The Qur’an once contained material that is no longer present. Below is a breakdown of what each source is typically used to claim.
This narration is used to argue that entire surahs were once recited by the companions but later forgotten, implying they are no longer part of the Qur’an.
Sahih Muslim 1050:
And we used to recite a surah which resembled one of the Musabbihat, and I have forgotten it, but I remember (this much) from it: 'O people who believe, why do you say that which you do not practice?' (and) 'that is recorded in your necks as a witness (against you) and you would be asked about it on the Day of Resurrection.
If we are to believe the claim of "perfect preservation," we must ignore the testimony of one of the Muhammad's top companions. This isn't just about a misplaced word; this is about an entire chapter that vanished. If a chapter was forgotten, then the Qur’an’s current 114 surahs would not represent the full original corpus.
This hadith is cited to show that companions remembered verses that others did not, and that some verses were lost because they were forgotten.
Sahih Muslim 1452a:
A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that it had been revealed in the Holy Qur'an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings and Allah's Messenger died and it was before that time (found) in the Holy Qur'an (and recited by the Muslims.
Aisha reports that the "ten clear sucklings" verse was part of the revealed Qur'an, later abrogated to FIVE, and remained recited until after the Prophet’s death.
It is also mentioned that the writing about the ten sucklings was lost after being eaten by a goat. Yet it was abrogated by a five sucklings. But it is STILL not in the Quran after Uthman burnings.
Sunan Ibn Majah 1944:
It was narrated that 'Aishah said: "The Verse of Stoning and of Breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed, and the paper was with me under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep came in and ate it.
If verses were being recited as part of the Qur'an after the Prophet died, yet they are nowhere to be found in the Uthmanic codex, the claim of a seamless transition is demonstrably false. The "forgetting" here isn't a divine editorial choice; it’s a failure of transmission.
If the verses were still part of the active recitation after he died, no further abrogation was possible. If they are missing today, it implies they were lost during the human collection process (under Abu Bakr or Uthman) rather than by divine decree during the Prophet's life.
Surah 15:9 fails: "Indeed, it is We who sent down the message and indeed, We will be its guardian." This "protection" either conditional or was not applied to the entire revelation.
Why would God reveal a specific legal ruling, require it to be followed (the "law"), but allow the actual scripture containing that law to be eaten by an animal and later forgotten?
Aisha’s testimony creates a direct witness account that the Uthmanic codex is incomplete.
The fact that the ruling of the five sucklings (and stoning) is still followed in Sharia Law today proves that the companions believed these verses were authentic and binding, even though they failed to preserve the actual words in the Qur'an. This separates the "Word of God" from the "Book of Uthman."
This narration connects the physical loss of a written text to a specific, severe legal penalty that exists today in Sharia despite being absent from the Qur'an.
Sunan Ibn Majah 1944:
It was narrated that 'Aishah said: "The Verse of Stoning and of Breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed, and the paper was with me under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep came in and ate it.
The verse is mostly thought by Islamic scholars to have been:
The old man and the old woman, if they commit adultery, stone them both certainly as a punishment from Allah.
However, the Quran mandates 100 lashes for adultery. It does NOT mention stoning.
Surah 24:2;
The woman or man found guilty of sexual intercourse - lash each one of them with a hundred lashes
It suggests that the Qur’an’s textual history includes loss, not just preservation.
In Sahih Bukhari 6830, the second Caliph, Umar, admits his fear that people would forget the stoning verse because it was not in the book.
Sahih Bukhari 6830:
I am afraid that after a long time has passed, someone may say, 'By Allah, we do not find the Verse of Stoning in Allah's Book,' and thus they will go astray by abandoning an obligation that Allah has sent down. Verily, stoning is a duty in the Book of Allah... If it were not that people would say, 'Umar has added to the Book of Allah,' I would have written it.
This is a high-level admission that the Uthmanic codex is incomplete. It shows that the early leadership knew the book was missing a major penal law but left it out to avoid the appearance of "adding" to the text.
This is another example of multiple sahih narrations describing verses that clearly no longer exist from the original Quran BEFORE Muhammad died.
This gives provides a direct endorsement from Muhammad for SPECIFIC individuals, which later creates a massive historical and textual conflict when compared to the standardized Uthmanic code.
Bukhari 4999:
Narrated Masruq: 'Abdullah bin 'Amr mentioned 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud and said, "I shall ever love that man, for I heard the Prophet (ﷺ) saying: 'Take (learn) the Qur'an from four: 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud, Salim, Mu'adh and Ubai bin Ka'b.'
Muhammad explicitly instructed Muslims to learn the Qur’an from Ibn Mas‘ud, who:
When Uthman compiled his version of the Quran he apponted Uthman appointed Zaid bin Thabit who Ibn Mas'ud mocked as a mere youth. The Prophet’s hand-picked expert (Ibn Mas'ud) accused the standardization project of being a deception (ghulu) or a political move.
I have recited seventy-odd Surahs from the mouth of the Messenger of Allah, while Zaid ibn Thabit was a youth with two locks of hair, playing with other boys. Should I then leave that which I received from the Messenger of Allah?
Ibn Mas'ud openly rebelled and called it a deception. The Prophet's top-endorsed expert was excluded and insulted the compiler. Ibn Mas'ud's refusal to burn his copy implies his version had differences he considered worth protecting with his life.
This is used to argue that the earliest authoritative Qur’an differed from the modern one.
If you follow the Qur'an of today, you are following the version Ibn Mas'ud called a deception. If you follow Ibn Mas'ud, you are following a version that the Caliphs tried to erase from history. Either way the transmission is imperfect.
This is a significant narration because it provides a documented example of a companion—one specifically endorsed by the Prophet—reciting a verse with a different word structure than what is found in the Qur'an today.
This narration involves a conversation between Alqama (a student of Ibn Mas'ud) and Abu Darda (another major authority on the Qur'an).
Bukhari 4944:
Alqama reported: I went to Sham and entered the mosque... I saw a man [Abu Darda] and sat beside him. He said: "How does 'Abdullah [Ibn Mas'ud] recite: 'By the night as it envelops'?"I said: "By the night as it envelops, and by the male and the female."
Abu Darda said: "I testify that I heard the Prophet (ﷺ) reciting it in this way, but these people [the people of Sham/the Uthmanic compilers] want me to recite: 'And by Him Who created male and female,' but by Allah, I will not follow them.
The difference between the Uthmanic text and the recitation of these two major companions is not just a matter of "dialect" or "accent"; it is a difference in the actual words used.
The claim that the Qur’an has been preserved without the loss of a single dot or letter is a theological ideal that cannot survive a collision with its own historical records. When we synthesize the testimony of Muhammad’s closest companions and his hand-picked experts, we are left with a text defined more by human intervention than by divine guardianship.
The history of the Qur’an is a history of attrition, accident, and political redaction. From the "Forgotten Chapters" of Abu Musa to the "Goat’s Meal" of Aisha, and finally to the "Censored Codices" of Ibn Mas’ud, the evidence is clear:
The version of the Qur’an held today is a redacted selection of what once existed. The "Book of Uthman" may be standardized, but the "Revelation of Muhammad" was demonstrably lost in transition.
If the Prophet's own experts did not recognize the final product as the full and accurate revelation, then the claim of "perfect preservation" is a historical impossibility.