Back To Main Index
Back To Part 2 Index

1/ A glance at Q1 will normally identify a text with the Egyptian graphic form from all others, except in the case of, say our Iranian text which has used the Egyptian version of Q1 and the first 5 ayas of Q2, but from then on it is the normal Iranian text [Brockett pointed such out]. Again, since the false Mushaf al-Madinah follows the Egyptian version of ‘Uthman’s graphic form, the same applies.

2/ Since the 1975 is basically the Egyptian version of ‘Uthman’s graphic form, regarding the number of ‘strokes’, the number counted will be the same as one would find in a 1924 Egyptian vs Taj comparison.

3/ Two things should be mentioned here.

(a) First, and mentioned in footnote 35 (see below) - the ‘short strokes’ in the Indian, Pakistani, Turkish, etc., texts only indicate "there is problem here" but do not include the fatha on the preceding consonant. In the Egyptian text the presence of the fatha clearly indicates that the purpose is to add an alif which is to be used as a ‘long a’.

(b) Secondly, we would comment on the inconsistency between the texts:

Sura 55 is the ‘odd one out’ as far as the graphic alif/’short stroke’ comparison goes. While a comparison the graphic alif vs. ‘short stroke’ between the Egyptian and Taj texts shows 60 widely dispersed instances where the Egyptian text has graphic alif and the Taj contains ‘short stroke’, Q55 contains 43 instances of graphic alif in the Egyptian text while there the Taj has only 12 instances of ‘short stroke’. This Sura is short comprising only 4 1/2 pages in a 848 page Arabic-only Taj printing. The Sura with the next greatest number is Q33 which contains only 6 graphic alifs, as against 37 ‘short strokes’, and comprises 13 1/2 pages in the Taj Arabic text.

4/ In 1301 the Ottoman Turkish empire began, and remained until this century. Egypt became part of its domain. Yet, how can one account for there being a lesser number of graphic alifs in the Taj text, some 3700 less than the Turkish text?!

5/ Perhaps one would find on closer examination that this was Pakistan’s way of keeping separate either all those which actually represent true spelling mistakes or those which represent the number of ‘over-ridings’ and ‘additions’ made by the ‘readings’ which have departed from the text.

6/ There are besides the aforementioned 5300 ‘dagger alifs’, almost the same number which are in the same places in both the Turkish and 24 Egyptian texts, thus admitting that nearly 10,000 alifs were missing from `Uthman’s text at Kufah!

7/ BLOr 2165 refers to "British Library Oriental [manuscript number] 2165"

8/ Anyone will notice that Hamidullah has altered the order of his ‘corrections’ so that if the order of things in need of correction is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 then the order in the list of the ‘corrections’ is 5, 6, 7, 1, 2, 3, 4!

9/ As we examine further evidence we will note that the term ‘Qur’anic Script’ is sometimes used interchangeably with the term ‘Qur’anic Arabic’ in what is obviously an attempt to cloud the difference between them.

10/ One wonders how the theology of ‘the exact replica of the Tablet’ is so easily side-stepped by Philips’ assertion that the Qur’an is "essentially an oral revelation"!! Since when!?

11/ The word bismi where the alif is omitted can be seen to begin with an ‘extended’ or ‘elongated’ stem (see Q11:41 and Q27:30) which is noted in grammar books to indicate that an alif is omitted.

One mustn’t get confused by the fact that some words indeed have letters that are ‘un

Back To Top

Back To Part 2 Index

pronounced’. Such a letter is nevertheless part of the ‘original’ spelling of the word and its absence is a spelling mistake. This last word ‘bismi’ is such a one as Hamidullah acknowledges - but strangely he lists it at the end of the next section on problems with waws!! Is he trying to hide it?

Some are avoiding blaming Allah and would like to argue that the different spellings are like the spellings of ‘color’ and ‘colour’. Others would say these are dialectical differences. However, Islam has ‘corrected’ all of them! Are we to assume that now (1400 years A.H.) Islam is trying to ‘unify’ the text of the Quran to one spelling or one dialect? And how will this be accomplished since, as we noted earlier, Suyuti states that there are 50 dialects in the Qur’an?!

12/ Statistic of 2700 from; ‘19’, Philips, p. 39ff.

13/ Are we to interpret the 1600 as representing alifs added because of the ‘new readings’ differing from `Uthman’s texts or do they coincide with Warsh alifs?

14/ It is here that the reader is referred by footnote #6 to the article Orthographical Peculiarities in the texts of the Qur’an, by M. Hamidullah.

15/ This footnote seems to have been maintained in all publications of Yusuf Ali’s translation.

16/ If it is taken as a ‘y’ this may also become a ‘long i’ by placing a kasra beneath the preceding consonant. If it is used as an alif, then this may become a ‘long a’ by placing a fatha on the consonant preceding.

17/ The true name is alif maksura. (see A Grammar of the Arabic Language, Wright, Vol. 1, p. 11, footnote to A; published in Lebanon)

18/ We note that though the combination with the alif in the graphic form is possible, this is not ‘equivalent’ to having a graphic ya and trying to ‘convert’ it into an alif. It must be written in the text as an alif in order to be recognised from a ya alif, both of which give different meanings.

19/ Cited from Studies..., Ph.D., Brockett, p. 218, footnote 18. The ht indicates the t that is written in the Arabic as an "h with 2 dots over it" .

20/ The Warsh text retains the 2 dots beneath the ya thus indicating that it is replacing the ya with an alif.

21/ Studies..., Ph.D., Brockett, p. 47.

22/ The Indian, Taj, 1975 (83 Amana) and Mushaf al-Madinahs all are as the 1924 Egyptian text.

23/ The Egyptian text ‘silences’ (otioses) this ‘ya’, although it ensures we know it was ‘originally’ a ‘ya’ by placing the appropriate 2 dots under the ‘stem’! The ‘Taj’ text (as in the Swahili/Arabic text) simply ignores the presence of what now is treated as an ‘extra stem’, and does not place ‘ya dots’ on it, nor Hamidullah's "sign of silence", that convenient sign of the great Qur’anic cover-up. But, many letters are simply ignored like this in the Arabic texts, for obvious reasons.

24/ Of course, no-one knows whether the texts would have had one or two dals if they had been ‘unified’ to give what Islam claims was the ‘1 Form’ `Uthman was trying to pass along. Thus the text is further admitted to be corrupt.

25/ The Warsh, Taj and Indian texts are all as the 1924, so the Turkish (and Iranian) is an odd text.

26/ This number of shaddas will be the same as the difference with the 1924 Egyptian. Only in 11 instances were shaddas added to the Egyptian that were absent in the Taj; Q5:99; 6:38: 15:2; 17:25; 18:5; 27:60; 37:5; 42:49; 54:34; 61:4; 67:3.

Back To Part 2 Index

27/ As we find someone else also noted: "However, there is a little mark in Arabic grammar called a "shadda" which means that the letter underneath the mark is doubled. "ALLaH" or "ALLH" has a "shadda" on the second "L", and could (should?) be written "ALLLH"..." (The Qur’an and the Bible..., Campbell, p. 251)

28/ One might well ask why it is that the ‘corrected’ versions are not given in the same order (5, 6, 1, 2, 3, 4) as the ‘erroneous’ ones (1, 2, 3, 4 , 5, 6). Is it so that the ignorant will not be able to comprehend the evidence?

29/ Al-Muqni, p. 118.

30/ This is another instance where the ‘short stroke’ is employed in the non-Egyptian texts. See footnote 35 below.

31/ This English/Arabic Pickthall was reproduced in the U.K. beginning in 1976, and the last texts were distributed by Ta Ha Publications (U.K.), some of which the present writer purchased in 1994/5 from I.P.C.I. Birmingham.

32/ Since it was printed in Hyderabad, Deccan, they chose to make slight alterations which they mentioned in their Notes. Among these was the spelling of the word Allah which they chose to spell with a ‘dagger alif’ instead of a fatha (short a) as mentioned earlier in Part 1.

33/ In the Indian and Pakistani Taj texts many of the are acknowledged by a simple ‘short stroke’ declaring "There is a problem here!". If it is below the text, it may signify either a missing ya, or waw. If above the text, then it may signify a missing alif (but no fatha will appear on the preceding consonant as in the Egyptian) or a ya alif.

34/ Again we find the ‘corrected’ versions are given in the order (3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 1, 2) instead of (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)! For what reason?

35/ In the case of the Warsh (Taj and Indian) text the shadda has been applied to the first ya to get the 3rd ya. Thus the Hafs problem which began as a spelling mistake has terminated in a corruption! Nobody seems to have accepted `Uthman’s texts as ‘Divine’!

36/ The letter ‘lam’ (l) is missing in the text of Hamidullah's article

37/ This is one feature said to identify the Pakistani Taj text from all others. (Studies..., Ph.D., Brockett, p. 26). [It also occurs in some texts - like the one M. Ali used - with the extra alif in Q59:13 which Brockett states is a distinctive feature of the Indian text.] In the Swahili text it occurs on page 422. The 1975 Islamic Foundation (83 Amana) text has only the small nun as the 1924 Egyptian text.

38/ Aside of course from the shadda which ‘stretches’ the existing single nun to 2 nuns!

39/ Brockett (Studies..., Ph.D., p. 120) documents the different modes for Q12:11 as ta`manna / tamannna. These readings also show that Hafs seated a hamza on the alif, while Warsh just ignored it.

40/ This is another place where Amana Corp. altered the Arabic text which it issued in 1983, and is perhaps another of that text’s Turkish amendments. The 1985 Amana text, their version of the false ‘Mushaf al-Madinah’, indicates 3 nuns.

The false Mushaf al-Madinahs include the diamond for the extra nun, again disagreeing with the Warsh (Medinan) content.

41/ A text like the Pakistani Taj (and Indian) text can be confusing at first, since one also finds a sad inserted just after this word in Q2:245. Yet, in these texts, this sad as Von Denffer states it, "waqf al-murakhkhas; permissible stop, if taking breath is required." (Ulum, p. 175). The 1909 Turkish text makes the ‘full stop’ in red ink above the text, and the ‘vocal sin’ in red ink below the text.

42/ Brockett (Studies..., Ph.D., p. 60) documents under ‘vocalisation’ Q2:245 and Q7:69.

Back To Part 2 Index

43/ In Q:247 the word is spelled in the correct form.

44/ As we consider that first he admits that Jesus was put on the cross, and now that there are errors in the Qur’an, there is not much left, except to expect that Mr. Deedat, who like the apostle Paul "kicked against the goads", will soon profess his faith in Christ’s sacrifice for his sins. Although more receently I.P.C.I. has removed the booklet "Al-Qur’an: The Ultimate Miracle", it is recorded on the Internet in an article titled Deedat In The Balance, that the South African ulema for years derided Mr. Deedat for this very booklet and belief. But, he held to it.

Back To Part 2 Index
Back To Top