ALTERATION OF THE HOLY QURAN
Abdul Hafeez claims that in his hostile publication, Two in One, one would find proof of the alteration of the Quran by Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas of Qadian1 and at some later stage in his book, he gives evidence of his invercity yet once again when he manipulates human error to establish this false charge of an intentional distortion of the Quranic text. Hence, rather than furnish any citations from the copies of the Quran published by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, he takes advantage of the first cover of other publications where such human errors have occurred - errors which on detection were subsequently corrected in further editions.
The first example which he furnishes in evidence of this false charge relates to the Quranic verses in Surah Al Rahman. He states that whereas the correct passage should read:
COPY OF ORIGINAL QURANIC PASSAGE CITED BY ABDUL HAFEEZ, P.24
i.e., Kullu man 'alay-haa faan: Wa yabqaa Wajhu Rabbika ZuI-JalaaIi wal-'Ikraam, Hadhrat Ahmadas has intentionally 'addedin his work Izalat e Auham and expunged 2 and thereby mis-constructed the verses to read:
COPY FROM ABDUL HAFEETS BOOK TWO IN ONE, P.24
In the first instance, this citation has not been quoted from Hadhrat Ahmadsas original handwritten manuscript but from the first cover of the publication of Izalah Auham. Therefore, the error was not committed by Hadhrat Ahmadas but by the printer's copyist who prepared the script for publication. Secondly, had there been an intentional alteration of the Quranic text by either Hadhrat Ahmadas or even the copyist, then this passage would not have been recorded elsewhere in the first cover of the same book as:
PHOTOCOPY OF THE QURANIC PASSAGE IN IZALA AUHAM, P.419, RUHANI KHAZAIN, VOL 3, P.434
i.e., Kullu man 'alay-haa faan: Wa yabqaa Wajhu Rabbika Zul-Jalaali wal-'Ikraam, which is a perfect citation of the Quranic passage in Surah al Rahman. Incidentally, this Quranic passage has also been correctly cited on another occasion in Izalah Auham3 as well as in Sat Bachan4; Islami Usul ki Philosophy5 and Chashma Marifat.6 Hence, had there been any intent by Hadhrat Ahmadas to alter the text of the sacred Scriptures, then he would have altered these verses in question in every one of the other instances cited above. The mere fact these have been correctly recorded elsewhere on several occasions bears evidence that in this particular instance cited by Abdul Hafeez, a copyist error had been made in the recording of this passage which was eventually detected and subsequently corrected in future editions. Hence, one observes that in one of these subsequent editions of Izalah Auham, this particular recording of the passage cited by Abdul Hafeez as evidence of the alteration of the noble Quran has been recorded as:
PHOTOCOPY OF THE PASSAGE IN HADHRAT AHMAD'S IZALAH AUHAM, P.136; RUHANI KHAZAIN, VOL 3 P.149
i.e., Kullu man 'alay-haa faan: Wa yabqaa Wajhu Rabbika Zul-Jalaali wal-'Ikraam. It is therefore thoroughly dishonest to manipulate a perfectly normal human error as evidence of intentional distortion. However, if it is still insisted that such human errors are unacceptable and therefore, a perfectly justifiable evidence of intentional distortion, then Abdul Hafeez himself stands guilty of the offense of subjecting the noble Quran to alteration since the passage of Surah al Rahman which he cites in his book reads:
COPY OF PASSAGE FROM SURAH AL RAHMAN CITED BY ABDUL HAFEEZ IN HIS BOOK TWO IN ONE, P.24
i.e., Kullu man 'alay-haa faan. Wa yabqaa Wajhu Rabbika Nul-Jalaali wal-'Ikraam. Hence, while the original passage in the noble Quran contains the word Zul-Jalaali between Rabbika and wal-Tkraam, Abdul Hafeez has substituted the Arabic alphabet za with nun and therefore recorded Nul-Jalaali instead of Zul-Jalaali. Therefore, while he accuses Hadhrat Ahmadas of subjecting the Quran to alteration by adding or removing some words7 he is seen to be himself guilty of removing the word Zul-Jalaali and adding Nul-Jalaali. How does he then propose to justify himself in the presence of God in view of his own statement that 'alteration in the Holy Quran is an abominable sin and the one who is responsible for it will be given severe punishment on the Day of Judgment. Such Jewish minded people are committing frank blasphemy.'8 In view of what Abdul Hafeez has been illustrated to have done with the Quranic verse from Surah Rahman, what is he committing, if not blasphemy?
The second objection which he has raised in relation to this citation of the Quranic passage by Hadhrat Ahmadas argues that two separate verses have been merged into one9 which in his estimation is improper and therefore, unacceptable. In that event one would ask him as to what opinion would he express in relation to our noble Prophet, Hadhrat Muhammadsa who, according to Hadhrat Alias is reported to have stated:
'Waj-jahtu waj-hiya lil-lazii fataras-samaawaati wal-'arza hanlifanw-wa maaa Ďana minal-mush-rikiin. 'I nna Salaatii wa nusukii wa mah-yaaya wa mamaatii lil'laahi Rabbil-'aalamiin. Laa shariika lah: wa bizaa-lika 'umirtu wa 'ana man Muslimiin.'
This hadeeth, stated to have been reported by the fourth Caliph of Islam, Hadhrat Ali ibn Talibra is contained in one of the six most authentic books of Hadeeth literature.10 Yet, a direct reference to the Holy Quran establishes that this statement attributed to Hadhrat Muhammadsa contains three separate Quranic verses, the first being:
'Innii waj-jahtu waj-hiya lil-lazii fataras-samaawaati wal-'arza hanii-fanw-wa maaa 'ana minal-mush-rikiin.'11
The other two Quranic verses merged with verse 6.80 in this statement attributed to the Prophet of Islam, Hadhrat Muhammadsa by the fourth Caliph, Hadhrat Ali ibn Talibra are, according to the Holy Quran:
'Qul 'inna Salaatii wa nusukii wa mah-yaaya wa mamaatii lil'laahi Rabbil-'aalamiin.'12
'Laa shariika lah: wa bizaa-lika 'umirtu wa 'ana 'awwa-lul-Muslimiin.'13
However, as one would observe in this statement attributed to Hadhrat Muhammadsa by Hadeeth literature, 'Innii in the beginning of verse 6.80 before waj-jahtu is missing and so is Qul before 'inna Salaatii in verse 6.163 as well as 'awwa-lul before Muslimiin in verse 6.164 while man has been added before Muslimiin. what opinion would Abdul Hafeez now care to express in relation to our beloved Prophetsa for having made the aforementioned statement; in relation to Hadhrat Alira for having reported the same and also Hadhrat Imam Tirmidhirh for having recorded it in his collection of Ahadeeth? Would it not be more sensible for him to accept that it is a perfectly acceptable practice amongst Muslims to join the verses of the Holy Quran together to convey an essential message and hence Hadhrat Ahmadas did not commit any error in writing verses 26 and 27 of Surah Rahman together? Or would he rather take exception to some of the greatest men known to the history of Islam for having established this Sunnah which Hadhrat Ahmadas merely followed?
The second Quranic passage which Abdul Hafeez falsely alleges Hadhrat Ahmadas intentionally distorted is stated to be found in Dafe al Waswas, Muqadimah Haqeeqatul Islam14 and it relates to the verse:
'Wa maaa 'arsalnna minqablika mir-rasuulinwwa laa nabiyyin 'illaaa 'izaa tamannaaa 'alqash - Shaytaanu fiii 'umniyyatih'.15
However, the evidence which he presents in support of his allegation is not from Dafe al Waswas but from page 629 of Izalah Auham16 Nonetheless, this copyist error, probably by the same copyist who made the previous mistake in Izalah Auham, discussed in the preceding pages, was also detected and corrected in subsequent editions of the publication:
PHOTOCOPY OF CORRECTED QURANIC VERSE, IZALAH AUHAM, P.629; RUHANI KHAZAIN, VOL 3, p.439
i.e., Wa maaa 'arsalnaa minqablika mir-rasuulinwwa laa nabiyyin 'illaaa 'izaa tamannaaa 'alqash - Shaytaanu fiii 'umniyyatih.
As far as the citation of this Quranic verse in Dafe al Waswas, Muqadimah Haqeeqatul Islam is concerned, the complete verse has been noted therein as:
PHOTOCOPY OF QURANIC VERSE 22.52, DAFE WASWAS, MUQADIMAH HAQEEQATUL ISLAM, AYANAE KAMALAT E ISLAM, RUHANI KHAZAIN, VOL.5, P.352
i.e., 'Wa maaa 'arsalnaa minqablika mir-rasuulinwwa laa nabiyyin 'illaaa 'izaa tamannaaa 'alqash - Shaytaanu fiii 'umniyyatih: fayansa-khullaahu maa yulqish - Shaytaanu summa yuh-kimullaahu 'Aayaatih: wallaahu 'Aliimun Hakiim' which is exactly how it has been recorded in the Quran.
Incidentally, it is argued that in this verse, the word minqablika before Wa maaa 'arsalnaa has been expunged because if this word had remained there, it would have made it impossible for Hadhrat Ahmadas to establish his own claim to prophethood.17 However, if as alleged, Hadhrat Ahmadas had expunged the word minqablika to assist him in establishing his claim to prophethood, then may one ask Abdul Hafeez as to why did he not expunge it in every citation of the Quranic verse recorded by him in his books, as for instance, it is to be found in the very first edition of Braheen e Ahmadiyya.18 Moreover, one is rather at a loss to understand how the word minqablika, meaning, before thee not being cited in this verse effects Hadhrat Ahmadísas claim to prophethood. It is an established fact of history that apostles of God have, as a rule, been opposed by Satan and hence God Almighty stated in the Quran:
'Never did We send a Messenger or a Prophet before thee but when he recited [the Message] Satan proposed [opposition] in respect of that which he recited thereof. But Allah abolisheth that which Satan proposeth. Then Allah establisheth His revelations. Allah is knower, Wise.'19
Would Abdul Hafeez care to explain as to how, if the words before thee were not a part of this verse, would this Quranic passage mean any different?
In his third alleged 'proof of alteration in the Quran' Abdul Hafeez merely cites 'Roohani Khazain, p.439 by Mirza Ghulam A Qadiani'20 which indicates that he is thoroughly ignorant of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community's literature since Hadhrat Ahmadas did not, at any point in time write any such book which was titled as such. Had he been aware of the fact that Ruhani Khazain is a title given to the entire collection of Hadhrat Ahmadísas written work by the publishers who bound it together, he would not have made such a mistake as to just cite page 439 of Ruhani Khazain and not the volume on page 439 of which one would find this Quranic passage allegedly altered by Hadhrat Ahmadas. Could the author of Two in One state in his next edition of his book as which page 439 of the 33 volumes of Ruhani Khazain is he referring to?
The fourth Quranic passage alleged to be intentionally distorted is stated by the author of Two in One to be found in Hadhrat Ahmadísas 'Debate between Muslims & Christians & Holy War, page 194.'21 This is once again an indication that he is not familiar with the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community's literature or else he would have known that the book he refers to is not named as 'Debate between Muslims & Christians & Holy War' but as Jang e Muqaddas, i.e., Holy War. Had he ever laid sight on the actual book itself and not copied this allegation of another hostile publication, as evident from his inclusion of the photocopies of pages contained in another publication22, he would have realized that the words 'Debate between Muslims & Christians' are a part of a brief explanation of the title of Hadhrat Ahmadísas book
However, in this instance, it is argued that in this Quranic verse, Hadhrat Ahmadas has added wa jaa - hadun bi-'amwaalihim wa 'anfusihim and expunged wa jaa-hiduu bi-'amwaa-likum wa 'anifisikum and also placed fii Sabii-lillaahi in the middle whereas it should have been at the end of the verse. Nonetheless, this particular passage of the Quranic verse cited by Hadhrat Ahmadas is a perfectly correct citation of the verse contained in Part 323 and not Part 6 of Surah Tauba as mistakenly stated in the 1970 edition of the book, a page of which Abdul Hafeez has presented as evidence.24 This verse reads:
'Alla - ziina 'aamanuu wa haa - jaruu wa jaa - haduu fii Sabiilillaahi bi-amwaa-lihim wa Ďanfusihim 'a'-zamu darajatan 'indallaah: wa 'ulaaa-'ika humul-faaa-'izuun.'25
As evident from the above citation of the Quranic verse contained in Surah Tauba, Part 3, the words wa jaa - haduu and also bi-'amwaa-lihim wa 'anfusihim are very much a part of the original Quranic text and the words fii Sabii-lillaahi are not at the end of the verse but in the middle. The above quotation also bears evidence that the words alleged to have been expunged, i.e., wa jaa-hiduu bi-'amwaa-likum wa 'anfusikum are not a part of this Quranic verse in Surah Tauba.
The fifth Quranic passage which Hadhrat Ahmadas is falsely alleged to have intentionally altered is stated to be found on page 558 of Braheen Ahmadiyya.26 Yet, while Abdul Hafeez does not illustrate as to what intentional alteration has Hadhrat Ahmadas been guilty of in this instance, the Alami Tahuffuze Khatme Nubuwwat scholars from whose publication the author of Two in One has borrowed all these allegations have, on one hand attempted to manipulate this citation in Braheen Ahmadiyya to allege that Hadhrat Ahmadas intentionally changed the text of the Holy Quran while on the other they have admitted that:
It is amazing that this verse has been correctly cited in the Index on page 37 of the Braheen e Ahmadiyya.'27
This admission by the hostile elements should conclusively establish that this was once again a case of human error and not intentional alteration or else the reference to the verse m question would not have been correctly cited in the Index of the same publication. Nonetheless, the objection that has been raised against this citation is that whereas in the Quran, the diacritical mark has been placed above the alphabet nun in the word alquran and also mim in the word , Hadhrat Ahmadas has placed this beneath both nun and mim.
In the first instance, it has already been shown that there was absolutely no intention in Hadhrat Ahmadísas mind to subject the text of this verse to alteration or else he would have similarly altered the passage in the Index of his book also which his adversaries admit is a perfectly correct citation of the Quranic passage. Secondly, if the purpose of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community was to alter the text of the noble Quran, then it would not have corrected this passage in subsequent publications of the same book, as for instance, it has been done in the edition of which a photocopy is reproduced below:
PHOTOCOPY OF QURANIC VERSE UNDER DISCUSSION IN HADHRAT AHMAD'Sas BRAHEEN AHMADIYYA, RUHANI KHAZAIN VOL.1, PAGE 580
Finally, if Abdul Hafeez considers a copyist error of placing the diacritical mark beneath rather than above a word an evidence of intentional tempering with the Quran, then one would ask him as to what would he consider his own action to be since he has expunged all such diacritical marks in his citations of Quranic passages, as for instance, in the quotation below:
PHOTOCOPY OF OURANIC VERSE CITED BY ABDUL HAFEEZ IN HIS PUBLICATION TWO IN ONE, P.24
For his benefit, one reproduces below the actual text of the aforementioned Quranic passage and suggests that he compare the two to find the extent of diacritical marks which he has expunged in his citation, and therefore, according to his own standards, the distortion of the Holy Quran's text:
Would he now care to accuse himself for subjecting the sacred text of the Holy Quran to alteration?
And finally, the last Quranic verse alleged to have been intentionally altered is stated to be recorded in Aina e Kamalat e Islam.28 In this instance also, Abdul Hafeez neither quotes the page on which the evidence of such alteration is to be found nor does he cite the Quranic verse alleged to have been altered despite his claim that one would 'find proof of alteration in the Quran.'29 However, since some of his other colleagues have previously singled out Hadhrat Ahmadísas citation of the Quranic passages Surah Al Anfal 8.30 and Surah Al Hadid 57.29 on page 177 of Ayanae Kamalat e Islam, one would discuss these in the light of the objection raised by them.
Apparently, on this page of his famous work Ayanae Kamalat e Islam, Hadhrat Almadas has cited the following Quranic passages:
PHOTOCOPY OF QURANIC PASSAGES CITED IN AYANAE KAMALAT E ISLAM, P.177; RUHANI KHAZAIN, VOL.5, P.177
i.e., Yaaa-'ayyu-halaziina 'aamanuuu 'in-tatta-qullaaha yaj 'al-lakum Fur-qaananw-wa yu-kaffir 'ankum sayyi - 'aatikum. Wa yaj-'al-lakum Nuuran-tamshuuna bihii. Hadhrat Ahmadísas adversaries allege that in this instance, wa yaj-'al-lakum Nuuran-tamshuuna bihii has been added and wa yagflr lakum. Wallaahu Zul-Fazlil-'aziim expunged by him. In the first instance, it should be observed that the above passage contains segments of not one, but two separate Quranic verses, Yaaa-'ayyu-hallaziina 'aamanuuu 'in-tattaqullaaha yaj-'al-lakum Fur-qaananw-wa yu-kaffir 'ankum sayyi -'aatikum being part of 8.30 while wa yaj -'al-lakum Nuurantamshuuna bihii part of 57.29. Therefore, the allegation that the words wa yaj-'al-lakum Nuuran-tamshuuna bihii has been added is thoroughly false, these being a part of the Quranic verse in Surah Al Hadid.30 Secondly, since both these verses have not been cited in full, nor were they meant to be, the question of any subtraction does not arise.
The only objection anyone could, albeit not justifiably, raise against this particular citation of the Holy Quran would be that Hadhrat Ahmadas has linked together two separate sections of two Quranic verses. In that event one would submit that in doing so, he has merely followed the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammadsa who often linked together separate sections of different Quranic verses to convey an essential message. This fact has already been illustrated in the preceding pages with the citation of a Hadeeth in Jami Tirmidhi where Hadhrat Muhammadsa linked three separate Quranic verses to state:
Such a Hadeeth where our beloved Prophetsa linked sections of separate Quranic verses is also found in the Masnad of Ahmad, as for instance Hadhrat 'Abd Allah ibn Abbasra narrates that the Apostlesa of Allah stated:
In this statement Hadhrat Muhammadsa linked together certain sections of Surah Tauba 9.129 as well as Surah al Mu'minun 23.87 and 23.117. Hadeeth literature also indicates that our beloved Prophetsa often extracted parts of several Quranic verses and linked them together to explain certain aspects of Islamic teachings, as for instance, it is reported in Jami Tirmidhi that the Apostlesa of Allah stated:
In yet another such report in the aforementioned collection of Hadeeth, it is narrated that Hadhrat Muhammadsa stated:
what opinion does Abdul Hafeez now propose to express in relation to Hadhrat Muhammadsa for having left a precedent in his life for his truthful followers to copy?
The aforementioned submission should, therefore, conclusively establish that Abdul Hafeez has either, out of sheer mischief, manipulated genuine human error to construe it as evidence of intentional alteration of the text of Quranic verses or else, out of ignorance, censured the Sunnah of our beloved Prophet, Hadhrat Muhammadsa. If he considers either of these two actions justifiable, then one leaves him to his transgression. Nonetheless, in 1973, the General Secretary of the Jamaitul Ulema Islam in Pakistan, Maulvi Mufti Mahmud started such a false propaganda against the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community which was responded to by the then Governor of Baluchistan, Nawab Muhammad Akbar Bagti who instituted an inquiry into this matter and finally reported that no such alteration of the Quran had been made.31 The fact remains, however, that these evidences furnished by the author of Two in One as proof of alteration of the Quranic text are either genuine errors in different editions or false allegations. That is why he does not furnish his evidences from one single but several editions.32
As regards the question of alteration of meaning and application, Abdul Hafeez has not furnished any evidence despite his own statement that 'every claim has to have some proof.'33 One is, therefore, unable to dwell upon this question at length but submit that since every translator of the Quran has conducted his translation according to one's own understanding of the Sacred Text, one can well expect to find variations in translation of the Holy Quran. Such variations are to be found between translations conducted by the renowned scholars of Islam, as for instance, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Maulana Abdul Haq, Muhaddith Dehlvi who subscribed to the same schools of thought. Why then should Ahmadi Muslims be singled out in this relation is something which Abdul Hafeez needs to explain.