Part 2: The True State Of The Qur’an

Back To Main Index
Back To Part 2 Index

CHAPTER VII: PROTECTING ALLAH - THE ILLUSION OF 1985

a/ The Final ‘Outwitting’ A New Medinan Text or "Now You See Them, Now You Don’t"

  It is not surprising to find that while someone like Ahmed Deedat triumphantly proclaims "Now you see it! Now you don’t!" when he finds out what most ordinary individuals already know, that publishers do occasionally revise the commentary (tafsir) which accompanies some translations of the Bible, we find that Islam’s desire to be seen as having "only one Qu’ran" has caused it, in recent years (1985), to issue another new Edition of the Arabic text, which Mr. Deedat and IPCI are busy selling!! 

  While one Islamic acqaintance has termed it, "the one that the Saudi’s corrected", it is much more than that, for although proclaiming itself ‘The Mushaf of Medinah’, it has omitted all the corruptions which we noted ad-Dani and ibn al-Jazari recorded as being present in the true ‘Uthmanic text of Medinah, things which Islam continues to print under permit from al-Azhar! Thus Islam, instead of ‘revising the commentary’, has busied itself ‘revising’ its true history, and producing a ‘new original’ Medinan text - 1400 years after ‘Uthman’s errors!!

  This self-proclaimed Mushaf Al-Madinah An-Nabawiya (The Mushaf of the City of the Prophet), which should bear the consonantal symbol text of Medinah [and be accompanied by an appropriate reading], rather agrees with the graphic form of the Kufan manuscript [as belongs with Hafs’ reading] except in some few instances which are less noticeable. 

  In fact it sounds very much like a text published in Tunisia, and noted by someone as: 

  In a recent (1997) telephone conversation with the Islamic Foundation U.K., the author was told, "There is no such thing as the Mushaf al-Madinah"!! We were in conversation about this same text! Yet this seems to be a widespread ‘outwitting’ (lie) for the same claim was made by the man who gave the author a 1964 al-Azhar authorised Warsh text!!

  But, "Take your own Qur’an and compare!", as Von Denffer

Back To Top

43

Part 2: The True State Of The Qur’an

Back To Part 2 Index

 writes! The consonantal symbol differences cited earlier from the classical Islamic scholars, and confirmed in the present authorised Warsh [Medinan] texts are indeed absent!

 For example, in Q2:132; 3:133; 5:53, 54; 9:107; 18:36; 26:217; 40:26; 42:30; 43:68; 57:24; 91:15, those mentioned above, are all absent.³

 Indeed, this text appears to be an almost exact duplicate of the 1924 Royal Cairo Edition of the Arabic text, depending upon which ‘version’ of this false Medinan text you examine. There are presently 3!! They actually vary in their graphic forms as to whether or not they include the few similarities which are supposedly the ‘PROOF’ that this is a ‘Medinan’ text!

 These include whether or not the texts include a ‘dagger-alif’ ⁴ in Q2:72 to ‘mimic’ the alif in the graphic form of the true Medinan text. Also, whether or not they include the ‘ignored’ consonant nun in Q73:20, something that is contained in the real Medinan text as noted in the previous Chapter. The true Medinan text also included an extra nun in Q72:16, something that all these texts omit. 

 We find:

 1/ The 1990 King Fahd Printing Press version includes both the ‘dagger-alif’ in Q2:72   , and the nun in Q73:20   in order to ‘mimic’ the Warsh (Medinan) text.

 2/ The Amana Corporation in 1995 also printed a text saying only; "The Arabic script has been completely changed using the script of the highly acclaimed and recently published Mushaf al Madinah al Munawwarah." However, it has a note denouncing its earlier honesty which it had expressed in its 1409/1989 printing of the same text:

 However, the only ‘misconception’ that is being avoided is the one where it is denied that this is a ‘new revised Arabic text’!! Not only was this an ‘edited’ Arabic text, falsely claiming the name ‘Medinan’, but, since it is indeed very different from the corrupted form of the Egyptian text that it printed in its 1983 copying of the 1975 Islamic Foundation printing, it certainly requires a designation as "The New Revised Edition" all around!! What an ‘outwitting’! 

 It even contains the ‘dagger-alif’ in Q2:72 , the ‘Proof’ that this is an ‘edited’ text from their 1983 one, and that it is only a mimicking of ‘the original Medinan’ which has the alif in the graphic form! Also, the 

Back To Top

44

Part 2: The True State Of The Qur’an

Back To Part 2 Index

‘ignored’ nun in Q73:20   is present, which was missing in Amana’s 1983 printing.⁵

 3/ The Noble Qur’an (1405/1985), also printed in Saudi and claiming to be this exact same text as issued that same year (1985) says, "The Arabic text of the Noble Qur’an has been taken from Mushaf Al-Madinah An-Nabawiyyah, which has been printed ...in the year 1405...". (notes p.6). Yet, not only does it omit the ‘dagger alif’ in Q2:72 , but  it  also omits  the nun  in the  graphic form in Q73:20, making it as in the 1924 Egyptian text.

 Maybe they got confused with so much shuffling! Or, maybe the words "taken from" are intended as a tauriya meaning they were ‘only taking some of the text’! Thus we see that even inside Saudi, they don’t agree on the content of the ‘new Mushaf Al-Madinah’. 

 Yet, Dr. Hilali, whose notes accompany this false text states:

 And the motive of ALL others he stated as:

 But, since this false ‘Medinan’ text is obviously what is being used in the most recent spate of printings, including the Saudi effort to bring the Qur’an to the world with free copies being distributed, one can only be disgusted by such "wilful tampering of truth and concealing of evidence". 

 Indeed, as one Islamic writer bemoaned on the alteration of other aspects of Islam’s history:
 

Back To Top

45

Part 2: The True State Of The Qur’an

Back To Part 2 Index

  Although that was a Shi’a commenting, we must agree for the obvious purpose of the Saudi scholars who invented this text is that the Medinan and Kufan consonantal symbol texts (the only ones in print) are now "MADE TO APPEAR" to be IDENTICAL, thus ‘eliminating’ 1400 years of ‘Uthman’s consonantal symbol errors!

  To accomplish this, if they really did begin with the true Medinan text, a great many consonantal symbols had to be wilfully changed, something that the notes accompanying the Saudi’s publication, and cited earlier, deny saying, "So well has it been preserved, both in memory and in writing, that the Arabic text we have today is identical to the text as it was revealed to the Prophet. Not even a single letter has yielded to corruption during the passage of centuries.". 
 

b/ ‘Kithman’, ‘Taqiyya’, ‘Tauriya’

  By now it is obvious that Caliph ‘Uthman failed to accomplish his sole purpose, ‘to unite the Muslims on the basis of a single mushaf’ as as-Suyuti is known to have said. 

  So, why has Von Denffer (and others), chosen to ‘overlook’ all the ‘original’ consonantal differences by stating that absolutely every printed and hand-written text of the Arabic Qur’an is perfectly the same? 

  The reasons are obvious, for, as Von Denffer is quoted above, the belief is: 

  The importance of every variant in `Uthman’s manuscripts is obviously that they are ‘post-revelational" and so unacceptable because they didn’t come from Muhammad! Thus, what is claimed to be ‘Divinely preserved’ from alteration is obviously not so, and HARAM bid’a (unacceptable innovation) has been accepted as ‘revelation’! 

  That is why all the writers we cited earlier have proclaimed that they 

Back To Top

46

Part 2: The True State Of The Qur’an

Back To Part 2 Index

still have an unaltered (‘perfectly preserved’) Qur’an! Here is where Islam has made its stand and the point from which it has made its assault on Christianity and Judaism. 

  Thus Von Denffer HAS to write of the manuscripts purporting to be ’Uthmani ‘originals’ still in existence, "their texts and arrangement can be compared, by anyone who cares to, with any other copy of the Qur’an, be it in print or handwriting, from any place or period of time. They will be found to be identical." (Ulum, p.64). 

  All we have seen cries out that this is not true!

  Despite all this, Islam batters away with all its might over some small variations in the Gospel manuscripts, and distracts everyone while the Saudis secretly eliminate some notable discrepancies in Islam’s ‘original’ texts in order to deceive those both inside and outside Islam. 

  Again we say of such actions, "perversity of conscience in religious matters is the order of the day and lying and wilful tampering of truth and concealing of evidence is considered meritorious to religion....the main strength of [the Islamic] religion is held to consist in keeping people ignorant of the true facts."

  It is therefore obvious that if any follower of Islam (Mr. Deedat included) is honest enough to weigh the content of the true ‘original’ Qur’anic manuscripts with the same scale they claim Christianity’s must be weighed on, the Qur’an must now be rejected, simply because of `Uthman’s errors. 

  And this is all the more since, as the followers of Islam constantly proclaim, it is ONLY the Qur’an which has claimed infallible protection, as the aya trumpets. But, this means that Allah has failed! Since the true God cannot fail, therefore the entire content of the Qur’an must be discarded as not coming from Him. 

  That is why we also find Von Denffer, instead of being forthright about the obvious ‘problems’ with the ‘Uthmanic manuscripts, etc., began his book dishonestly by stating: 

  As we have seen, a clear understanding of the ‘discrepancies’ which stem from `Uthman’s manuscripts being different from one another, has nothing at all to do with a knowledge of "classical Arabic". The issue is 

Back To Top

47

Part 2: The True State Of The Qur’an

Back To Part 2 Index

quite straight forward - consonantal symbol variations, apparently due to scribal errors - all of which Islam has incorporated into its ‘revelation’! And, as for needing an ‘understanding’ of the ‘7 ahruf’ - which of the "35 sayings" (speculations) concerning them is he referring to? 

  It is obvious that for Von Denffer to admit that the scribes made errors in the ‘original’ manuscripts of the Qur’an is suicidal! And, if there are no ‘original’ manuscripts to view, then who knows what else might have been done to the text of the Qur’an! 

  The discrepancy between what Von Denffer has printed, what the Islamic Foundation continues to assert, and the true state of the Qur’anic texts, was raised in a recent conversation with Islamic Foundation U.K. in which it was stated, "There is no such thing as the Mushaf al-Madinah! The present writer concluded the conversation stating: "It’s hard [i.e. difficult to tell the truth] when you are so deep into the ‘outwittings’, isn’t it?". This is, of course, the actual problem. Men become so ensnared by the spirit which tells them to lie that eventually they do not really care what the truth is. And all the while they think they are ‘protecting Allah’. 

  But, we issue the same challenge For Those Who Want Truth , those who are innocent victims, who have believed such "wilful tampering of truth and concealing of evidence"! Yes! "Take your own Qur’an and compare!" - but, fully compare the consonantal texts of Hafs and Warsh as are still in print, not a portion of one page which can be conveniently chosen to show ‘agreement’! Or, get a volume of ad-Dani’s al-Muqni, and examine the texts we have cited. 

  It is only then that you will see for yourself the differences between the Kufan (Hafs) manuscript and the ‘Imam’ manuscript which produced some of the readings mentioned above, which were also that of the Medinan (Warsh) manuscript. 

  The same observations must be made of the text of the Qur’an in Istanbul, which Von Denffer leads us to believe is the Medina manuscript used by Nafi (Warsh’s teacher). If either of these texts agree with any Hafs (Kufan) text then they CANNOT be either the ‘Imam’ or the ‘Medinan’ manuscripts.

  Even if the claim is that it is the Damascus manuscript, ad-Dani has documented where it also differed. So there is absolutely no reason for Islam not to bring these manuscripts out into the open. Let us all determine if it’s graphic form even matches one of them! Who knows, perhaps someone actually made a perfect copy!

Back To Top

48

Part 2: The True State Of The Qur’an

Back To Part 2 Index

  It is obvious that Islam has NO ‘PROOF’ by which it can uphold its claims to an ‘unchanged Qur’an’, let alone ‘Divine Protection’. Sura 15:9 has failed. 

  On these corrupt manuscripts, and THIS kind of ‘scholarship’, you have staked your eternal salvation.
 

c/‘Originals’ In Tashkent and Istanbul? - Part Of The Illusion

  It is not surprising, then, that not only has the Islamic leadership begun tampering with the recorded ‘original’ `Uthmanic content to assure those whom it has kept ignorant of the mistakes of `Uthman that ‘there is only one Qur’an’, but it has also told them that ‘an original’ is located somewhere for their examination.

  Because an ‘original’ is so important in the illusion, it became necessary for Von Denffer to finally identify the manuscript in Istanbul with the Medinan manuscript, and that in Samarkand with the text said to have been ‘Uthman’s own copy at Medinah, the ‘Imam’.⁶ He states: 

  And also: 

  Later he declares his beliefs more clearly as: 

  But, this is basically what ALL the writers cited at the beginning of this article were stating, that all existing texts ARE the same - because they all HAVE to be the same for Islam to be viable in its own eyes. 

  As his ‘Proof’, on each of his photographs marked `Plate 3’ and `Plate 4’ Von Denffer displays a portion of the Tashkent manuscript and says, "(... Take your own Qur’an and compare!"

  Yet, as we have observed from ad-Dani as well as from other examples, the text of the Imam manuscript (the one Von Denffer wants us to believe ‘may well be’ in Tashkent) DID NOT ‘COMPARE’ WELL 

Back To Top

49

Part 2: The True State Of The Qur’an

Back To Part 2 Index

with the consonantal symbol text which is most in use by the followers of Islam, that of Kufah! They were not "EXACTLY THE SAME", and the corruptions are still being authorised for printing as ‘Proof’!

 Therefore, most followers of Islam in the world would not find that they were able to verify his claim if this actually was the ‘Imam’ manuscript! Yet, the statement of Von Denffer is deliberately made to deny that reality. Of course, few, if any, of his readers is actually able to make the needed comparison and check his claim. And this alone is the "certainty" of Von Denffer’s ‘Proof’ - virtually no-one has a ‘copy’ of what is in Tashkent or Istanbul with which to carry out the comparison.

 However, Von Denffer assures us of the Samarqand Manuscript now kept in Tashkent, "One copy is in now in the Columbia University Library (USA)." (Ulum, p. 63). We find also that Princeton University too has a copy - one purchasable on 35mm slide film. 

 What is displayed in this book concerning the Samarqand MSS is the result of a personal examination of the majority of such a reproduction. The content indicates that 60% of the text of the Qur’an is missing from the Samarqand Manuscript in the form of complete pages lost.
 

d/ The Samarqand Manuscript - Is It ‘The Imam’ Manuscript?

 What then is the truth about Von Denffer’s claim that the Samarqand manuscript ‘may well be’ the Imam manuscript of Caliph `Uthman?

 This claim is quite easy to refute since we have just noted the graphic differences which exist between the Kufan and Medinan copies of `Uthman. We also saw that certain features of the Medinan copy corresponded to the content of what is referred to as the ‘Imam’ manuscript. While only certain portions of the Samarqand manuscript survive for us to examine, sufficient text remains for our purposes. We find:

Page #45:⁷

-Here we find in Q2:132 what we just saw is the Kufan graphic form which is   not which ad-Dani noted Abu `Ubayda saw in the ‘Imam’ - the mushaf `Uthman! 

 Von Denffer has been telling stories again!

 Other evidences for it not being the ‘Imam’ manuscript, or even a copy 

Back To Top

50

Part 2: The True State Of The Qur’an

Back To Part 2 Index

of it, are as follows:

Page #128:

-In line #7 the presence of   in Q3:133 is again evidence of the Kufan graphic form.

Page #507:

-In line #1 the graphic form of   in Q18:36 again is that of the Kufan copy.

Page #704:

-In line #7 we find   for Q42:30 which is the Kufan graphic form.

 More of the content of the Samarqand Manuscript will be examined shortly. However, since it is showing evidence of being a Kufan (Hafs) text we will seek now to establish grounds on which to compare it with what is acknowledged as the best Hafs (Kufan) text available, the Egyptian text.
 
 

1/ The 1342 Cairo ‘Egyptian’ text will be examined shortly.

2/ Studies ..., Ph.D., Brockett, p. 43.

3/ The text shows Q2:132 ;
Q3:133 ; 
Q5:53 ; 
Q5:54 ; Q9:107 ; 
Q18:36 ; Q26:217 ; Q40:26 ; Q42:30 ; Q43:68 ; 
Q57:24 :
Q91:15 . 

4/ Something we will see Hamidullah admits is an invention for printing, not something ‘original’.

5/  The 1983 printing bears certain similarities to the Turkish text, and so must be assumed to be one of those texts mentioned by Brockett as Egyptian with Turkish ‘modifications’. It is the same text as was published by Islamic Foundation U.K. in 1975.
 

Back To Top

51

Part 2: The True State Of The Qur’an

Back To Part 2 Index

  6/ This despite his early admission that Islam is unable to give any convincing evidence for even the existence of a pre-2nd century A.H. manuscript (see Ulum, p.62ff). 

  7/ We use the term ‘Page #’ despite the fact that our copy of the Samarqand was on film since the original is on pages. The corresponding frames are therefore being referred to in this manner. 

Back To Top

51