Aisha claimed that at the time of the Prophet's death, the verse regarding five breastfeedings was present and was being recited as part of the Quran. However, it is nowhere to be found in the Quran today.
Sahih Muslim, Book of Suckling (Link):
عَنْ عَائِشَةَ، أَنَّهَا قَالَتْ كَانَ فِيمَا أُنْزِلَ مِنَ الْقُرْآنِ عَشْرُ رَضَعَاتٍ مَعْلُومَاتٍ يُحَرِّمْنَ . ثُمَّ نُسِخْنَ بِخَمْسٍ مَعْلُومَاتٍ فَتُوُفِّيَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَهنَّ فِيمَا يُقْرَأُ مِنَ الْقُرْآنِ
'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 Apostle (ﷺ) died and it was before that time (found) in the Holy Qur'an (and recited by the Muslims).
[Note: This is a Tehrif (distortion) in the translation by Muslims (Mohsin Khan) of this Hadith. He put these words (and recited by the Muslims) in parenthesis, implying these words are an external explanation or a commentary added by the translator. However, in the original Arabic text, these words are an integral part of the Hadith itself. Placing them in parentheses appears to be an intentional distortion aimed at confusing the reader and downplaying the fact that the verse was physically present and recited as part of the Quran at the time of the death of Muhammad. This subtle manipulation of the text is a clear attempt to protect the narrative of perfect preservation at the expense of honesty.]
Sunan Ibn Majah, Chapter on Breastfeeding of Adults (Link):
حدثنا أبو سلمة يحيى بن خلف . حدثنا عبد الأعلى عن محمد بن إسحاق عن عبد الله بن أبي بکر عن عمرة عن عائشة . وعن عبد الرحمن بن القاسم عن أبيه عن عائشة : - قالت لقد نزلت آية الرجم ورضاعة الکبير عشرا . ولقد كان في صحيفة تحت سريري . فلما مات رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم وتشاغلنا بموته دخل داجن فأكلها
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.”
Ibn Hazm declared this narration as "Sahih" (authentic) in his book Al-Muhalla (11/236).
In order to defend Islam, the apologist began criticizing Ibn Ishaq (the narrator of this report), claiming he is a "Mudallis" (one who omits links) and narrated using "an" (from). Because of this, later scholars started labelling this narration as "weak."
In response, it should be noted that first, this raises questions about the "Science of Hadith" itself, as it was formulated by defenders of the faith specifically to discard narrations that invited criticism of Islam. (To see the reality of the Science of Hadith, read our article here).
Secondly, even if we accept their Science of Hadith, this objection is incorrect because in Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, this narration exists from Ibn Ishaq with the explicit term "Haddathani" (He narrated to me).
Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal (Link):
عن محمد بن إسحاق ، قال : حدثني عبد الله بن أبي بكر ، عن عمرة بنت عبد الرحمن ، عن عائشة ، قالت : " لقد أنزلت آية الرجم ، ورضعات الكبير عشراً ، فكانت في ورقة تحت سرير في بيتي ، فلما اشتكى رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم - تشاغلنا بأمره ، ودخلت دويبة لنا فأكلتها "
Translation: Narrated from Muhammad bin Ishaq, who said: Abdullah bin Abi Bakr narrated to me via Amrah bint Abdur Rahman, from Aisha, who said: "The verse of stoning and the ten servings of breastfeeding for an adult were revealed, and they were on a paper under my bed in my house. When the Messenger of Allah became ill, we were occupied with his matter, and a domestic animal of ours (a goat) entered and ate it."
Many scholars have called Ibn Ishaq "Sadūq" (truthful) and accepted his individual narrations. Hafiz Ibn Taymiyyah stated regarding him:
"When Ibn Ishaq says Haddathani, he is considered trustworthy (Thiqah) by the people of Hadith, and this chain narrated by Ibn Ishaq is Jayyid (good)." (Majmu' al-Fatawa, vol. 33, p. 85)
Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani stated in his book Takhrij Ahadith fi al-Kashaf: "The narrators of this report are trustworthy and not accused," meaning there is no valid criticism against them.
Therefore, this narration is at least strong enough that it cannot be dismissed simply by claiming "Tadlis" (omission of sources).
Furthermore, some Islamic scholars claim that the last part of the Sahih Muslim narration is incorrect, where Aisha says that the verse of five breastfeedings was part of the Quran and was being recited until the death of the Prophet. They claim the Sahih Muslim narration comes through Abdullah bin Abi Bakr, but another narrator, Yahya bin Said al-Ansari, also narrated this report without the final sentence.
Musnad al-Shafi'i (Link):
يحيى بن سعيد فرواه عن عمرة عن عائشة قالت: انزل فی القرآن عشر رضاعات معلومات ثم انزل خمس رضاعات
Allah revealed in the Quran ten known servings of breastfeeding, then He revealed five servings.
This is a strange claim. Firstly, there is no principle in the Science of Hadith stating that if one trustworthy narrator provides half a report, the complete report provided by another trustworthy narrator must be declared wrong. Secondly, this narration actually strengthens the report of Abdullah bin Abi Bakr because it also bears witness that the verse of five breastfeedings was undoubtedly revealed in the Quran, but is now missing.
The Mountain of Conflicting Fatwas Resulting from Aisha’s Narration of Missing Text
Since the verse of five breastfeedings mentioned by Aisha is not found in the Quran today, it has resulted in a mountain of contradictions in religious rulings (fatwas).
The current situation is as follows:
- The Shafi'is and Hanbalis issue fatwas following Aisha, ruling that marriage is not prohibited through breastfeeding unless it occurred at least five times.
- The Malikis and Hanafis, finding no such verse in the Quran, rejected Aisha’s authentic testimony and ruled that even a single drop of milk establishes the prohibition of marriage.
Refer to the book Al-Fiqh 'ala al-Madhahib al-Arba'ah (The Jurisprudence according to the Four Schools):
أن الشافعية والحنابلة يقولون إن الرضاع لا يحرم إلا إذا كان خمس مرات ، والمالكية والحنفية يقولون إن الرضاع يحرم مطلقاً قليلاً كان أو كثيراً ولو قطرة )
"Indeed, the Shafi'is and Hanbalis say that breastfeeding does not prohibit (marriage) unless it is five times, whereas the Malikis and Hanafis say that breastfeeding prohibits absolutely, whether it is a small amount or a large amount, even if it is a single drop."
Authentic narrations prove that Aisha remained firm on the fatwa of five breastfeedings until her death. Whenever she wanted someone to be a Mahram (someone she could meet without a veil), she would instruct her nieces to breastfeed that person five times.
Sunan Abi Dawud, Book of Marriage, Chapter on Breastfeeding an Adult, Hadith No. 2061
Aisha and Umm Salama narrated the story of Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhayfah. The Prophet (peace be upon him) told Sahla (Abu Hudhayfah's wife) to breastfeed Salim five times so he could become like her son. Aisha used to command her nieces to breastfeed those whom she wished to see and let them enter her presence, even if they were adults, provided they were breastfed five times. However, Umm Salama and the other wives of the Prophet refused to let anyone enter their presence based on this type of breastfeeding unless the breastfeeding occurred in infancy. They told Aisha: "By Allah, we do not know if this was a special permission given by the Prophet to Salim only and not for all people." (Al-Albani graded this narration as Sahih).
Apologists may invent countless excuses claiming that the verse of five servings was also abrogated. However, due to these internal contradictions, the situation is as follows:
-
Today, all Muslim scholars agree that anyone who claims there is a deficiency or an addition in the current Quran is outside the fold of Islam. Therefore, fundamentally, according to today's scholars, Aisha appears to believe in "Tehrif" (alteration/addition) because she believed that the verse of five breastfeedings was part of the original Quran but was missing from the Uthmanic codex. The problem is that according to their own principles, they should technically issue a fatwa of "Kufr" (disbelief) against Aisha because she believed in the alteration of the Quran. Yet, they do not apply this fatwa to her. If an ordinary Muslim today said what Aisha said, they would be declared a "Kafir," but traditional scholars remain silent on this contradiction.
-
In the entire collection of Hadith, there is not a single mention of a Companion who told Aisha that this verse is not in the Quran because its recitation was abrogated while the ruling remained (as the Shafi'is and Hanbalis believe). Similarly, no Companion told her that both the verse and the ruling were abrogated (as the Malikis and Hanafis believe). These contradictions point to the fact that during the compilation of the Quran, a significant amount of material was lost or changed.
Traditional scholars invented complex logic like "Naskh al-Tilawah" (Abrogation of recitation while ruling remains, which is totally against any "WISDOM") simply to cover up historical facts that weaken the claim that the Quran is preserved "word for word." Please ask any Islamic apologist about "wisdom" behind abrogating the recitation of a verse, while ruling remains, and he will not be able to tell you the "WISDOM" behind it except that Allah does what He wills.
The reality is that these laws are a result of human arrangement and accidental loss (like the goat eating the paper) rather than divine wisdom. -
None of the Companions ever stopped Aisha or told her that the verse of five servings was abrogated and not part of the Quran. In the narration of Sunan Abi Dawud, the other wives of the Prophet disagreed with Aisha, but their disagreement was about the ruling of "adult breastfeeding" (arguing it was a special case for Salim), not about whether the verse was abrogated or part of the Quran.
No wife of the Prophet or any Companion ever said to her: "O Aisha! The verse you are referring to has been abrogated, so why are you calling it part of the Quran?" This silence or lack of objection from the Companions is proof that either they themselves considered it part of the Quran or that the complex logic of "Abrogation" (Naskh) had not yet been invented to escape accusations of alteration.
Therefore, these contradictions make the claim that the current form of the Quran was a divine, non-human, and perfectly preserved project entirely indefensible.
Hassan Radwan