I say: The historical sources (See for e.g. the Maghazi of al-Waqidi) record that Ibn Abi Sarh converted to Islam and migrated to Madina whereupon he was assigned to write down parts of the revelation by the prophet. Then an incident happened in one of these scribal sessions which Ibn Abi Sarh later claimed caused doubt in him and led to his apostasy. He fled back to Mecca and began spreading a malicious rumour about the non-divine origin of the Qur’an while implying that he could also bring a Qur’an the way Muhammad was doing. This is connected in the Asbab al-Nuzul genre as the reason for the revelation of Q. 6:93 (See for e.g. Tafsir al-Tabari with two reports attributed to the early authorities Ikrima and al-Suddi).The prophet licensed his killing among a handful of other bitter enemies of Islam when the peaceful conquest of Mecca was completed. Ibn Abi Sarh sought refuge with his foster brother Uthman b. Affan who dared to bring him to the prophet and plead for his pardon. Uthman later appointed such an individual as governor of Egypt and this was just one example of the widespread grievances of nepotism and misconduct held up against Uthman and which eventually led to his killing. What did the prophet mean when he said to Ibn Abi Sarh ‘دعه’ - rendered as ‘let it be’ above and what does this imply as far as the divine nature of the totality of the Qur’anic text is concerned?Our commentators propose several interpretations.(i) al-Saduq (d. 381) claims that the prophet meant ‘leave it as you have written’ for it will make no difference because the incorrect word will be divinely altered back to the correct one.(ii) Classical commentators of the Safavid period like Mazandarani (d. 1081) and Allama Majlisi (d. 1110) posit that Ibn Abi Sarh misunderstood what the prophet was saying - which was: Yes Allah is also ‘Knowledgeable’, but let it stay the same ‘Mighty’ and don’t change it’. In which case the claim Ibn Abi Sarh made to the hypocrites that he could initiate changes in the Qur’an of his own volition was a false claim as befits a liar. (iii) Muhaqiq al-Sha’rani (d. 1393) claims that the whole incident was fabricated by the accursed Ibn Abi Sarh and no such thing occurred. However, he fails to explain why the report has the Imam taking the incident at face-value (speaking in the first voice) and not followed by a clarification from the Imam. al-Muhsini (d. 1440) realizes that these re-interpretations require reading into the text more than the plain-sense conveys and therefore makes Tawaqquf (suspends judgment) about it: What can be inferred from reading the report holistically is that the change did indeed occur (from Adhim to Alim) … all in all, there is a clear objection that can be raised against the contents of the report, and there is no option but to refer knowledge about the truth of it back to its sayer (i.e. the Imam himself). I say: There is no reason to hesitate in suspending judgment over a solitary report (even if it is ‘reliable-in-chain’) if its contents go against something Qat’i (historically certain), such as the mass of evidence we have about the care the prophet took in conveying the Qur’an exactly as it came down to him. After all, the possibility that a Thiqa narrator has misunderstood or made errors in transmission exists.