|
Part 2: The True State Of The Quran Back To Main Index CHAPTER VII: PROTECTING ALLAH - THE ILLUSION OF 1985 a/ The Final Outwitting A New Medinan Text or "Now You See Them, Now You Dont" It is not surprising to find that while someone like Ahmed Deedat triumphantly proclaims "Now you see it! Now you dont!" 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 Islams desire to be seen as having "only one Quran" 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 Saudis 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 Uthmans 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: "...while deviating hardly at all from the 1342 Cairo text 1 in vocal form, it corresponds with the Wars copy [a 1969 Tunisian Wars text] in graphic form on several occasions rather than with the 1342 Cairo text."2In 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 Quran and compare!", as Von Denffer 43 |
|
Part 2: The True State Of The Quran 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 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: "We thank those readers of our 1409 AH/1989 AC edition who expressed their concern over the use of the expression "New Revised Edition". In this edition we have removed the words "New Revised Edition" to avoid any misconception by our non-Muslim readers." (p. vii; emphasis added) 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 44 |
, and the nun in Q73:20 
in order to mimic the Warsh (Medinan) text. |
Part 2: The True State Of The Quran ignored nun in Q73:20 3/ The Noble Quran (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 Quran 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 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 dont agree on the content of the new Mushaf Al-Madinah. Yet, Dr. Hilali, whose notes accompany this false text states: "As it is mentioned in this holy Verse: "We will guard it." By Allah! He has guarded it. On the contrary, all the other holy Books [the Taurat (Torah), the Injeel (Gospel), etc.] have been corrupted in the form of additions or subtractions or alterations in the original text." (The Noble Quran, 1995, notes by Dr.M.T. Hilali, p.477, ft. 1). And the motive of ALL others he stated as: "CHRISTIANITY: MEN WITHOUT RELIGION"; "A Muslim never lacks proofs about the purity and truthfulness of his religion...Christianity is men without religion; yet, by their endeavour, adventurous spirit, patience and monetary contributions they are able to falsify truth and make falsehood appear true.". (The Noble Quran, 1995, notes by Dr.M.T. Hilali, p.1181; emphasis added) 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 Quran 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 Islams history: "One of the lamentable signs of the moral degradation of the Musulmans of the present day is their constant demand to rewrite their past History in a way that presents Islam as a miracle of religious conversion... It is all the more deplorable that their are religious reasons for this tendency... The result is that there is not a single Muslim writer, writing on the History of Islam or any of it branches, whom a well informed reader can read on without an almost continuous sense of disgust, or whom a normal reader can read on with any confidence. However one may deplore it, perversity of conscience in religious matters is the order of the day and lying and wilful tampering of truth 45 |
is present, which was missing in Amanas 1983 printing.5 
, but it also omits the nun in the graphic form in Q73:20, making it as in the 1924 Egyptian text. |
Part 2: The True State Of The Quran and concealing of evidence is considered meritorious to religion... We are passing through an age in which the main strength of our religion is held to consist in keeping people ignorant of the true facts." (The Early History Of Islam, P.E.T. Publications, comments of A.F. Badshah Husain)Although that was a Shia 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 Uthmans 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 Saudis 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 Quran is perfectly the same? The reasons are obvious, for, as Von Denffer is quoted above, the belief is: "the text of the Quran, once revelation had ceased, has remained the same to this day." (Von Denffer, Ulum, p. 44).The importance of every variant in `Uthmans manuscripts is obviously that they are post-revelational" and so unacceptable because they didnt come from Muhammad! Thus, what is claimed to be Divinely preserved from alteration is obviously not so, and HARAM bida (unacceptable innovation) has been accepted as revelation! But, Islam itself has enshrined as its foundation for existence the argument that the presence of the least of any alteration in anything claiming to be a previously Divinely sent Book means that one cannot be certain that other alterations have not also occurred. That is why all the writers we cited earlier have proclaimed that they 46 |
|
Part 2: The True State Of The Quran still have an unaltered (perfectly preserved) Quran! 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 Quran, 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 Islams 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 Quranic manuscripts with the same scale they claim Christianitys must be weighed on, the Quran must now be rejected, simply because of `Uthmans errors. And this is all the more since, as the followers of Islam constantly proclaim, it is ONLY the Quran 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 Quran 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: "In particular such topics related to the understanding of the text...have been treated more extensively while others, such as the seven ahruf or the Uthmanic writing, which are of benefit only to readers with a good knowledge of classical Arabic, have been introduced, but not elaborated upon." (Ulum, p. 9, emphasis added).As we have seen, a clear understanding of the discrepancies which stem from `Uthmans manuscripts being different from one another, has nothing at all to do with a knowledge of "classical Arabic". The issue is 47 |
|
Part 2: The True State Of The Quran 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 Quran 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 Quran! The discrepancy between what Von Denffer has printed, what the Islamic Foundation continues to assert, and the true state of the Quranic 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: "Its hard [i.e. difficult to tell the truth] when you are so deep into the outwittings, isnt 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 Quran 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-Danis 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 Quran in Istanbul, which Von Denffer leads us to believe is the Medina manuscript used by Nafi (Warshs 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 its graphic form even matches one of them! Who knows, perhaps someone actually made a perfect copy! 48 |
|
Part 2: The True State Of The Quran It is obvious that Islam has NO PROOF by which it can uphold its claims to an unchanged Quran, 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 Quran, 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 Uthmans own copy at Medinah, the Imam.6 He states: "The Madina Manuscript ... Some say... It has been reported...The manuscript then reached Istanbul but not Madina." (Ulum, p.62f, emphasis added).And also: "The `Imam Manuscript This is the name of the manuscript which `Uthman kept for himself.... According to some... From Morocco, it might have found its way to Samarkand. " [i.e. to Tashkent] (Ulum, p.63, emphasis added)Later he declares his beliefs more clearly as: "In other words: two of the copies of the Quran which were originally prepared in the time of Caliph `Uthman, are still available to us today and their texts and arrangement can be compared, by anyone who cares to, with any other copy of the Quran, be it in print or handwriting, from any place or period of time. They will be found to be identical." (Ulum, p.64; emphasis added)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 Quran 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 49 |
|
Part 2: The True State Of The Quran 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 Denffers 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 Quran 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 Denffers 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 Von Denffer has been telling stories again! Other evidences for it not being the Imam manuscript, or even a copy 50 |
not 
which ad-Dani noted Abu `Ubayda saw in the Imam - the mushaf `Uthman! |
Part 2: The True State Of The Quran of it, are as follows: Page #128: Page #507:
-In line #1 the graphic form of Page #704: -In line #7 we find 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. Footnotes 1/ The 1342 Cairo Egyptian text will be examined shortly. 2/ Studies ..., Ph.D., Brockett, p. 43. 3/ The text shows Q2:132 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. 51 |
in Q3:133 is again evidence of the Kufan graphic form. 
in Q18:36 again is that of the Kufan copy. 
for Q42:30 which is the Kufan graphic form. 
;
; 
; 
; Q9:107 
; 
; Q26:217 
; Q40:26 
; Q42:30 
; Q43:68 
; 
: 
. |
Part 2: The True State Of The Quran 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. 51 |