CHAPTER IV
THE TESTIMONY OF IMĀM HUSAIN CONCERNING THE VARIOUS READINGS OF THE QURĀN
We saw in the preceding chapters that the Khalif ʿUsmān, shocked at the grave differences which had crept into the reading of the Qurān, applied a drastic remedy by compiling one authoritative copy, and then burning all the rest. But even these measures were ineffectual; and in spite of ʿUsmān’s recension, the ‘seven readings,’ at least in a modified form, still continued to exist. These various readings are known as the 'Haft Qirāʿat’, and the readers, through whom these various readings have been handed down, are known as Qāris. Some were natives of Mecca, some of Medīna, some of Kūfa, and some of Syria; and the different readings of the Qurān continue to be known by the names of those who gave them currency. Thus the reading current in India is known as that of ʿAsim, or of Hafaz, his disciple; whilst the qirāʿat current in Arabia is that of Nāfi, a native of Medīna. Jalāl-ud-dīn, on the other hand, in his famous commentary, follows the qirāʿat of the Qāri Imām-Abū-ʿUmr. Many of the differences are merely in pronunciation, but in not a few cases grave differences in meaning still exist. Thus in Sūra Fātiha the Qāris Yaʿqūb, ʿAsim, Kisaʿī and Khalaf-i-Kūfi approve of the reading (Arabic characters) (mālik); whereas every other Qāri reads (Arabic characters) (malik).
We will now fulfil our promise to give specific examples of the many differences which exist even in the present text of the Qurān; though the reader should bear in mind the fact that even if that were now perfect, it would signify little, seeing that ʿUsman’s recension itself has been proved absolutely untrustworthy. Before giving detailed examples of the present corruption of the Qurānic text, however, we here quote come pregnant remarks upon the subject from the introduction to the famous commentary of Imām Husain. The great commentator writes thus,
“And as the readings which are authorized to be read are various, and their difference in letters and words innumerable, trustworthy readings according to Bakr, approved by Imām ʿAsim, prevalent in this country and reliable, are inserted in these pages (of this commentary). And a few such passages, which, on account of the difference, entirely alter the meaning of the Qurān, and opposed by Hafaz, are also referred to.”
From these candid remarks of the great commentator Kamal-ud-dīn Husain it is clear that a number of various readings still exist in the Qurān, and that in words and letters ‘innumerable’ corruptions have crept into the text. Not only so; but the great scholar freely confesses that in a number of cases the meaning of the Qurān is quite altered thereby. The Imām further informed us that various readings are current in different countries, some of which are trustworthy, whilst others are not. Others of the readings to be referred to by him, he tells us, are opposed to the reading of Hafaz, that is, of the reading current in India to-day; but which reading, of all these conflicting copies, really represents the original Qurān circulated by ʿUsmān, not to speak of that Qurān taught by Muhammad himself, neither Imām Husain nor any other Muslim scholar is able to tell us. One thing however is certain: these discrepancies do exist, and thereby prove incontestably that the boasted Divine protection of the Qurān, as a matter of fact, does not exist.
A study of the Traditions throws considerable light upon this perplexing problem, and shows how many of these differences arose; whilst the total disappearance of whole verses and Sūras is also largely accounted for by a reference to the same authorities. Thus in a tradition preserved by ʿUmr we read,
ʿUmr said, "Hishām read certain verses in Sūra Furqān which the prophet had not taught me. I said, ‘Who taught you this Sūra?’ He said, ‘The Prophet of God.’ I said, ‘Thou liest, the prophet of God never taught it thee thus’.” As a matter of fact Islāmic history contains many references to the various readings of the Qurān. Thus we read that a certain Qurān reader named Ibn-Sanabud was once reading the Qurān in the great Mosque of Bagdad; but his reading not agreeing with the reading of that place, he was severely beaten and cast into prison, and only released upon his renouncing the reading with which he was familiar. These various readings differed not only in pronunciation, but in a number of cases the whole meaning of the Qurānic passage was altered. We now proceed to give a few examples of such passages, which are referred to by Husain, Baizāwi and other learned Muhammadan authorities in their writings.
In the celebrated commentary of Imām Husain we read that in the first rūkū of Sūra Ambiya the current reading is, (Arabic characters) He (Muhammad) said, My Lord knows;” but according to the reading of Bakr we should read, (Arabic characters) ” (Arabic characters) “Say thou (O, Muhammad), My Lord knows.”
Here we have a concrete example of a serious difference in the text of the Qurān, which totally alters the meaning of the passage. According to the one reading God addresses the prophet, and orders him to say, "My Lord knows,” whilst in the other, the prophet is represented as affirming in his reply to the unbelievers that, “ My Lord knows.”
From a host of others we quote one more example from the same authority. In the first rūkū of Sūra Azhab we read,
(Arabic characters)
“The prophet is nigher unto the true believers than their own souls, and his wives are their mothers.” But the Imām Sāheb tells us that according to the copy of Ubi and the reading of Ibn-Masʿūd we should read several additional words in this passage, viz., (Arabic characters) "and he (Muhammad) is their father.” The reader will now perceive why Ibn-Masʿūd refused to give up his Qurān to the Khalif ʿUsmān; and, remembering the high encomiums passed upon the former’s Qurān by the prophet himself, will readily believe that these words have disappeared from the present Qurān. If, then, our Muhammadan brethren, in spite of these undoubted defects in their sacred book, can still continue to read and believe in the same, upon what process of reasoning, we ask, do they object to read the Injīl because, as they think, it has been altered in some places?