CHAPTER V
THE TESTIMONY OF KĀZI BAIZĀWI CONCERNING THE VARIOUS READINGS OF THE QURĀN
Those who have read the commentaries of the famous Muhammadan scholar Kāzi Baizāwi well know that he, also, has pointed out many variations in the different copies of the Qurān. We give below a few examples from the writings of this well-known commentator.
It is a matter for surprise that in the very first chapter of the Qurān, a chapter the excellences of which Muslim writers are never tired of relating, and which every good Muhammadan should repeat in his daily prayers, a number of various readings exist, and have caused no little perplexity to Mubammadan scholars. Thus we learn from the Kāzi that in verse 5 in some copies we have "(Arabic characters), whilst in others the word is spelt "(Arabic characters)". Yet it is perfectly certain that both readings cannot be correct.
Again, in verse 6 of the same Sūra, Baizāwi tells us that the words "(Arabic characters)" (Sirāt allazīna anamta alaihim) have in some copies of the Qurān been changed to (Arabic characters) (Sirāt man anamta alaihim). What, then, becomes of the supposed freedom of the Qurān from corruption, in view of such facts; and where, we ask, is the much-vaunted Divine protection of the Qurān? Is it not perfectly clear that in some copies the word '(Arabic characters)' (allazīna) has either been changed to '(Arabic characters)' (man); or else in other copies the original word '(Arabic characters)' (man) has been corrupted into '(Arabic characters)' (allazīna)?
Again Baizāwi tells us, in the eighth verse of the same Sūra a serious variation of reading occurs. According to Baizāwi the current reading “(Arabic characters)” (lā azzālīna) has been, in some copies, changed to "(Arabic characters)” (ghair azzālīna). Granting that in these examples the meaning has not been altered to any extent, the fact still remains that certain words have been substituted for others in this important Sūra of the Qurān. Both were not in the original copies.
Tn the twenty-first verse of Sūra Bakr, Kāzi Baizāwi points out another important corruption of the text. The received reading is "(Arabic characters)" (abdenā) "our servant;" but Baizāwi tells us that in some copies the word appears in the plural as, "(Arabic characters)" (abādenā), "our servants.’" In the latter case, the whole verse would read thus: ‘‘If ye be in doubt concerning that (revelation) which we have sent down unto our servants,” thus making others besides Muhammad the recipients of the Qurānic revelation.
In the fifth verse of Sūra Nisā another important corruption of the Qurānic text is to be seen. Baizāwi tells us that in this verse the words "(Arabic characters)" (fān anastum) “If you see,” have in some copies been altered to (Arabic characters)" (fān ahastum) “If you know.” Such corruptions of the Qurānic text are numerous, and prove beyond question that the text of the Qurān is far from perfect. Indeed, as we shall afterwards prove, it has been so corrupted and mutilated that the present edition is absolutely untrustworthy as a complete copy of that Qurān which the prophet of Arabia taught his followers.
In the fifteenth verse of Sūra Nisā, Baizāwi points out another grave variation in the different copies of the Qurān, which is worthy of notice. It is there written "(Arabic characters)" "and he has a brother or a sister.” But the Kāzi informs us that, according to the readings of Ubi and Zaid-ibn-Mālik two other words should be added to those quoted, viz., "(Arabic characters)" “from a mother." In his comment upon the passage Baizāwi himself explains it as having this meaning. Thus the illustration before us affords an interesting example of the way in which various readings sometimes come into existence through the insertion of marginal explanatory words into the text itself for the purpose of rendering the meaning more lucid.
The ninety-first verse of Sūra Māida furnishes another example of the corruption of the text of the Qurān. It is there written that the expiation of an oath should be the feeding of ten poor men, but if the offender has not wherewith to carry out this demand of the law, he may fast three days instead. Thus in the current copy of the Qurān we read, "(Arabic characters)" "three days’ fast.” But the famous legist Abū Hanīfa reads an additional word here, so that the offender should be made to fast ‘‘three days together.” Thus Abū Hanīfa reads, “(Arabic characters)." This variation in the reading is a most serious one, for it touches, and alters, the very laws of Islam. Thus Abū Hanīfa and all his followers teach a three-days’ continuous fast; whilst Baizāwi and others look upon this teaching as false, and opposed to the Qurān. Who is to say, after this lapse of time, which reading represents that of the original Qurān?
In the 154th verse of Sūra Anām the current Qurān reads, "(Arabic characters)” "Truly this is my way”; but Baizāwi here quotes two readings which differ from this text. In the first we read, "(Arabic characters)" "This is your Lord’s way,” and in the second, "(Arabic characters)" “This is thy Lord’s way.” The reader will observe that in the second and third readings here quoted by Baizāwi, one word '(Arabic characters)' is missing altogether, whilst two other words '(Arabic characters)' and '(Arabic characters)' have been added. Little wonder is it that ʿUsmān, shocked at the many discrepancies, which, as early as his time, appeared in the reading of the Qurān, should seek to reduce them all to one uniform text; it is as little a matter for surprise that the Khalif failed so ignominiously to effect his purpose. Many of these corruptions of the Qurānic text bear upon their face the evidence of the clumsy hand of the forger; and reveal, by their very nature, the reason for their existence. Thus in Sūra T. H. we read, "(Arabic characters)" "He (Aaron) said, O my mother’s son.” But in Sūra Arāf, verse 149, we find only “(Arabic characters)" “He said, my mother’s son.” A close examination of these passages shows that in the first the usual interjection of address which accompanies the vocative, viz., (Arabic characters) is properly present, but is absent from the second. Thus it becomes clear that, in order to preserve the elegance and beauty of the language of the Qurān, the usual interjection of address should be added to the second passage also. Now Baizāwi makes it clear that this has actually taken place, and that some good Muslims, in order to remove this reproach from the Qurān, have actually added the necessary word in their copies of the Qurān. Thus Baizāwi tells us that Ibn-Amar, Hamza, Kisai and Abū-Bakr read in this place "(Arabic characters)" "O, my mother’s son.” Hither our inference is correct, or else we must assume that the word '(Arabic characters)' ‘O’ is correctly found in the copies of the scholars mentioned, but has, like many other words, been lost from the current copy of the Qurān; in either case we have here a striking example of the uncertainty which surrounds the present text of that book.
Again in Sūra Jonas, verse 92, we have a striking example of ‘tabrif lafzi’ or corruption of the text of the Qurān. It is there written that the death of Pharoah in the Red Sea remained as a ‘sign’ for the warning and instruction of all who should come after him. Thus in the cucrent Qurān we read, “(Arabic characters)" A sign for those who come after thee.” But Baizāwi tells us that some copies of the Qurān read, "(Arabic characters)" "A sign for Him who created thee.” Here the meaning of the Qurān is entirely altered; and the perplexed Muslim must ever remain in ignorance as to which of these rival readings represents the original Qurān.
Yet another extraordinary variation of reading is found in verse 36 of Sūra Kahaf. In current copies of the Qurān the passage reads,
(Arabic characters)
“But God is my Lord, and I will not associate any with my Lord.” But the Kāzi tells us in his commentary that in some copies the passage reads thus,
(Arabic characters)
“But God is my Lord; but we are not God; He only is our Lord.” Comment on this extraordinary corruption of the Qurānic text would be superfluous. The reader may judge for himself.
Another serious wilful corruption of the Qurān is made evident by Kāzi Baizāwi’s comment on verse 38 of Sūra Y. S. The passage alluded to runs thus, "(Arabic characters)" ‘‘And the sun hasteneth to his place of rest.’’ No educated Muslim believes that the sun moves by day, and rests during the time we call night; but a liberal view of this passage would suggest that it simply speaks in popular language, and does not attempt to impart scientific truth. But some zealous followers of the prophet, not content with this explanation and seeking to remove a fancied imperfection from the pages of the Qurān, have adopted the drastic expedient of adding a word to the passage. Thus Baizāwi informs us that in some copies of the Qurān the word “لا” “No” is added in this place, so that the meaning becomes: the sun has no place of rest!
Before we conclude this chapter we shall give yet one more example of the corruption of the text of the Qurān as furnished by Kāzi Baizāwi. In the first verse of Sūra Kamar the current Qurān reads,
“اقتربت الساعة وانشق القمر”
“The hour approacheth; and the moon hath been split in sunder.” It is well known that controversy long and bitter has taken place between different sections of Muslims over the meaning of this passage. Some affirm that we have here clear testimony to a wonderful miracle performed by Muhammad in the splitting of the moon. Others, instead, contend that the whole passage has a future signification, and that all that the passage teaches is that at the judgment day the moon will be split asunder. What was needed to make the passage undoubtedly refer to a past event was the addition of some word having that meaning. Now, strange to relate, Baizāwi tells us that precisely this has taken place and in some copies the word “قد” “now” or “just now ” appears; so that the passage reads “the moon has now been split asunder.” Is it not clear as the day that some Muhammadan controversialists, in order to fortify their own opinion, and at the same time glorify the prophet, have here inserted in their copies of the Qurān this word “قد”? If this inference, to which we are surely shut up, be correct, does not the whole incident throw a lurid light on the treatment to which the scriptures of Islām have been subjected in the past; and does it not show the baselessness of the extravagant claims which are sometimes made by Muslims regarding the integrity of the Qurānic text? Examples similar to those given above could be multiplied. Space, however, will not permit of further illustration here. We have shown enough to prove to every unprejudiced and open-minded reader that the Qurān has been greatly corrupted, and that Sunni and Shiah alike agree in affirming that numerous differences exist in different copies. Many reliable scholars even admit that in many cases the text of the Qurān has been wilfully corrupted by unscrupulous Muslims. Thus Baizāwi, Malam and Abul Fīda all refer to one such person Abdulla-ibn-Zaid-ibn-Sarih by name. He was, they tell us, an amanuensis of the prophet, and used to maliciously alter various passages of the Qurān. But not only is the text of the Qurān, as it exists to-day, open to serious doubt; and ‘not only do innumerable varieties of reading exist with respect to the present text; but we shall now proceed to prove from reliable Muhammadan sources that large portions of the original Qurān are missing altogether from the present copies; that, in fact, the present Qurān only represents a portion—and that corrupted—of the original book which was delivered by Muhammad to his followers.