Part 3: 'Miraculous'?
CHAPTER XV: "NO MORE THE ULTIMATE MIRACLE"
A 'Perfect' Qur'an, Or "So It Was Made to Appear to Them"?
The claim of the Qur'an and Islam is 'perfection and preservation by Divine decree'. In a text which is only valid if it is preserved for all time, a multitude of divergences is unforgivable.
The claim that there was "agreement of the Companions on the text of 'Uthman" and that there is thus a need to reject "any word or expression which does not correspond fully to the text of Mushaf Uthmani" also falls to the ground as a diversion.
By what religious conviction can a scholar spout such claims when he knows full well the true condition of the Qur'anic texts as well as the effect on them of the '7 new readings'? "Permissible Lies", seems to be the only answer.
How too can anyone accept Arabic Qur'ans as 'Perfect' or 'Protected' when the texts not only 'prove' that there was not just one "Mushaf 'Uthmani", but that several differing texts have been accepted as 'Divine' despite the errors? Furthermore, the same texts are admittedly all so far from the readings transmitted in the Oral Tradition' (the 'Proof' for the Qur'an's purity), that the protectors of the Qur'an have taken to altering multiplied thousands of symbols in the text 'for the sake of Allah'?
And, in all this Maududi was declaring:
Again we recall the one Islamic scholar citing:
We find that ibn al-Jazari's (d. 833 A.H.) statement about the state of the evidence is so obviously true, and has a much broader application to the present texts of the Qur'an than one would ever have suspected. We repeat it:
What was being used was just a 'conglomeration', FAR worse than what was still in use before the 1924 Royal Cairo (Egyptian) Hafs text, and this would be why the 'readings' were 'standardised' in the 2nd century A.H. (Ulum, p. 111).
Though not even the "best transmitted and most reliable" of the '7 Readings' fitted the texts, Islam had to accept them in order to have something which it could display and claim was 'Qur'an readings'. Without this it would have had nothing, and certainly not enough scraps of what are claimed as its 'true originals' the '7 Forms'!
But, the fact is that Islam didn't have anything which could have been called 'perfectly preserved' sets of readings, for things like that would agree with the text that it declares it possesses.
Can we really be led to believe that a Qur'an on which there are '35 opinions' about what it did or did not contain 'originally' is 'Protected' by Divine intervention? Or, can we even believe that either the 'Oral Tradition' or the 'Uthmanic texts have ANY credibility?
For those who really believe in a Hell and a Heaven, this cannot be good enough. Surely one must be absolutely assured about the origin of the text to which one is submitting. Is it of the God of Abraham - or of someone else? Is it the Way to Heaven - or to somewhere else (Hell!)?
For this reason it is absolutely essential for every follower of
Islam to examine carefully the true state of the Qur'an(s) and decide whether
its claims stand or fall. Judgement Day is coming and only One Way of Salvation
The I'jaz (Miracle) Of The Qur'an?
Von Denffer has a heading THE QUR'AN AS A MIRACLE under which he writes:
Why do we call the Qur'an a miracle? The Qur'an has certain features which make it unique and of inimitable quality. This inimitability is called i'jaz al-qur'an, the 'miraculous nature' of the Qur'an." (Ulum, p. 149)
According to Muslim scholars the following five conditions must be met before an event can be accepted as a miracle from Allah:
- That no one else apart from Allah the Master of the world is able to do it.
- That it breaks the usual norms and differs from the laws of nature (not the laws of Allah, but the way nature normally is).
- That it serves as proof for the truth and claim of the messenger.
- That the event happens through the messenger and no one else." (Ulum, p. 150; underlining added)
Qur'an, it is his purpose, and it is the belief of every follower of Islam that these apply to the Qur'an. Yet, do they?
We would say that it is obvious that the Qur'an has failed to fulfil even one of these! For example:
2/ The only "norms" the Qur'an breaks would seem to be the "norms" of spelling and grammar!
3/ The Qur'an does not provide "proof" for any of Muhammad's claims, and the Qur'an's condition does not in any way live up to the "Divine Protection" declared by its text.
4/ As to how "the event happens through the messenger and no one else" we have seen that everyone, including Muhammad, 'Uthman and even the later followers must receive their portion of blame for the spelling mistakes adn corruptions. What a "prophetic event" for all eternity.
Rejecting The Manuscripts - The Qur'an According To ... Ad-Dani?
As Von Denffer has stated of the Egyptian version:
However, this is not entirely accurate for it has further been noted:
Islam thus admits its rejection not only of the 'most ancient' manuscript copies, and not only of the manuscripts and printed Arabic Qur'ans of the recent centuries, but even the early 'Oral Tradition'!
"TAKE YOUR OWN QUR'AN AND COMPARE!!"
This chart shows the total dependency upon the 'Oral Tradition' and the modern ulema.
Because the Source of the Arabic texts of the Qur'ans is the 'Oral Tradition' (ancient and modern!), obviously, Islam isn't copying the manuscripts AT ALL - in fact it is trying to ignore them! It is also obvious that Islam is going the wrong way! The manuscript source of 'Proof' for the 'eternal' Arabic text of the Qur'an is lost and the 'Oral Tradition' disagrees to the extent that it declares the manuscripts should say 'YES' not 'NO'.
It is ironic, then, to find Mr. Deedat mocking concerning the Bible's ever increasing dependency upon older and older manuscripts saying:
"The Qur'an Is No More The ULTIMATE MIRACLE"
When confronted with the evidence of errors and alterations in the Qur'an, the followers of Islam seem only to cry, "But the Bible contains
50,000 errors!!". This shows that the followers of Islam do not know how to deal with the problem of errors and alterations in their 'Eternally Preserved and Perfect' Qur'an. The theology of Islam does not allow them to exist, let alone allow people to deal with them.
However, some are no longer denying the existence of the errors and alterations, which in itself must be heretical in terms of Islam's Beliefs (Iman). The staff at I.P.C.I., Birmingham, have even changed their declaration from "the Qur'an is perfect" to "It's not the text that matters, its the sound!".
However, such conflicts between Islam's theology and the reality must be dealt with since this has been the foundation stone of Islam's beliefs about the Qur'an and consequently became the position from which it viewed 'the previous Books". There is no reason to follow the Qur'an and reject "the previous Books" if it contains errors or has been altered from 'NO' to 'YES'- as Islam itself admits!
But, there are those who will try to press on as if nothing has happened, and as if the Qur'an were actually the 'Perfect' Book they always thought it was, and they will try to lead others in the same way.
While one can feel pity for those who want to 'metamorphose' (alter) Islam and make it seem 'workable', we are not talking about a video-game someone invented which now is in need of upgrading, but about how to distinguish the only means of escaping the Day of Judgement from ways that lead to Judgement and Hell-fire - for eternity!!
If the Qur'an were 'the perfect truth' you would not now find yourself even needing to think about how to 'salvage' it with more lies to make it appear as if it were the truth!
Perhaps the best assessment of the final state of the Qur'an can be found in the following statement printed by the South African ulema as they responded to Mr. Deedat's admission of error in the Qur'an in Q7:69:
Back To Part 3 Index
Back To Top
Go To Start: WWW.BIBLE.CA