Critics of Islam find it hard to believe that the Qur’an was perfectly preserved, so rather than examining the evidence that proves that it was, they often create arguments using very weak evidence to prove that it was not consistently preserved.One such discussion revolves around the mushaf of Ubayy bin Ka‘b, which allegedly had two “additional” surahs. Number of surahs (chapters) in the Mushaf (personal Qur’an copy) of Ubayy bin Ka’b –may Allah be pleased with him, is one of the top ten arguments of orientalists and Christians against the Muslim assertions on fool proof preservation of the Qur’anic text.It is said that Ubayy’s mushaf had two “additional surahs” and the polemicists make use of such statements arguing against the unanimity of the earliest Muslims on the Qur’an’s content.
Now I will take a different approach here. And in very short I will answer this. Because Waqar Akbar Cheema has answered this brilliantly here.
So here we go!!
1. First of all, none of the recorded narrations state that Ubayy believed that were Surahs.
2. Secondly, these two alleged “Surahs” are known to be supplications (Dua Qunut) according to other narrations, which we have. [Narrated by al-Bayhaqi, 2/210, Sunan al-Kubra, Hadith 3142 ; classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in al-Irwa’, 2/170]
3. Thirdly, the companions were known for including texts into their codices even though they didn’t believe that they were part of the Qur’an (e.g. Commentary, supplications, footnotes etc). In fact, Muslims still write commentary, supplications and footnotes in their Qur’ans today. But no one confuses those for actual passages of the Qur’an!
4. Fourthly, Ubayy was part of the committee appointed by Uthman and we don’t see him arguing that these two alleged Surahs should have been included into the, Uthmanic text. Surely, if he believed that Al-Hafd and Al-Khaal should have been included into the Qur’an then we would expect to have some record of him disputing this matter with other members in the committee.
5. Fifthly, we know that Ubayy didn’t transmit those additional Surahs to others because he transmitted down his written recording of the Qur‟an through the scholars Naafi‟, Ibn Katheer, Abu Amro and others, of which do not include Al-Hafd and Al-Khaal or any mention of them.
Now if Christians are adamant then I ask them that they should apply this critical argument to their own book Bible too, as we find serious issues like the books the Shephard of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas, were part of one of the earliest discovered bible manuscripts called Codex Sinaiticus, but are now missing from the modern bibles we have today.If we go to the earliest codices of the Bible, namely Codices Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus and Ehpraemi Rescriptus, they all contain extra books, and some even have missing books. Therefore we must ask the Christian, does they take those codices to be canons, and if not, why does they apply such a reasoning to the Qur’an? The critics of Islam with all their efforts could find only mushaf of Ubayy bin Ka‘b’s case to try question the singularity and consensus of the Muslims on the text of the Holy Qur’an whereas in case of Bible, not just an individual or a group of few but whole churches and denominations differ with each other on what all forms the canon.