Part 3: 'Miraculous'?

Back To Main Index
Back To Part 3 Index

CHAPTER XV: "NO MORE THE ULTIMATE MIRACLE"

A ‘Perfect’ Qur’an, Or "So It Was Made to Appear to Them"?

The claim of the Qur’an and Islam is ‘perfection and preservation by Divine decree’. In a text which is only valid if it is preserved for all time, a multitude of divergences is unforgivable.

The claim that there was "agreement of the Companions on the text of ‘Uthman" and that there is thus a need to reject "any word or expression which does not correspond fully to the text of Mushaf Uthmani" also falls to the ground as a diversion.

By what religious conviction can a scholar spout such claims when he knows full well the true condition of the Qur’anic texts as well as the effect on them of the ‘7 new readings’? "Permissible Lies", seems to be the only answer.

How too can anyone accept Arabic Qur’ans as ‘Perfect’ or ‘Protected’ when the texts not only ‘prove’ that there was not just one "Mushaf ‘Uthmani", but that several differing texts have been accepted as ‘Divine’ despite the errors? Furthermore, the same texts are admittedly all so far from the readings transmitted in the Oral Tradition’ (the ‘Proof’ for the Qur’an’s purity), that the protectors of the Qur’an have taken to altering multiplied thousands of symbols in the text ‘for the sake of Allah’?

And, in all this Maududi was declaring:

"The Qur’an - the book he gave to mankind - exists in its original text, without a word, syllable or even letter having been changed." (Towards..., p. 58; emphasis added) Since Maududi is considered by some as "the greatest scholar and thinker of Islam in these times" (i.e. modern times), we cannot even consider that he might have been ignorant of the true state of the Qur’an. How then did he go even further and write: "The Qur’an, which is now in use all over the world, is the exact copy of the Qur’an which was compiled by the order of Hadrat Abu Bakr and copies of which were officially sent by Hadrat ‘Uthman to different places. Even today many very old copies are found in the big libraries in different parts of the world and if anyone has any doubt as to whether the Qur’an has remained absolutely safe and secure against every kind of change and alteration, he can compare any copy of the Qur’an with any of these copies and reassure himself. Moreover, if one gets a copy of the Qur’an from a bookseller, say, of Algeria in Africa in the West and compares it with a copy obtained from a bookseller, say, of Java in the East, one will find both copies to be identical with each other and also with the copies of the Qur’an made during the time of Hadrat ‘Uthman. If even then anyone has any doubt left in his mind, he is advised to take any copy of the Qur’an from Back To Top

168

Part 3: 'Miraculous'?

Back To Part 3 Index

anywhere in the world and ask anyone, out of the millions who know the Qur’an by heart, to recite it word for word from the beginning to the end. He will find that the recitation conforms word for word to the written text. This is a clear and irrefutable proof of the fact that the Qur’an which is in use today is the same Qur’an which was presented to the world by Muhammad (Allah’s peace be upon him). A sceptic might entertain a doubt about its revelation from Allah, but none can have any doubt whatsoever regarding its authenticity and immunity and purity from any and every kind of addition or omission or alteration, for there is nothing so authentic in the whole human history as this fact about the Qur’an that it is the same Qur’an that was presented by the Holy Prophet to the world." (The Meaning of Qur’an, Maududi, Introduction, p.xxxv, The Holy Qur’an, Islamic Foundation U.K., 1975)? In Algeria they use the Warsh reading on the Medinan text, as well as the Hafs text. As to the rest of the Islamic world - we have seen what they have!

Again we recall the one Islamic scholar citing:

"Who does more harm than he who tells a lie against Allah" (Q29:63)! Indeed, the true state of the Qur’an, being far from the claims that are made today, means that many in Islam have been making deliberate lies and distortions, concerning both the Bible and the Qur’an!

We find that ibn al-Jazari’s (d. 833 A.H.) statement about the state of the evidence is so obviously true, and has a much broader application to the present texts of the Qur’an than one would ever have suspected. We repeat it:

"Every reading in accordance with Arabic (grammar), even if (only) in some way, and in accordance with one of the masahif of Uthman, even if only probable , and with sound chain of transmission, is a correct (sahih) reading which must not be rejected, and may not be denied, but it belongs to the seven modes (ahruf) according to which the Qur’an was revealed, and the people are obliged to accept it, no matter whether it is from the seven Imams, or the ten, or from other accepted Imams..." (Ulum, Von Denffer, p. 120f; the footnote reads "Suyuti, Itqan, I, p.75"; emphasis added). Thus in fact, it is not a matter that the followers of Islam have been forced to accept ‘all and sundry’ as a means to ‘recoup’ part of the ‘7 Forms’. Rather, it seems evident that Islam had proceeded almost oblivious to the texts in its early years! It came to a place where all it had was a mass of what it accepted as ‘evidence’, a mass of readings not even in agreement with the texts.

What was being used was just a ‘conglomeration’, FAR worse than what was still in use before the 1924 Royal Cairo (Egyptian) Hafs text, and this would be why the ‘readings’ were ‘standardised’ in the 2nd century A.H. (Ulum, p. 111).

Back To Top

169

Part 3: 'Miraculous'?

Back To Part 3 Index

Though not even the "best transmitted and most reliable" of the ‘7 Readings’ fitted the texts, Islam had to accept them in order to have something which it could display and claim was ‘Qur’an readings’. Without this it would have had nothing, and certainly not enough scraps of what are claimed as its ‘true originals’ the ‘7 Forms’!

But, the fact is that Islam didn’t have anything which could have been called ‘perfectly preserved’ sets of readings, for things like that would agree with the text that it declares it possesses.

Can we really be led to believe that a Qur’an on which there are ‘35 opinions’ about what it did or did not contain ‘originally’ is ‘Protected’ by Divine intervention? Or, can we even believe that either the ‘Oral Tradition’ or the ‘Uthmanic texts have ANY credibility?

For those who really believe in a Hell and a Heaven, this cannot be good enough. Surely one must be absolutely assured about the origin of the text to which one is submitting. Is it of the God of Abraham - or of someone else? Is it the Way to Heaven - or to somewhere else (Hell!)?

For this reason it is absolutely essential for every follower of Islam to examine carefully the true state of the Qur’an(s) and decide whether its claims stand or fall. Judgement Day is coming and only One Way of Salvation exists.

The I’jaz (Miracle) Of The Qur’an?

Von Denffer has a heading THE QUR’AN AS A MIRACLE under which he writes:

"I’jaz al-Qur’an
Why do we call the Qur’an a miracle? The Qur’an has certain features which make it unique and of inimitable quality. This inimitability is called i’jaz al-qur’an, the ‘miraculous nature’ of the Qur’an." (Ulum, p. 149) After citing the Bukhari Hadith in which Muhammad asserts that other prophets were given miracles but he was given "divine inspiration", Von Denffer continues: "What is a Miracle?
According to Muslim scholars the following five conditions must be met before an event can be accepted as a miracle from Allah:
- That no one else apart from Allah the Master of the world is able to do it.
- That it breaks the usual norms and differs from the laws of nature (not the laws of Allah, but the way nature normally is).
- That it serves as proof for the truth and claim of the messenger.
- That the event happens through the messenger and no one else." (Ulum, p. 150; underlining added) While Von Denffer is in fact avoiding directly applying these to the

Back To Top

170

Part 3: 'Miraculous'?

Back To Part 3 Index

Qur’an, it is his purpose, and it is the belief of every follower of Islam that these apply to the Qur’an. Yet, do they?

We would say that it is obvious that the Qur’an has failed to fulfil even one of these! For example:

1/ The Qur’an is certainly not something that only "the Master of the world" could do - spelling mistakes , grammatical errors, and the rest....
2/ The only "norms" the Qur’an breaks would seem to be the "norms" of spelling and grammar!
3/ The Qur’an does not provide "proof" for any of Muhammad’s claims, and the Qur’an’s condition does not in any way live up to the "Divine Protection" declared by its text.
4/ As to how "the event happens through the messenger and no one else" we have seen that everyone, including Muhammad, ‘Uthman and even the later followers must receive their portion of blame for the spelling mistakes adn corruptions. What a "prophetic event" for all eternity. In conclusion, it is apparent that while Islam has claimed both the ‘perfect’ content of the Qur’an and the ‘uneducated’ state of Muhammad as "Proof" of the Qur’an’s claimed Divine origin, nothing could be further from the truth. Rather, since this ‘mark of the uneducated’ is ingrained in the text, it is ‘Proof’ against Islam’s claims.

Rejecting The Manuscripts - The Qur’an According To ... Ad-Dani?

As Von Denffer has stated of the Egyptian version:

"The Qur’anic text in printed form now used widely in the Muslim world and developing into a ‘standard version’, is the so-called ‘Egyptian’ edition, also known as the King Fu’ad edition, since it was introduced in Egypt under King Fu’ad. This edition... was first printed in Cairo in 1925/1344H. Numerous copies have since been printed." (Ulum, p. 65) Thus the Arabic texts of the Qur’an, are ever-increasingly being based solely on the graphic form of the Egyptian text, which itself is presented as being based solely on the ‘Oral Tradition’. To this end the texts bear an Isnad (chain of transmitters) which ends with ad-Dani (d. 444A.H.) to prove it. This declares the best text of the Qur’an to be a late (400 years after the fact) Hadith - the ‘QUR’AN ACCORDING TO AD-DANI’!

However, this is not entirely accurate for it has further been noted:

"The best text so far is the Egyptian standard edition of 1342 (1923)... This edition attemps (sic) to present a pure type of text according to one tradition of the Kufan school as represented by Hafs ‘an ‘Asim, though unfortunately some corruptions have crept in owing to the use of its editors of younger authorities on the Kufan tradition instead of going back to Back To Top

171

Part 3: 'Miraculous'?

Back To Part 3 Index

older and better sources." (Materials, Introd., p. 4; emphasis added) Jeffery ends this statement with a footnote indicating that the "older works" which were ignored were in fact Ad-Dani’s: "Two of these older sources have been made available... viz. The Taisir and the Muqni of ad-Dani (d. 444) the Spanish Savant." (footnote 3, p. 4) The Notes to the 1924 Egyptian Edition further state that where the older sources of ad-Dani and Abu Da’ud DISAGREED, it was left to the modern ulema to decide what the Qur’an’s text SHOULD BE!!

Islam thus admits its rejection not only of the ‘most ancient’ manuscript copies, and not only of the manuscripts and printed Arabic Qur’ans of the recent centuries, but even the early ‘Oral Tradition’!

"TAKE YOUR OWN QUR’AN AND COMPARE!!"

This chart shows the total dependency upon the ‘Oral Tradition’ and the modern ulema.

Because the Source of the Arabic texts of the Qur’ans is the ‘Oral Tradition’ (ancient and modern!), obviously, Islam isn’t copying the manuscripts AT ALL - in fact it is trying to ignore them! It is also obvious that Islam is going the wrong way! The manuscript source of ‘Proof’ for the ‘eternal’ Arabic text of the Qur’an is lost and the ‘Oral Tradition’ disagrees to the extent that it declares the manuscripts should say ‘YES’ not ‘NO’.

It is ironic, then, to find Mr. Deedat mocking concerning the Bible’s ever increasing dependency upon older and older manuscripts saying:

"We agree that the closer to the source the more authentic is the document. Naturally "MOST" Ancient deserves credence more than mere "ANCIENT"." (Is The Bible God’s Word?, p. 19) Mr. Deedat attacks Christian scholars for doing what Islam cannot do.

"The Qur’an Is No More The ULTIMATE MIRACLE"

When confronted with the evidence of errors and alterations in the Qur’an, the followers of Islam seem only to cry, "But the Bible contains

Back To Top

172

Part 3: 'Miraculous'?

Back To Part 3 Index

50,000 errors!!". This shows that the followers of Islam do not know how to deal with the problem of errors and alterations in their ‘Eternally Preserved and Perfect’ Qur’an. The theology of Islam does not allow them to exist, let alone allow people to deal with them.

However, some are no longer denying the existence of the errors and alterations, which in itself must be heretical in terms of Islam’s Beliefs (Iman). The staff at I.P.C.I., Birmingham, have even changed their declaration from "the Qur’an is perfect" to "It’s not the text that matters, its the sound!".

However, such conflicts between Islam’s theology and the reality must be dealt with since this has been the foundation stone of Islam's beliefs about the Qur’an and consequently became the position from which it viewed ‘the previous Books". There is no reason to follow the Qur’an and reject "the previous Books" if it contains errors or has been altered from ‘NO’ to ‘YES’- as Islam itself admits!

But, there are those who will try to press on as if nothing has happened, and as if the Qur’an were actually the ‘Perfect’ Book they always thought it was, and they will try to lead others in the same way.

While one can feel pity for those who want to ‘metamorphose’ (alter) Islam and make it seem ‘workable’, we are not talking about a video-game someone invented which now is in need of upgrading, but about how to distinguish the only means of escaping the Day of Judgement from ways that lead to Judgement and Hell-fire - for eternity!!

If the Qur’an were ‘the perfect truth’ you would not now find yourself even needing to think about how to ‘salvage’ it with more lies to make it appear as if it were the truth!

Perhaps the best assessment of the final state of the Qur’an can be found in the following statement printed by the South African ulema as they responded to Mr. Deedat’s admission of error in the Qur’an in Q7:69:

"In other words it means that the various Qur’an translations that Deedat Advertisers (sic) and sells left, right and centre, are no more the LAST Testament, and the Qur’an is no more the ULTIMATE MIRACLE!" (Muslim Digest, July/Aug./Sept/Oct., 1986, p. 54, 55; emphasiss added; as cited from 1997 Internet article: http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Deedat/deedat.html) How can anyone think he can avoid this same conclusion when it is so obvious to everyone in Islam? Even Mr. Deedat is printing it on the back of his books:

Back To Part 3 Index
Back To Top

173