ABSTRACT
Having dismissed the claim of textual abrogation in the case of the stoning verse in the previous chapter, I will continue in this chapter the investigation of textual abrogation by examining the other two cases. I will conclude that the allegations that the Qur'an contained a five-suckling passage and that an anomalous reading of the verse on breaking oaths had an additional word that is now inexistent in the muṣḥaf are both unfounded.
