half of the hadith shifts attention from the allegation to the supposedly miraculous fate of the body. On the first two occasions, his people accused Muhammad and his followers of digging up the corpse; after the third they reportedly concluded it was not a human act. Even if the grave story were true, however, it would not establish what the man wrote for Muhammad during his lifetime. The position of a corpse does not determine the truth of an earlier allegation. A story about an accuser’s later suffering or supernatural punishment does not itself refute the allegation he made.

---

Sahih Muslim 2781: The Scribe of Banu al-Najjar and His Apostasy

Sahih Muslim preserves another account of the same episode. It describes the scribe as a man of Banu al-Najjar who had recited Surah al-Baqarah and Surah Al ‘Imran and written for Muhammad. He then fled and joined the People of the Book. In Muslim’s version, those who received him were delighted to have a former scribe of Muhammad among them. They publicly emphasised his identity, saying that this man had written for Muhammad. His prior work was thus central to the status he acquired in the new community: the report presents him as valued for more than merely abandoning Islam. ^[22]

Original Arabic:
حَدَّثَنِي مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ رَافِعٍ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو النَّضْرِ، حَدَّثَنَا سُلَيْمَانُ، – وَهُوَ ابْنُ الْمُغِيرَةِ – عَنْ ثَابِتٍ، عَنْ أَنَسِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ، قَالَ كَانَ مِنَّا رَجُلٌ مِنْ بَنِي النَّجَّارِ قَدْ قَرَأَ الْبَقَرَةَ وَآلَ عِمْرَانَ وَكَانَ يَكْتُبُ لِرَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَانْطَلَقَ هَارِبًا حَتَّى لَحِقَ بِأَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ – قَالَ – فَرَفَعُوهُ قَالُوا هَذَا قَدْ كَانَ يَكْتُبُ لِمُحَمَّدٍ فَأُعْجِبُوا بِهِ فَمَا لَبِثَ أَنْ قَصَمَ اللَّهُ عُنُقَهُ فِيهِمْ فَحَفَرُوا لَهُ فَوَارَوْهُ فَأَصْبَحَتِ الأَرْضُ قَدْ نَبَذَتْهُ عَلَى وَجْهِهَا ثُمَّ عَادُوا فَحَفَرُوا لَهُ فَوَارَوْهُ فَأَصْبَحَتِ الأَرْضُ قَدْ نَبَذَتْهُ عَلَى وَجْهِهَا ثُمَّ عَادُوا فَحَفَرُوا لَهُ فَوَارَوْهُ فَأَصْبَحَتِ الأَرْضُ قَدْ نَبَذَتْهُ عَلَى وَجْهِهَا فَتَرَكُوهُ مَنْبُوذًا ‏.‏

English translation:
Muhammad ibn Rafi‘ related to me; Abu al-Nadr narrated; Sulayman ibn al-Mughirah narrated through Thabit from Anas ibn Malik. Anas said: Among us was a man of Banu al-Najjar who had recited Surah al-Baqarah and Surah Al ‘Imran and used to write for the Messenger of God. He fled until he joined the People of the Book. They elevated him and said, “This man used to write for Muhammad,” and were greatly pleased with him. Before long, God caused him to die among them. They dug a grave and buried him, but the next morning the earth had thrown him onto its surface. They dug another grave and buried him again, but the following morning the earth again threw him out. They dug and buried him a third time, and again in the morning the earth had cast him out. They finally left him lying where he had been thrown.

Muslim’s version supplies an additional social detail: the former scribe’s identity was a source of prestige among his new associates. Someone involved in the internal writing of a religious movement who later leaves it may have knowledge especially interesting to those who receive him. He had opportunities to experience directly what Muhammad dictated, how it was recorded, and how far the writer’s responsibilities extended—opportunities not ordinarily available to other followers. Muslim does not reproduce the specific accusation found in al-Bukhari, but it explicitly says the new community valued the man because he had written for Muhammad.

The reports in al-Bukhari and Muslim have significant textual differences. Al-Bukhari explicitly recounts Christianity, conversion to Islam, and a return to Christianity; Muslim identifies Banu al-Najjar and a flight to the People of the Book. Al-Bukhari quotes the scribe’s allegation; Muslim describes his reception by the new community. Both include the recitation of al-Baqarah and Al ‘Imran, writing for Muhammad, apostasy, and the body repeatedly being found outside its grave. Both ultimately go back to Anas ibn Malik, but their subsequent transmission strands differ: al-Bukhari’s version comes through ‘Abd al-‘Aziz ibn Suhayb, and Muslim’s through Thabit al-Bunani. The same Companion’s account therefore survives in two different transmission lines, each preserving particular details.

---

Musnad Ahmad 12215: The Allegation That a Scribe Could Choose His Own Wording

Musnad Ahmad 12215 preserves a more detailed version of this scribe’s story. Reading al-Baqarah and Al ‘Imran, writing for Muhammad, apostasy, and the earth’s alleged rejection of his corpse all resemble the reports in al-Bukhari and Muslim. It adds, however, a more serious allegation: when Muhammad dictated particular divine attributes, the scribe would write or propose other attributes, and Muhammad would tell him to write as he wished. Unlike the brief allegation in al-Bukhari, Ahmad gives concrete examples of how the writer supposedly altered wording. ^[23]

Original Arabic:
حَدَّثَنَا يَزِيدُ بْنُ هَارُونَ، أَخْبَرَنَا حُمَيْدٌ، عَنْ أَنَسٍ، أَنَّ رَجُلًا كَانَ يَكْتُبُ لِلنَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، وَقَدْ كَانَ قَرَأَ الْبَقَرَةَ، وَآلَ عِمْرَانَ، وَكَانَ الرَّجُلُ إِذَا قَرَأَ الْبَقَرَةَ، وَآلَ عِمْرَانَ جَدَّ فِينَا يَعْنِي عَظُمَ، فَكَانَ النَّبِيُّ عَلَيْهِ الصَّلَاة وَالسَّلَامُ يُمْلِي عَلَيْهِ غَفُورًا رَحِيمًا، فَيَكْتُبُ عَلِيمًا حَكِيمًا، فَيَقُولُ لَهُ النَّبِيُّ عَلَيْهِ الصَّلَاة وَالسَّلَامُ: “اكْتُبْ كَذَا وَكَذَا، اكْتُبْ كَيْفَ شِئْتَ”، وَيُمْلِي عَلَيْهِ عَلِيمًا حَكِيمًا، فَيَقُولُ: أَكْتُبُ سَمِيعًا بَصِيرًا؟، فَيَقُولُ: “اكْتُبْ اكْتُبْ كَيْفَ شِئْتَ”، فَارْتَدَّ ذَلِكَ الرَّجُلُ عَنِ الْإِسْلَامِ، فَلَحِقَ بِالْمُشْرِكِينَ، وَقَالَ: أَنَا أَعْلَمُكُمْ بِمُحَمَّدٍ، إِنْ كُنْتُ لَأَكْتُبُ مَا شِئْتُ، فَمَاتَ ذَلِكَ الرَّجُلُ، فَقَالَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: “إِنَّ الْأَرْضَ لَمْ تَقْبَلْهُ”، وقَالَ أَنَسٌ: فَحَدَّثَنِي أَبُو طَلْحَةَ أَنَّهُ أَتَى الْأَرْضَ الَّتِي مَاتَ فِيهَا ذَلِكَ الرَّجُلُ، فَوَجَدَهُ مَنْبُوذًا، فَقَالَ أَبُو طَلْحَةَ: مَا شَأْنُ هَذَا الرَّجُلِ؟، قَالُوا: قَدْ دَفَنَّاهُ مِرَارًا، فَلَمْ تَقْبَلْهُ الْأَرْضُ.

English translation:
Yazid ibn Harun related to us; Humayd transmitted from Anas, who said: A man used to write for the Prophet and had recited Surah al-Baqarah and Surah Al ‘Imran. Among us, a man who could recite these two surahs was regarded as especially distinguished. The Prophet would dictate “Forgiving, Merciful” to him, but he would write “Knowing, Wise.” The Prophet would then say, “Write this or that; write however you wish.” When he dictated “Knowing, Wise,” the man would ask, “Shall I write ‘Hearing, Seeing’?” The Prophet would say, “Write, write however you wish.” That man then abandoned Islam and joined the polytheists, saying, “I know Muhammad better than you do. I used to write whatever I wished in his presence.” The man died and the Prophet said, “The earth has not accepted him.” Anas added: Abu Talhah told me that he went to the land where that man had died and found him lying exposed. Abu Talhah asked, “What happened to this man?” They said, “We buried him several times, but the earth would not accept him.”

Twice in this report the words “write however you wish” are attributed to Muhammad. The first instance concerns writing “Knowing, Wise” rather than “Forgiving, Merciful”; the second concerns a proposed replacement of “Knowing, Wise” with “Hearing, Seeing.” These are not synonymous phrases. One refers to forgiveness and mercy, another to knowledge and wisdom, and the third to hearing and sight. They express different attributes. If the report is accurate, the issue is not a spelling mistake, a difference in pronunciation, or an alternative orthography for the same sentence. It is acceptance of words conveying different meanings in place of specifically dictated words.

The statement attributed to the scribe after his apostasy in Ahmad’s report also closely resembles the allegations concerning ‘Abdullah in al-Tabari. In one report the writer says Muhammad knew only what he had written; in another, the scribe says he wrote as he wished and Muhammad agreed. Both centre on the writer’s own linguistic choices and Muhammad’s alleged acceptance of them. If a scribe merely recorded dictated revelation, his preferred alternatives should have been irrelevant. Here those alternatives and their approval are precisely what feature in the story of his apostasy.

Ahmad’s next report, 12216, has another route through ‘Abdullah ibn Bakr al-Sahmi from Humayd, with a similar account identifying a scribe who had read al-Baqarah and Al ‘Imran. Both versions ultimately go through Humayd to Anas, but they were transmitted by different intermediaries, Yazid ibn Harun and ‘Abdullah ibn Bakr. Thus more than one transmission route for this incident appears within Ahmad’s compilation, without multiplying the earliest source of the account. ^[24]

---

Al-Tahawi’s Sharh Mushkil al-Athar: The Alleged Substitutions and His Explanation

Abu Ja‘far al-Tahawi discusses this scribe in two separate chapters of Sharh Mushkil al-Athar. The heading of the first expressly concerns a man whom Muhammad told to write “Forgiving, Merciful,” who instead wrote “Knowing, Wise,” and was given permission to choose his own wording. In report 3211, al-Tahawi transmits the same sequence through Humayd from Anas. In report 3212, another account comes through Ibn Wahb, Ibn Ayyub, and Humayd from Anas. Thus the alleged approval of alternative wording was not merely an ambiguous tale in later exegesis: an early hadith scholar devoted a chapter to this specific difficulty. ^[25]

Al-Tahawi’s discussion addresses the apparent conflict between revelation being given in particular words and a scribe being allowed to substitute words at will. In explaining the permission to recite the Qur’an in seven ahruf, he had stressed the preservation of particular wording and did not authorise substituting words outside the recognised written text merely because their meanings were similar. Yet in the report about the scribe, Muhammad is said to accept different sets of divine attributes. Al-Tahawi suggests that the dictated material might have been letters or religious invitations sent to other people, rather than Qur’anic verses. That is a possibility offered by al-Tahawi in explanation, not a fact established by the hadith itself. His relevant statement reads: ^[26]

Original Arabic:
وَفِي هَذَا الْحَدِيثِ مَا يُخَالِفُ ذَلِكَ، وَيَرُدُّ الْأُمُورَ إِلَى الْمَعَانِي الَّتِي فِي الْحَقِيقَةِ إِلَى مَا قَدْ قِيلَتْ عَلَيْهِ، وَإِنِ اخْتَلَفَتِ الْأَلْفَاظُ بِهَا مَعَ اسْتِوَاءِ الْمَعَانِي فِيهَا.

فَكَانَ جَوَابُنَا لَهُ فِي ذَلِكَ بِتَوْفِيقِ اللَّهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ وَعَوْنِهِ: أَنَّ الَّذِي فِي هَذَا الْحَدِيثِ لَيْسَ مِنْ ذَلِكَ الْمَعْنَى الَّذِي ذَكَرْنَاهُ فِي ذَلِكَ الْبَابِ، وَذَلِكَ أَنَّ الْمَعْنَى الَّذِي ذَكَرْنَاهُ فِي ذَلِكَ الْبَابِ هُوَ فِي الْقُرْآنِ لَا فِي غَيْرِهِ، وَالَّذِي فِي الْحَدِيثِ الَّذِي ذَكَرْنَاهُ فِي هَذَا الْبَابِ قَدْ يَحْتَمِلُ أَنْ يَكُونَ فِيمَا كَانَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يُمْلِيهِ عَلَى ذَلِكَ الْكَاتِبِ مِنْ كُتُبِهِ إِلَى النَّاسِ فِي دُعَائِهِ إِيَّاهُمْ إِلَى اللَّهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ، وَفِي وَصْفِهِمْ لَهُ مَا هُوَ جَلَّ وَعَزَّ عَلَيْهِ مِنَ الْأَشْيَاءِ الَّتِي كَانَ يَأْمُرُ ذَلِكَ الْكَاتِبَ بِهَا، وَيَكْتُبُ الْكَاتِبُ خِلَافَهَا مِمَّا مَعْنَاهَا مَعْنَاهَا، إِذْ كَانَتْ كُلُّهَا مِنْ صِفَاتِ اللَّهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ.

English translation:
This hadith contains something contrary to the position just discussed, appearing to refer the matter back to the meanings intended, even when the words differ while their meanings are considered equivalent. Our response, with God’s guidance and assistance, is that what appears in this hadith is not the matter addressed in that previous chapter. That discussion concerned the Qur’an, not other things. The present hadith may concern material dictated by the Messenger of God to that scribe in letters to people, calling them to God and describing God’s attributes. In that context the writer might substitute a different expression of the same meaning for one he was ordered to record, since they all described attributes of God.

The key phrase in al-Tahawi’s explanation is qad yahtamil: “it may be” or “it is possible.” He uses that possibility to place the alleged substitutions outside the Qur’an. But the hadith concerns someone who recited al-Baqarah and Al ‘Imran, wrote for Muhammad, and subsequently claimed to have written as he wished. Al-Tahawi provides no new eyewitness evidence that the specific writings being substituted were letters. He identifies no surviving letter, recipient, date, or documentary text establishing that reconstruction. His explanation identifies one possible setting for the event; it does not turn that possibility into established history.

Al-Tahawi’s later chapter is equally important. There he discusses the scribe’s identity and quotes the story of the Christian scribe also found in al-Bukhari. His report 3226 similarly describes conversion from Christianity, recitation of al-Baqarah and Al ‘Imran, work writing for Muhammad, return to Christianity, and the alleged expulsion of the corpse from its grave. On this basis al-Tahawi did not regard the man as belonging to the Quraysh or the Ansar, whereas Muslim 2781 identifies him with Banu al-Najjar. This difference of identification is present within the surviving Islamic accounts themselves. ^[27]

In this second discussion too, al-Tahawi suggests that the scribe’s writing may have concerned something other than the Qur’an. Yet this does not deny the recorded allegations of his work as a writer, his claimed freedom in word choice, and his apostasy. The existence of al-Tahawi’s dedicated discussion shows that the substitution account posed a problem within early Islamic hadith scholarship substantial enough to require separate interpretive treatment.

---

Al-Bayhaqi’s Dala’il al-Nubuwwah and Ibn Hajar’s Fath al-Bari

In volume seven of Dala’il al-Nubuwwah, al-Bayhaqi preserves this scribe’s story. He transmits accounts from al-Isma‘ili and Abu Ya‘la through ‘Abd al-Warith and ‘Abd al-‘Aziz from Anas. The wording of the scribe’s accusation differs slightly from al-Bukhari: he said that Muhammad could not speak well except in the words the scribe had written for him. Al-Bayhaqi also mentions a version from Humayd al-Tawil through Anas, which adds the report of Abu Talhah’s investigation of the body found outside its grave. ^[28]

Original Arabic:
وَرَوَاهُ حُمَيْدٌ الطَّوِيلُ عَنْ أَنَسِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ بِمَعْنَاهُ يَزِيدُ وَيَنْقُصُ، وَمِمَّا زَادَ: فَقَالَ نَبِيُّ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: لَا تَقْبَلُهُ الْأَرْضُ، فَذُكِرَ أَنَّ أَبَا طَلْحَةَ أَتَى الْأَرْضَ الَّتِي مَاتَ فِيهَا، فَوَجَدَهُ مَنْبُوذًا فَقَالَ: مَا بَالُ هَذَا؟ قَالُوا: دَفَنَّاهُ مِرَارًا، فَلَمْ تَقْبَلْهُ الْأَرْضُ.

English translation:
Humayd al-Tawil transmitted from Anas ibn Malik substantially the same account, with additions and omissions. Among the additions is that the Prophet of God said, “The earth will not accept him.” It is also reported that Abu Talhah went to the place where the man died and found him lying exposed. He asked, “What has happened to this man?” They replied, “We buried him several times, but the earth would not accept him.”

This additional report contains two distinguishable levels of testimony: Abu Talhah’s reported observation and what the local people told him. According to the narrative, Abu Talhah saw the body lying exposed, while the claim about repeated burials and the circumstances in which the body emerged came from those who spoke to him. Seeing a body outside its grave is not the same thing as establishing that the earth supernaturally rejected it. Nor does the report preserved by al-Bayhaqi independently test what the man had alleged about his work recording Muhammad’s words.

In Fath al-Bari, Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani discusses the man’s identity and variant versions of Bukhari 3617. He explicitly states that he has not found the man’s name. He then cites Muslim’s identification of Banu al-Najjar, a differently phrased accusation in al-Isma‘ili’s account, and a similar report preserved by Ibn Hibban through Abu Hurayrah. His discussion shows that textual variants were not limited to al-Bukhari and Muslim: other hadith compilations also carried related formulations of the accusation. ^[29]

Original Arabic:
الْحَدِيثُ التَّاسِعُ وَالثَّلَاثُونَ حَدِيثُ أَنَسٍ فِي الَّذِي أَسْلَمَ ثُمَّ ارْتَدَّ فَدُفِنَ فَلَفَظَتْهُ الْأَرْضُ.
قَوْلُهُ: (كَانَ رَجُلٌ نَصْرَانِيًّا) لَمْ أَقِفْ عَلَى اسْمِهِ، لَكِنْ فِي رِوَايَةِ مُسْلِمٍ مِنْ طَرِيقِ ثَابِتٍ عَنْ أَنَسٍ “كَانَ مِنَّا رَجُلٌ مِنْ بَنِي النَّجَّارِ”.
قَوْلُهُ: (فَعَادَ نَصْرَانِيًّا) فِي رِوَايَةِ ثَابِتٍ: “فَانْطَلَقَ هَارِبًا حَتَّى لَحِقَ بِأَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ فَرَفَعُوهُ”.
قَوْلُهُ: (مَا يَدْرِي مُحَمَّدٌ إِلَّا مَا كَتَبْتُ لَهُ) فِي رِوَايَةِ الْإِسْمَاعِيلِيِّ “وَكَانَ يَقُولُ مَا أَرَى يُحْسِنُ مُحَمَّدٌ إِلَّا مَا كُنْتُ أَكْتُبُ لَهُ” وَرَوَى ابْنُ حِبَّانَ مِنْ طَرِيقِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَمْرٍو عَنْ أَبِي سَلَمَةَ عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ نَحْوَهُ.

English translation:
The thirty-ninth hadith is the report of Anas concerning the man who accepted Islam, then apostatised, was buried, and was cast out by the earth. Concerning the words “A man was a Christian,” I have not found his name. But in Muslim’s narration through Thabit from Anas it says, “Among us was a man of Banu al-Najjar.” In place of “He returned to Christianity,” Thabit’s version says, “He fled until he joined the People of the Book, who elevated him.” Concerning “Muhammad knows nothing except what I wrote for him,” al-Isma‘ili’s version has, “I do not think Muhammad can say anything well except what I used to write for him.” Ibn Hibban also related something similar through Muhammad ibn ‘Amr, Abu Salamah, and Abu Hurayrah.

Ibn Hajar’s explicit acknowledgement that the man’s name is unknown is important. He does not identify this individual as ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Sarh. His citations of al-Isma‘ili and Ibn Hibban also show that the Christian scribe’s story is not limited to one printed narration from Anas. Repetition in another book and a genuinely separate transmission strand, however, must still be distinguished. The citation of Ibn Hibban introduces a claimed second Companion route through Abu Hurayrah, while the principal versions in al-Bukhari, Muslim, and Ahmad run through different paths from Anas.

---

The Historical Relationship Between the Two Scribes’ Allegations

Considered side by side, the accounts concerning ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Sarh and the Christian scribe reveal several points. First, Islamic sources identify both as having written for Muhammad. Second, the apostasy of each is associated with allegations about his own part in the writing process. Third, accounts connected to each man include particular substitutions of divine attributes. In al-Tabari’s report about ‘Abdullah, “Mighty, Wise” is replaced with “Forgiving, Merciful,” read back, and allegedly approved. In Ahmad’s report about the unnamed writer, the words “Forgiving, Merciful,” “Knowing, Wise,” and “Hearing, Seeing” are substituted for one another. The similarity raises a historical question about how allegations of alternative divine attributes being accepted during dictation came to be attached to different scribes.

The outcomes of their lives, however, were not the same. ‘Abdullah’s story includes an order for his killing at the conquest of Mecca, ‘Uthman’s mediation, his return to Islam, and his subsequent political office. The Christian writer’s story includes his departure to another religious community, death, and a supposedly miraculous grave incident. The divergent outcomes prevent the two biographies from simply being collapsed into that of one person. Rather, related allegations circulated in association with two different scribes. Why the substitution of similar word-pairs appears under different individuals’ names is itself a question about the sources, their transmission, and later literary development.

A more significant shared feature is that the Islamic accounts place particular emphasis on the consequences of apostasy instead of offering an examination of what the scribes alleged. ‘Abdullah’s story includes an order for his killing; the Christian scribe’s story alleges that the earth would not retain his dead body. Neither set of accounts supplies a complete, independently verifiable record of which text the accuser had altered during his lifetime and how any alteration was detected or corrected. Identifying the man as an apostate, describing his death as supernatural punishment, or recalling the religious outcome of his later life does not independently refute what he said about his work as a scribe.

The principal source underlying the reports in al-Bukhari, Muslim, and Ahmad is Anas ibn Malik. The event’s appearance in several compilations therefore cannot be treated as the testimony of countless independent eyewitnesses. Yet the additional word-substitution details in Ahmad and al-Tahawi’s separate treatment of them are significant. They establish that a strand of early hadith literature preserved an allegation concerning the choice of alternative words and Muhammad’s approval, not merely the vague statement that the writer had supplied Muhammad with words.

There is a fundamental conflict between the claim of an unalterable divine utterance revealed in specific words and the allegation that a scribe could select alternatives and receive permission to “write however you wish.” If God determined the particular words of a sentence, the scribe should not have been free to choose different words for it. Similarity of meaning or the religious acceptability of both descriptions does not make them the same divinely specified wording. The accounts concerning ‘Abdullah and the unnamed Christian writer thus converge on a central question: what part of the statement proclaimed in Muhammad’s name came from the speaker, what part from the scribe, and what independent evidence establishes the claimed divine origin of any part?

No modern anti-Islamic publication is needed to establish that these allegations existed historically. Bukhari 3617, Muslim 2781, Ahmad 12215–12216, al-Tahawi 3211–3212 and 3226, al-Bayhaqi’s Dala’il al-Nubuwwah, and Ibn Hajar’s Fath al-Bari all belong to Islamic literature. Whether the apostate scribes’ allegations were true remains a separate historical question. But the fact that those allegations were preserved in Islamic works, including a particular accusation of substituted wording in early hadith literature, cannot simply be denied. Calling the accuser a liar or presenting his fate as supernatural retribution does not resolve the questions about where the words came from and who selected them.

---

The Conquest of Mecca: The Desire for Personal Revenge

Islamic tradition repeatedly states that Muhammad granted general protection and pardon to the inhabitants of Mecca during its conquest in 8 AH. This ‘general amnesty,’ however, was not universal. Ibn Kathir’s al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah explicitly preserves the order that certain named individuals were still to be killed, including ‘Abdullah ibn Sa‘d ibn Abi Sarh. The severity of the order is also striking: they were to be killed even if found beneath the covering of the Kaaba. Neither the declaration of general protection nor refuge in a sacred place therefore guaranteed these individuals’ survival. Investigating the reason for such an order against a former revelation scribe requires attention not only to his apostasy but also to the allegations he had expressed about Muhammad’s prophethood and revelation. He had done more than change his beliefs: he had used his experience of recording revelation to speak against Muhammad’s claims. ^[30]

The comparison with Hind bint ‘Utbah is also significant. Ibn Ishaq’s account of the fighting describes the mutilation of Hamzah’s body after Uhud and Hind’s chewing of his liver. Islamic sources also preserve accounts of Hind’s subsequent acceptance of Islam and pledge of allegiance to Muhammad. Within the same tradition, Hind was able to move beyond a history of intense hostility and gain acceptance, whereas ‘Abdullah faced an order for his killing even if he sought refuge in a sacred place. This comparison raises a question: which offence was considered most dangerous when setting the limits of pardon? Violence committed against people, or an experienced scribe’s statements challenging the central claim of prophethood? Even if ‘Abdullah’s allegations were false, they could have been examined and refuted. Yet the first response we encounter in the accounts preserved against him is an order for his death. ^[31]

If the order was being enforced as God’s immutable law, on what grounds could it later be withdrawn through a personal intercession? If, instead, Muhammad personally decided to have him killed because of allegations made against him, why should that decision be presented as an example of universal justice? These questions are particularly relevant to Ibn Abi Sarh’s case because the same account contains the order for his killing, refuge with an influential person, a prolonged silence, and eventual permission for him to live. Understanding the evidence of an offence on which a person’s life was endangered, and the rule under which it was spared, requires a clear judicial standard beyond personal intercession. In the relevant account, what becomes most visible in place of such a standard is Muhammad’s decision and ‘Uthman’s mediation.

Al-Tabarani relates, through ‘Ali ibn Sa‘id al-Razi from Ibn ‘Abbas, that the Messenger of God said: God made this city a sanctuary on the day He created the heavens and the earth. He established this city on the day He set the sun and the moon in place. He also made the sky directly above it sacred. This city had never been made lawful for anyone before me. It was made lawful only for me, for a brief period of the day. After that brief period, its sanctity was restored as before. The Messenger of God was then informed: Khalid ibn al-Walid is still fighting! He summoned a man and said: Go and tell Khalid to stop fighting. The man went to Khalid and said: The Prophet has said, keep killing whoever comes within your reach. Khalid killed seventy people that day. The man returned to the Messenger of God and informed him. He then summoned Khalid and asked: Did I not forbid you to kill people? Khalid replied: Such-and-such a man came and told me to kill whoever came within my reach. The Messenger of God summoned that man and said: Did I not order you to stop the fighting? The man replied: You intended one thing, and God intended another. God’s will prevailed over yours. I therefore could not prevent what was destined to happen. Upon hearing his reply, the Messenger of God
remained silent and said nothing to him.
Ibn Ishaq says: The Messenger of God had obtained a commitment from his commanders that they would fight no one except those who came to fight them. He had, however, named certain individuals and ordered that they be
killed, even if they were found beneath the covering of the Kaaba. Among them was ‘Abdullah ibn Sa‘d ibn Abi Sarh. He had outwardly accepted Islam and undertaken the recording of revelation, but later became an apostate. When the Messenger of God entered Mecca and announced the order for his killing, he fled and sought refuge with ‘Uthman. He was ‘Uthman’s foster brother through breastfeeding. ‘Uthman brought him to the Messenger of God to secure protection for him. After remaining silent for a long time, he said, ‘Very well.’ After he had departed with ‘Uthman, the Messenger of God addressed the Companions present: Was there not even one discerning man among you who would have killed him while I remained silent? The Companions said: Messenger of God, why did you not give us a small signal? He said: It is not fitting for a prophet to have someone killed by giving a signal. Another account states that he said: A prophet cannot engage in treachery with his eyes.

Ibn Ishaq’s statement, quoted in Ibn Kathir’s compilation, shows Muhammad instructing his commanders to fight only those who fought them. At the same time, however, certain named individuals were excluded from that protection. In ‘Abdullah’s case, the issue therefore extends beyond self-defence on a battlefield or during an ongoing clash. The order to kill him wherever he was found was based on his personal identity and previous conduct. Drawing on his experience as a revelation scribe to claim ‘I too can say the same kind of things’ posed a serious intellectual challenge to prophethood. His statements could have created doubt among believers because the accuser identified himself as someone involved in recording the revelation. Killing him could remove the person voicing the allegations, but it could establish no evidence about their truth. The death of an accuser is not the refutation of an allegation.

Another question arises here: if ‘Abdullah’s allegations were false, where were his statements publicly examined and shown to be false? It would have been possible to investigate which words he changed, what Muhammad said, whether anyone else was present, and whether his writing was compared with the texts of other scribes. In the accounts of the killing order and mediation quoted here, we find his intended killing and subsequent protection through special intercession in place of such an inquiry. The decision to spare his life therefore settles neither the truth nor the falsity of his allegations. The question also remains whether his statements might have influenced more people in a public debate. Readers may judge how this harsh response to a scribe who challenged Muhammad’s religious authority accords with the claim that he was a prophet of universal mercy.

The ‘general amnesty’ at the conquest of Mecca therefore cannot be assessed in isolation from individual cases. The moral value of a declaration of pardon depends on its scope, its exceptions, and the reasons for those exceptions. In ‘Abdullah’s case, exclusion from general protection, the order to kill him even under the protection of the Kaaba, and the subsequent sparing of his life through ‘Uthman’s intercession form a sequence showing that personal relationships and the ruler’s consent played an effective role in decisions about his life. Where is the impartial examination of an allegation in a system where the person accused also authorises killing and decides on pardon? And how does a system fulfil a claim to justice if one of two people accused of the same offence survives because he obtains an influential intercessor, while the other is killed because he has no such opportunity?

---

‘Uthman’s Intervention and ‘Treacherous Eyes’

‘Abdullah ibn Abi Sarh was the foster brother of ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan through breastfeeding. Fearing for his life, he took refuge with ‘Uthman, who brought him before Muhammad. This relationship is an important part of the incident: the man marked for death found an intermediary who was a close Companion of Muhammad and also connected to his family. According to Sunan Abi Dawud, ‘Uthman asked Muhammad to accept ‘Abdullah’s pledge of allegiance. Muhammad looked at him three times, refusing each time, before eventually accepting the pledge. Afterwards, he asked the Companions why no one present had killed ‘Abdullah while he was withholding acceptance of his pledge. There is therefore no need to speculate about the purpose of the prolonged silence and refusal: the account itself attributes an expectation of killing to Muhammad’s own words. ^[32]

Sunan Abi Dawud
Book: Jihad
Chapter: Killing a Captive Without Inviting Him to Islam
2683 (Islamic Foundation Bengali edition: 2674). ‘Uthman ibn Abi Shaybah … related from Sa‘d, who said: On the day of the conquest of Mecca, the Messenger of God granted protection to everyone except four men and two women, whose names he also announced. And Ibn Abi Sarh … The hadith then continues. The narrator Sa‘d says: Ibn Abi Sarh remained concealed with ‘Uthman. When the Messenger of God called on everyone to pledge allegiance, ‘Uthman brought him along and made him stand before the Messenger of God. He said: Prophet of God, accept ‘Abdullah’s pledge. He raised his head and looked at him three times, refusing to accept the pledge each time.
After the third time, he accepted his pledge. He then said to his Companions: Was there no discerning man among you who, upon seeing that I was not accepting his pledge, would have killed him? They said: Messenger of God, we could not know what was in your heart. Why did you not signal to us with your eyes? He said: It is not fitting for a prophet to have a treacherous glance.
Abu Dawud says: ‘Abdullah was ‘Uthman’s foster brother through breastfeeding, and al-Walid ibn ‘Uqbah was ‘Uthman’s half-brother through their mother. During his rule, ‘Uthman punished him for drinking wine.
Hadith grading: Sahih (authentic)
Narrator: Sa‘d ibn Abi Waqqas

The incident also appears in Sunan Abi Dawud, hadith 4359, with the full conversation. The sequence is clear: concealment, ‘Uthman’s request, three refusals to accept the pledge, eventual acceptance, and an expression to those present of the expectation that someone would kill him. The expectation of killing preceded acceptance of the pledge, while Muhammad was withholding his hand. His subsequent words to the Companions referred back to that earlier moment. This sequence itself raises a sufficiently serious moral question: a man had come seeking protection and acceptance, yet his request was being refused while someone else was expected to kill him. ‘Abdullah was present with ‘Uthman; his life could have been ended on another person’s initiative while his application was under consideration. ^[33]

Original Arabic:
حَدَّثَنَا عُثْمَانُ بْنُ أَبِي شَيْبَةَ، حَدَّثَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ الْمُفَضَّلِ، حَدَّثَنَا أَسْبَاطُ بْنُ نَصْرٍ، قَالَ زَعَمَ السُّدِّيُّ عَنْ مُصْعَبِ بْنِ سَعْدٍ، عَنْ سَعْدٍ، قَالَ لَمَّا كَانَ يَوْمُ فَتْحِ مَكَّةَ اخْتَبَأَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ سَعْدِ بْنِ أَبِي سَرْحٍ عِنْدَ عُثْمَانَ بْنِ عَفَّانَ فَجَاءَ بِهِ حَتَّى أَوْقَفَهُ عَلَى النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَقَالَ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ بَايِعْ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ. فَرَفَعَ رَأْسَهُ فَنَظَرَ إِلَيْهِ ثَلَاثًا كُلُّ ذَلِكَ يَأْبَى فَبَايَعَهُ بَعْدَ ثَلَاثٍ ثُمَّ أَقْبَلَ عَلَى أَصْحَابِهِ فَقَالَ «أَمَا كَانَ فِيكُمْ رَجُلٌ رَشِيدٌ يَقُومُ إِلَى هَذَا حَيْثُ رَآنِي كَفَفْتُ يَدِي عَنْ بَيْعَتِهِ فَيَقْتُلَهُ». فَقَالُوا مَا نَدْرِي يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ مَا فِي نَفْسِكَ أَلَا أَوْمَأْتَ إِلَيْنَا بِعَيْنِكَ قَالَ «إِنَّهُ لَا يَنْبَغِي لِنَبِيٍّ أَنْ تَكُونَ لَهُ خَائِنَةُ الْأَعْيُنِ».

English translation:
‘Uthman ibn Abi Shaybah related to us; Ahmad ibn al-Mufaddal related to us; Asbat ibn Nasr related to us. He said that al-Suddi narrated through Mus‘ab ibn Sa‘d from Sa‘d. Sa‘d said: On the day of the conquest of Mecca, ‘Abdullah ibn Sa‘d ibn Abi Sarh concealed himself with ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan. ‘Uthman brought him and made him stand before the Prophet, saying, ‘Messenger of God, accept ‘Abdullah’s pledge of allegiance.’ He raised his head and looked at him three times, refusing each time. After the third time, he accepted his pledge. He then turned to his Companions and said, ‘Was there no discerning man among you who, upon seeing me withhold my hand from accepting his pledge, would have risen and killed him?’ They said, ‘Messenger of God, we did not know what was in your mind. Why did you not signal to us with your eyes?’ He said, ‘It is not fitting for a prophet to have treacherous eyes.’

The Companions’ reply is also noteworthy: ‘We did not know what was in your mind.’ They had not understood Muhammad’s immediate expectation concerning the man before them. They suggested a signal that could have communicated that expectation. Muhammad described signalling with the eyes as unfitting for a prophet, yet his preceding words expressed the expectation that someone present would take the initiative to kill ‘Abdullah. This makes the moral conflict clear: a covert signal is deemed improper, while the expectation is expressed that someone should decide to kill a man on observing his silence and refusal to accept the pledge. If moral judgment rests on human life, safety, and transparent decisions, examining the method of signalling alone does not fulfil the responsibility; the intended act must also be examined. The claim of having avoided an eye signal does not answer the moral question raised by the expectation of killing.

---

The Vow to Kill and the Wait for Its Fulfilment

In al-Sarim al-Maslul, Ibn Taymiyya uses a version of the incident in which a Muslim had vowed to kill ‘Abdullah. According to his account, ‘Uthman hid ‘Abdullah for several days, brought him forward after the people of Mecca had settled down, and ‘Abdullah appeared in repentance to seek a pledge of allegiance and protection. Ibn Taymiyya explains Muhammad’s prolonged silence as an expectation that the man who had made the vow, or someone else, would rise and kill him. The desire for his death thus appears as more than a vague inference about an internal state: it is connected to a specific vow to kill and a wait for its fulfilment. Ibn Kathir’s compilation also contains an account of an Ansari’s vow and the statement addressed to him, ‘I waited for you to fulfil your vow.’ ^[34]

Original Arabic:
الطريقة الحادية عشرة: أن عبد الله بن سعد بن أبي سرح كان قد ارتد وافترى على النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أنه يلقنه الوحي ويكتب له ما يريد فأهدر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم دمه ونذر رجل من المسلمين ليقتلنه ثم حبسه عثمان أياما حتى اطمأن أهل مكة ثم جاء تائبا ليبايع النبي عليه الصلاة والسلام ويؤمنه فصمت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم طويلا رجاء أن يقوم إليه الناذر أو غيره فيقتله ويوفي بنذره.
ففي هذا دلالة على أن المفتري على النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم الطاعن عليه قد كان له أن يقتله وأن دمه مباح وإن جاء تائبا من كفره وفريته لأن قتله لو كان حراما لم يقل النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ما قال ولا قال للرجل: هلا وفيت بنذرك بقتله.

English translation:
The eleventh argument: ‘Abdullah ibn Sa‘d ibn Abi Sarh apostatised and made the false allegation against the Prophet that he taught him revelation and wrote for him whatever he wished. The Prophet therefore authorised the shedding of his blood. A Muslim vowed to kill him. ‘Uthman then hid him for several days until the people of Mecca had settled down. Afterwards, he came in repentance to pledge allegiance to the Prophet and obtain protection from him. The Messenger of God remained silent for a long time, hoping that the man who had made the vow, or someone else, would rise, kill him, and fulfil the vow.
This demonstrates that the Prophet had the right to kill the person who made false allegations against him and criticised him, and that shedding that person’s blood was lawful, even though he had come repenting of his unbelief and false allegations. Had killing him been forbidden, the Prophet would not have said those words, nor would he have said to the man, ‘Why did you not kill him and fulfil your vow?’

Ibn Taymiyya identifies ‘Abdullah’s allegation as false, and his discussion aims to establish the lawfulness of killing someone who makes allegations against the Prophet. Yet the sequence he accepts in this legal interpretation raises a more serious question: ‘Abdullah’s death was still expected after he returned in repentance. His declaration of renewed belief did not give him immediate protection. He had to survive through personal mediation and pardon. If later accounts describe him as a ‘sincere believer,’ how was that possibility being considered at the moment when someone was waiting for his killing? Killing a person before assessing his changed position ends any opportunity to examine his repentance or future life. In the legal principle Ibn Taymiyya derives from this incident, the accused needs the consent of another authority, alongside repentance, for his life to be spared.

The vow to kill also creates its own moral problem. One person’s commitment to kill another does not, by itself, make the killing just. Before the vow, it is necessary to examine the offence, the evidence, the necessity of punishment, and the rights of the accused; the same responsibility remains after the vow. Here, however, the failure to fulfil the vow is presented in a way that makes the absence of an initiative to kill appear to be what requires explanation. A commitment to kill someone seeking protection and religious obedience are joined within the same incident. This raises a question: if obedience to religious authority encourages readiness to take someone’s life, on what grounds should that obedience be accepted as a measure of morality? An act does not become justice merely because it is the object of a religious vow.

The outcome of ‘Uthman’s mediation is therefore also important. ‘Abdullah ultimately survived, but the saving of his life reveals no rule establishing equal rights for everyone. He had ‘Uthman beside him; through that relationship, he obtained a place to hide and access to direct intercession. What would have happened to someone else facing the same allegation without such refuge and mediation? There is a fundamental distinction between personally pardoning someone and providing every accused person with protection, an opportunity to speak, and a hearing according to established rules. That distinction must be examined before praising the pardon in this incident. If the right to survive depends on an influential person’s intercession, the fairness of the system cannot be established merely by the survival of one individual.

Even when the statement about avoiding ‘treacherous eyes’ is presented as evidence of moral superiority, the expectation of killing, the wait for fulfilment of a vow, and the uncertainty of survival after repentance remain parts of the same account. Alongside the statement that Muhammad gave no signal with his eyes, one must place his question: why did no one rise and kill ‘Abdullah? For a sceptical reader, the subject of moral evaluation is the entire incident. Without answers about the public examination of the statements of the man who questioned the source of revelation, his safety, and the basis of punishment against him, the Prophet’s moral superiority cannot be declared solely on the basis of his refusal to give a signal. The power, personal mediation, and expectation of killing expressed in this account subject the claims of justice and universal mercy associated with prophethood to rigorous scrutiny.

---

Ibn Taymiyya’s Interpretation

Ibn Taymiyya uses ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Sarh’s case to establish a legal basis for killing someone who makes allegations against the Prophet. In his interpretation, alleging that revelation was altered constitutes an insult to the Prophet; consequently, the accuser does not automatically acquire the right to have his life spared even if he repents and accepts Islam again. This interpretation further increases the incident’s significance. A scribe made allegations based on his experience of recording revelation, an order was issued for his killing, and his life was subsequently spared through an influential person’s intercession. Ibn Taymiyya transformed this sequence into a principle governing the life and death of later accused persons. The discussion therefore extends beyond the history of the personal relationship between Muhammad and ‘Abdullah to questions about the right to criticise religious claims, the safety of the accused, and the authority to grant pardon.

Two points appear side by side in his discussion. First, he preserves ‘Abdullah’s allegation of alterations to revelation but rejects it as false. Second, he regards the expression of that allegation itself as an insult to the Prophet and an offence punishable by death. It is necessary here to distinguish the examination of an allegation’s truth from the grounds for punishing the accuser. Demonstrating that a statement is false is one task; authorising the speaker’s death because he expressed it is another. The second appears in Ibn Taymiyya’s discussion as an explicit legal conclusion. The relevant extended account appears in the Bengali translation of his work. ^[35]

The Ninth Hadith
The incident concerns Ibn Abi Sarh. The scholars agree on this incident. It is so well known among them that it cannot be treated as a report transmitted by just one person.
The incident is as follows:
On the day of the conquest of Mecca, ‘Abdullah ibn Sa‘d ibn Abi Sarh hid with ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan. ‘Uthman managed to bring him before the Prophet and said, ‘Messenger of God, accept ‘Abdullah’s pledge of allegiance to Islam.’ The Prophet raised his head and looked at him. ‘Uthman repeated the same request three times, and each time the Prophet refused to accept his pledge. After the third time, he accepted it. The Prophet then said to the Companions:
أَمَا كَانَ فِيكُمْ رَجُلٌ رَشِيدٌ يَقُومُ إِلَى هَذَا حَيْثُ رَآنِي كَفَفْتُ يَدِي عَنْ بَيْعَتِهِ فَيَقْتُلُهُ
‘What is the matter? Was there no astute man among you who, upon seeing that I had not extended my hand to him, would have struck off his head?’
The Companions replied, ‘Messenger of God, we did not know what you desired in your heart. Why did you not signal to us with your eyes?’ The Prophet then said, ‘Do you not know that treachery with the eyes is not fitting for a prophet?’
[71] Abu Dawud, al-Sunan: 2683 (cited as 2685 in the Bengali quotation); al-Nasa’i, al-Sunan: 4067; the chain of transmission is authentic.
The Messenger of God had declared that his blood could be shed without liability. But he was ‘Uthman’s foster brother through breastfeeding. ‘Uthman therefore interceded with the Prophet on his behalf, and he pardoned him.
After accepting Islam, however, he had become an apostate and joined the polytheists. After his initial acceptance of Islam, he had been among the Prophet’s revelation scribes. He then joined the polytheists and began saying, ‘I used to change the Qur’an however I wished, because he would instruct me to write something from the revelation. I would ask him, “Will it do if I write this or that?” He would say, “Yes, it will.” The Prophet would tell him to write “‘Alimun Hakim” [Knowing, Wise]. He would ask, “Will it do if I write “‘Azizun Hakim” [Mighty, Wise]?” He would say, “Yes! The two are the same.”’ [2]
It is said that this verse was revealed concerning him—3
وَمَنْ أَظْلَمُ مِمَّنِ افْتَرَى عَلَى اللهِ كَذِبًا أَوْ قَالَ أُوحِيَ إِلَيَّ وَلَمْ يُوحَ إِلَيْهِ شَيْءٌ وَمَنْ قَالَ سَأُنْزِلُ مِثْلَ مَا أَنْزَلَ اللهُ ….
Who could be more unjust than someone who fabricates a lie in God’s name, or says, ‘Revelation has been sent down to me,’ when nothing has been revealed to him, or says, ‘I too will soon send down revelation like that which God has sent down’?
This hadith shows that he made false allegations against the Prophet and spread fabricated claims among people: that the Prophet instructed him to write revelation, that he wrote whatever he wished, and that the Prophet let it stand. Such falsehood is certainly a form of insult against the Prophet. Another person besides him also claimed to have altered revelation. God seized him. After his death, wherever people buried him, the earth cast him out. And this is
[72] Ibn Hisham, al-Sirah: 2/409.
[73] Al-Tabari, Jami‘ al-Bayan: 5/268; al-Wahidi, Asbab al-Nuzul: p. 245.
[74] Surah al-An‘am, 6:93.
[75] For details: al-Bukhari, al-Sahih, Book of Virtues: 3617.
clear evidence that God will take vengeance on and punish anyone who makes offensive remarks about the Prophet. Thus, the lawfulness of shedding ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Sarh’s blood even after he repented and accepted Islam, the Messenger of God’s asking the Companions, ‘Why did you not kill him?’, and his subsequently pardoning him—all these steps show that the Prophet could kill him if he wished and pardon him if he wished.
This also proves that the Prophet had full authority to kill someone who insulted him, even if that person repented and returned to Islam.
An authentic account states that Ibn Abi Sarh returned to Islam before the conquest of Mecca. He told ‘Uthman, ‘I have indeed committed a very grave offence. Now I have repented and returned.’ After people had settled down and become calm, ‘Uthman brought him before the Prophet. The Prophet inwardly wanted the Muslims to kill him. He therefore waited for some time to see whether someone would kill him of his own accord. The Prophet thought that perhaps someone would kill him shortly. … All these events clearly prove that killing him remained lawful after his acceptance of Islam.
The false allegation made against the Prophet by ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Sarh and another Christian revelation scribe—that he knew of their alterations to revelation but said nothing and instead approved them—is a blatant lie. The Prophet had only what God revealed written down and ordered that only what God commanded to be retained should be retained. He made no alterations according to his own wishes. Rather, he had it recorded as God wished.

The sequence of events is as follows: ‘Abdullah first accepted Islam and became involved in recording revelation; he later apostatised and expressed allegations; and at the conquest of Mecca, he again obtained acceptance through ‘Uthman’s mediation. The apostasy and allegations described in the quotation occurred before he received pardon. At the centre of Ibn Taymiyya’s conclusion from this history is permission to kill even after repentance. He describes ‘Abdullah’s allegation as false, but does not reject the lawfulness of killing in response to its expression; instead, he incorporates that lawfulness into his legal argument. Even if his interpretation is accepted, the question therefore remains: can expressing a statement against a religious leader provide sufficient grounds for taking the speaker’s life?

In Ibn Taymiyya’s final statement, the reason given for the allegation’s falsity is that Muhammad instructed scribes to record only the words revealed by God and retained the text only at God’s command. Yet ‘Abdullah’s allegation challenges precisely the claim that Muhammad’s words were actually coming from God. Reasserting that claim as true in response supplies no independent evidence. For the argument ‘He did not alter revelation because he instructed scribes to write God’s words’ to work, it must first be shown which words belong to God and what verifiable means exist to identify them. Using the very claim under examination as proof of its own truth is circular reasoning. Answering the allegation about ‘Abdullah’s experience requires examination of the relevant events; assuming the truth of prophethood from the outset does not accomplish that examination.

---

Repentance Erases Sin; Personal Pardon Protects Life

The most important part of Ibn Taymiyya’s interpretation is the distinction he draws between repentance and the sparing of life. On pages 340–341 of al-Sarim al-Maslul, he states that shedding ‘Abdullah’s blood became forbidden because Muhammad pardoned him, not merely because he accepted Islam. Acceptance of Islam and repentance erased the sin, but his life was spared through a separate pardon. Under this distinction, killing someone may remain lawful even after he retracts his earlier statements and returns to belief. Recognising repentance as a religiously acceptable change and granting the person who has changed the right to live consequently become two separate decisions. The same person’s sin is said to have been erased, while permission to take his life remains in force. Questions about the purpose of punishment and the practical value of repentance in such a system are inevitable. ^[36]

Original Arabic:
وأيضا فإن عبد الله بن سعد بن أبي سرح لما طعن عليه وافترى افتراء عابه به بعد أن أسلم أهدر دمه وامتنع عن مبايعته وقد تقدم تقرير الدلالة منه على أن الساب يقتل وإن أسلم وذكرنا أنه كان قد جاءه مسلما تائبا قد أسلم قبل أن يجيء إليه كما رويناه عن غير واحد أو قد جاء يريد الإسلام وقد علم النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أنه قد جاء يريد الإسلام ثم كف عنه انتظار أن يقوم إليه رجل فيقتله.
وهذا نص في أن مثل هذا المرتد الطاعن لا يجب قبول توبته بل يجوز قتله وإن جاء تائبا وإن تاب وقد قررنا هذا فيما مضى وهنا من وجوه أخرى أن الذي عصم دمه عفو رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عنه لا مجرد إسلامه وأن بالإسلام والتوبة انمحى الإثم وبعفو رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم احتقن الدم والعفو بطل بموته صلى الله عليه وسلم وليس للأمة أن يعفوا عن حقه وامتناعه من بيعته حتى يقوم إليه بعض القوم فيقتله نص في جواز قتله وإن جاء تائبا.

English translation:
Furthermore, after accepting Islam, ‘Abdullah ibn Sa‘d ibn Abi Sarh criticised the Prophet and made false allegations against him that impugned him. The Prophet then authorised the shedding of his blood and withheld acceptance of his pledge of allegiance. The evidence this incident provides for killing an insulter even after his acceptance of Islam has already been discussed. We have stated that he came as a Muslim and a penitent: he had accepted Islam before coming to him, as we have mentioned in the accounts of several transmitters. Alternatively, he came intending to accept Islam, and the Prophet knew that this was his intention. Nevertheless, the Prophet waited for someone to rise and kill him.
This is an explicit statement that accepting the repentance of such an apostate critic is not obligatory; rather, killing him remains lawful even if he comes in repentance and does repent. We established this earlier, and it is established here from several other perspectives. What spared his life was the Messenger of God’s pardon, not merely his acceptance of Islam. Acceptance of Islam and repentance erased the sin, and the Messenger of God’s pardon prevented the shedding of his blood. The opportunity to grant that pardon ended with the Messenger’s death, and the community has no right to pardon an offence concerning his rights. His withholding acceptance of the pledge in the expectation that someone present would kill him explicitly demonstrates that killing him was lawful even if he came in repentance.

Here, the statement that ‘the opportunity to grant pardon ended with his death’ does not mean that the pardon already granted to ‘Abdullah was revoked. Ibn Taymiyya’s conclusion concerns later accused persons: while Muhammad was alive, he could pardon someone accused of an offence against himself, but after his death the community cannot grant that pardon concerning his rights. The consequence of this interpretation is extremely severe. Later people accused of the same kind of offence would have no access to the personal pardon through which ‘Abdullah survived. This interpretation therefore restricts the use of the historical pardon as a precedent for general mercy. One person’s survival establishes no right to survival for those who come after him; instead, his survival is treated as an exception that closes off their opportunity for pardon.

The moral inconsistency is clear. Even when the type of offence is the same, the opportunity to have one’s life spared changes according to when the accused was born and whether the person whose rights were allegedly violated is alive. During Muhammad’s lifetime, someone could obtain personal intercession and pardon, while a later person could be denied that opportunity despite the same repentance. Permanently reserving the right to pardon in a dead person’s name, while declaring the living community incapable of exercising it, also restricts the scope for reform, remorse, and reconsideration. How does authorising the taking of living people’s lives in the name of protecting a dead religious leader’s honour fulfil a claim to justice? Even where it is alleged that someone has been hurt by a statement, the conclusion that killing is necessary to remedy that harm requires justification beyond religious authority.

---

Different Uses of the Same Accounts in Contemporary Fatwas

In answer 168773, IslamQA attributes the claim of altering revelation to the unnamed Christian scribe rather than to ‘Abdullah, and says that ‘Abdullah made no such claim. Yet answer 217153 quotes the account of his expressing that allegation in order to provide a legal explanation of his intended killing. Answer 228675 also acknowledges the story’s widespread circulation while raising objections to its chain of transmission. A specific question therefore requires an answer: what evidentiary weight is being assigned, when explaining the grounds for killing, to an account whose admissibility is rejected when assessing historical truth? ^[37]

The Christian scribe mentioned in the quotation from Ibn Taymiyya was a different person from ‘Abdullah. The fact that they were distinct individuals does not, however, make the accounts of allegations attributed to ‘Abdullah disappear. Rejecting an account’s truth and saying that the account or allegation never existed are different claims. The allegation is preserved under ‘Abdullah’s name in the discussions of al-Tabari, al-Wahidi, and Ibn Taymiyya. Demonstrating that it is false therefore requires showing its falsity. The existence of a similar allegation by another scribe is not enough to dismiss the statements preserved under ‘Abdullah’s name as a confusion of personal identities.

IslamQA’s answer 217153 distinguishes two grounds for the offence: apostasy and allegations against the Prophet. It explains that repentance removed the punishment for the first, while personal pardon removed the punishment for the second. Under this explanation, ‘Abdullah’s return does not universally invalidate the lawfulness of killing him. Instead, Ibn Taymiyya’s principle of personal pardon is applied again. The ancient incident therefore remains connected to the safety of people expressing opinions today. ^[38]

---

From an Order for His Killing to Rule over Egypt

The later chapter of ‘Abdullah’s life also matters when assessing this incident. He did more than escape death: he later held high office in the Islamic state and became governor of Egypt under ‘Uthman. In Tahdhib al-Asma’ wa al-Lughat, al-Nawawi dates this appointment to 25 AH. His account also mentions North Africa, Nubia, and a naval campaign against the Byzantines. The man who had once expressed allegations against the claim of prophethood and faced an order for his killing thus later became part of the state’s administration and military power. This change does not settle the truth of his earlier allegations. Rather, it raises the question of how his social standing changed alongside shifts in religious acceptance, political position, and personal relationships. ^[39]

Original Arabic:
ثم أسلم ذلك اليوم عبد الله بن سعد بن أبى سرح، وحَسن إسلامه، ولم يظهر منه بعده ما يُنكر، وهو أحد العقلاء والكرماء من قريش، ثم ولاه عثمان مصر سنة خمس وعشرين، ففتح الله على يديه إفريقية، وكان فتحًا عظيمًا بلغ سهم الفارس ثلاثة آلاف مثقالٍ ذهبًا، وشهد معه هذا الفتح عبد الله بن عمر، وعبد الله بن عمرو بن العاص، وعبد الله بن الزبير، وكان عبد الله بن سعد هذا فارس بني عامر بن لؤى، وغزا بعدَ إفريقية الأساودَ من أرض النوبة، سنة إحدى وثلاثين، وغزا غزوة الصواري في البحر إلى الروم.
وحين قُتل عثمان بن عفان اعتزل عبد الله بن سعد بن أبي سرح الفتنة، فأقام بعسقلان، وقيل: بالرملة، وكان دعا بأن يختم عمره بالصلاة، فسلَّم من صلاة الصبح التسليمة الأولى، ثم همَّ بالتسليمة الثانية عن يساره، فتوفى سنة ست وثلاثين.

English translation:
On that day, ‘Abdullah ibn Sa‘d ibn Abi Sarh accepted Islam, and his adherence to Islam became sound. Nothing objectionable was subsequently reported of him. He was among the discerning and generous men of the Quraysh. ‘Uthman then appointed him governor of Egypt in 25 AH. Through him, God brought about the conquest of Africa. It was a great conquest: the cavalryman’s share reached three thousand mithqals of gold. ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar, ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr ibn al-‘As, and ‘Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr accompanied him on this campaign. This ‘Abdullah ibn Sa‘d was the mounted warrior of Banu ‘Amir ibn Lu’ayy. After Africa, he campaigned against the Black inhabitants of Nubia in 31 AH and took part in the naval campaign against the Byzantines known as Dhat al-Sawari.
When ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan was killed, ‘Abdullah ibn Sa‘d ibn Abi Sarh withdrew from the conflict. He settled in Ashkelon; another account names Ramla. He prayed that his life might end in prayer. During the dawn prayer, after giving the first salutation, he attempted to give the second salutation to his left and died at that moment, in 36 AH.

Al-Dhahabi’s Siyar A‘lam al-Nubala’ also describes his earlier service under ‘Umar in the Sa‘id region of Egypt, followed by his appointment under ‘Uthman to govern all of Egypt. His political rehabilitation was therefore part of a longer process. ‘Uthman was his foster brother, the intermediary who saved his life, and the man who later appointed him; these three relationships need to be considered together. The extent to which each appointment rested on competence, administrative experience, or personal trust is a subject for separate investigation. His later appointments and military successes cannot, however, establish that his earlier allegations about revelation were false. Becoming a successful state official and determining the truth or falsity of a previously described incident are entirely separate assessments. ^[40]

---

‘Sincere Faith’ and Accounts of a Pious Death

Later Islamic biographies repeatedly state that ‘Abdullah’s adherence to Islam became sound and that nothing objectionable was subsequently reported of him. Stories of his death during prayer are also attached to this assessment. The details of his death, however, are not uniform. The passage quoted from Tafsir al-Mazhari describes his death in prostration; al-Nawawi’s account places it after the first salutation, while he was giving the second. Al-Dhahabi also preserves an account of his dying during the salutation in prayer. Different accounts name Ashkelon or Ramla as the place of death, and 36 or 59 AH as the year. Al-Dhahabi mentions the view that he died in 59 AH but considers the view placing his death during ‘Ali’s rule more accurate. ^[41]

Original Arabic:
سعيد بن أبي أيوب: حدثني يزيد بن أبي حبيب، قال: لما احتضر ابن أبي سرح وهو بالرملة، وكان خرج إليها فارا من الفتنة، فجعل يقول من الليل: آصبحتم؟ فيقولون: لا. فلما كان عند الصبح، قال: يا هشام! إني لأجد برد الصبح فانظر. ثم قال: اللهم اجعل خاتمة عملي الصبح، فتوضأ، ثم صلى، فقرأ في الأولى بأم القرآن والعاديات، وفي الأخرى بأم القرآن وسورة وسلم عن يمينه، وذهب يسلم عن يساره فقبض رضي الله عنه. ومر أنه توفي سنة تسع وخمسين والأصح وفاته في خلافة علي رضي الله عنه.

English translation:
Sa‘id ibn Abi Ayyub said: Yazid ibn Abi Habib told me that, when Ibn Abi Sarh approached death in Ramla—where he had fled from the conflict—he repeatedly asked during the night, ‘Has morning come?’ They said, ‘No.’ As morning approached, he said, ‘Hisham, I feel the coolness of morning; go and check.’ He then said, ‘God, make the dawn prayer my final act.’ He performed ablution and prayed. In the first unit of prayer, he recited Surah al-Fatihah and Surah al-‘Adiyat; in the second, Surah al-Fatihah and another surah. After giving the salutation to his right, he went to give it to his left and died at that moment. It was mentioned earlier that he died in 59 AH; the more accurate view, however, is that his death occurred during ‘Ali’s caliphate.

These accounts place the final chapter of his life within a pious ending. The religious significance attached to a scene of death, however, does not determine the truth of allegations concerning the recording of revelation. Even if he genuinely returned to belief and died while praying, the questions about his earlier experience remain. If later historians presented his life within a narrative of a ‘good ending,’ the evidence for that presentation must also be examined separately. Variations concerning prostration, the salutation, the place, and the year of death show the need to compare the sources before declaring one version of the familiar story to be exact history. A story of a pious death is not a refutation of a historical allegation; it is an assessment of a person’s later life. Confusing these two matters obscures the central question.

---

Conclusion

The story of ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Sarh is no ordinary account of an ‘apostate Companion.’ It is an uncomfortable incident preserved within Islamic tradition, containing allegations against the claim of prophethood arising from a revelation scribe’s own experience, accounts of approval of altered words, and correspondence between a person’s spontaneous utterance and alleged revelation. When an expression of praise coming from a scribe’s mouth is identified as the language of revelation, the question arises of how its divine origin can be verified. If the allegation of approval after altered words were read back is true, the question becomes more serious: where is the boundary between revelation delivered in specific words and alternative wording selected by a human being? Answering this question requires evidence about the actual methods of recording and checking the text, beyond religious declarations.

The exegetical works, hadith collections, and historical writings discussed here were compiled later; this discussion has not identified independent testimony contemporary with the incident. Historical evidence therefore remains necessary to determine which details of which accounts actually occurred. This limitation does not, however, automatically establish the truth of the claim to revelation. Rather, the allegations preserved within Islamic sources show that doubts about the origin of the text and the selection of words are more than new questions raised outside the tradition. These questions were preserved in connection with the identity and experience of a revelation scribe. Those who defend the claim that the Qur’an is entirely divine, infallible, and free from any human compositional role must provide specific answers to these allegations. Assuming the claim to be true from the outset and calling the accuser a liar supplies no such answer.

Alongside the declaration of general protection at the conquest of Mecca, the order to kill ‘Abdullah, the absence of protection even within the sanctuary of the Kaaba, and the expectation that someone present would kill him before his pledge was accepted create a separate moral crisis. Endangering an accuser’s life instead of examining and refuting his statements does not settle the truth of the allegation. The statement about avoiding ‘treacherous eyes’ does not erase the question of the expectation of killing either. Moral judgment requires consideration of the entire incident: the method of signalling with the eyes, the meaning of the silence, the safety of the accused, and the anticipated killing. Such an order for death in response to an intellectual challenge concerning the source of revelation subjects the claims of universal mercy and justice to rigorous scrutiny.

Ibn Taymiyya’s legal interpretation broadens the problem further. In his view, although repentance erases sin, there is no guarantee of survival without personal pardon; after Muhammad’s death, the community has no authority to grant that pardon. A later accused person may therefore be denied the route through which ‘Abdullah survived. The availability of pardon to one person, and its closure to another facing the same kind of allegation, creates unequal protection based on the time of birth and personal relationships. ‘Uthman’s refuge and intercession saved ‘Abdullah, but established no equal right for every accused person. If human life depends on an influential intermediary and a religious leader’s personal consent, an answer is needed to the question of how that system fulfils a claim to justice.

‘Abdullah was subsequently presented as a ‘sincere believer,’ a successful governor, or a man who died in prayer. Accounts of his political rise and pious death do not complete the examination of the truth or falsity of his earlier allegations. Returning to belief does not erase a person’s previous experience; obtaining state office does not prove the divine origin of a text; and a religious scene of death does not refute an allegation. Ultimately, ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Sarh left a question that cannot be dismissed through the term iltifat, the label ‘lying apostate,’ or praise of his later life. The question remains: what independent evidence exists for testing the claim to revelation, and what moral grounds justify authorising the killing of someone in response to his doubts about that claim?

---

References

1. Surah al-Mu’minun, verses 12–14 ↩︎
2. Al-Wahidi, Asbab al-Nuzul, discussion of Surah al-An‘am 6:93; the same account is reproduced in IslamQA, Question 228675 ↩︎
3. Tafsir al-Mazhari, vol. 4, pp. 260–261 ↩︎
4. Al-Wahidi, Asbab al-Nuzul, discussion of the phrase ‘And whoever says: I shall send down the like of what Allah has sent down’; quotation from p. 220 reproduced in IslamQA, Question 228675 ↩︎
5. Al-Tabari, Jami‘ al-Bayan, commentary on Surah al-An‘am 6:93, vol. 11, pp. 533–534, report 13555 ↩︎
6. Al-Tabari, Jami‘ al-Bayan, commentary on al-An‘am 6:93, report 13556 ↩︎
7. Al-Tabari, Jami‘ al-Bayan, al-Tabari’s own comments following the reports in his commentary on Surah al-An‘am 6:93 ↩︎
8. Ibn Abi Hatim, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Azim, vol. 4, pp. 1346–1347, report 7624 ↩︎
9. Ibn Abi Hatim, Tafsir, report 7626 ↩︎
10. al-Tabari, Jami‘ al-Bayan, report 13556 ↩︎
11. al-Baghawi, Ma‘alim al-Tanzil, commentary on al-An‘am 6:93 ↩︎
12. al-Qurtubi, al-Jami‘ li-Ahkam al-Qur’an, commentary on al-An‘am 6:93 ↩︎
13. al-Qurtubi, commentary on al-Mu’minun 23:14, fourth issue ↩︎
14. Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Azim, commentary on al-Mu’minun 23:14 ↩︎
15. Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, Mafatih al-Ghayb, commentary on al-An‘am 6:93 ↩︎
16. al-Baydawi, Anwar al-Tanzil, vol. 2, p. 173, al-An‘am 6:93 ↩︎
17. Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti, al-Durr al-Manthur, al-An‘am 6:93 ↩︎
18. Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, al-Isti‘ab fi Ma‘rifat al-Ashab, vol. 3, biography of ‘Abdullah ibn Sa‘d, entry 1553 ↩︎
19. ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Qummi, Tafsir al-Qummi, al-An‘am 6:93 ↩︎
20. Ibn ‘Ashur, al-Tahrir wa al-Tanwir, commentary on al-An‘am 6:93 ↩︎
21. Sahih al-Bukhari, hadith 3617, Book of Virtues, chapter on signs of prophethood ↩︎
22. Sahih Muslim, hadith 2781, Book of the Characteristics of the Hypocrites and Their Rulings ↩︎
23. Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, hadith 12215, reports of Anas ibn Malik ↩︎
24. Musnad Ahmad, hadith 12216 ↩︎
25. al-Tahawi, Sharh Mushkil al-Athar, vol. 8, pp. 239–241, chapter 511, reports 3211–3212 ↩︎
26. al-Tahawi, Sharh Mushkil al-Athar, 8:240–241 ↩︎
27. al-Tahawi, Sharh Mushkil al-Athar, vol. 8, pp. 259–261, chapter 515, report 3226 ↩︎
28. al-Bayhaqi, Dala’il al-Nubuwwah, vol. 7, p. 127 ↩︎
29. Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Fath al-Bari, vol. 6, commentary on Bukhari 3617 ↩︎
30. Ibn Kathir, al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, Bengali translation, vol. 4, p. 511; discussion in the Arabic original: the conquest of Mecca and Muhammad’s entry into the city ↩︎
31. Ibn Ishaq, Sirah, quotation from p. 333, and the source on Hind’s later conversion to Islam: IslamQA, question 202360 ↩︎
32. Sunan Abi Dawud, hadith 2683 (Islamic Foundation Bengali edition: 2674); another full account of the incident: Sunan Abi Dawud, hadith 4359 ↩︎
33. Sunan Abi Dawud, hadith 4359, chapter on the ruling concerning an apostate ↩︎
34. Ibn Taymiyya, al-Sarim al-Maslul, p. 408; Ibn Kathir, al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, account of the conquest of Mecca ↩︎
35. Al-Sarim al-Maslul ‘ala Shatim al-Rasul, author: Ibn Taymiyya, Nusus Publications, pp. 52–54 ↩︎
36. Ibn Taymiyya, al-Sarim al-Maslul, p. 340 and p. 341 ↩︎
37. IslamQA, question 168773; question 217153; question 228675 ↩︎
38. IslamQA, question 217153, discussion distinguishing ‘Abdullah’s pardon from the punishment for apostasy ↩︎
39. Al-Nawawi, Tahdhib al-Asma’ wa al-Lughat, vol. 1, p. 270; the full relevant quotation: IslamQA, question 217153 ↩︎
40. Al-Dhahabi, Siyar A‘lam al-Nubala’, vol. 3, pp. 33–35, biography of ‘Abdullah ibn Sa‘d ↩︎
41. Al-Dhahabi, Siyar A‘lam al-Nubala’, vol. 3, pp. 34–35; quotation from al-Nawawi: IslamQA, question 217153 ↩︎