Page:Maulana Muhammad Ali Quran.djvu/82

lxxxii recited, and that, therefore, they could not be embodied in the written copy of the Qur-án; as some men thought of Bismilláh, the opening formula of every chapter of the Qur-án, that it was only meant to begin with, and was not a part of every chapter. It was exactly in this way that Ibn-i-Mas'ud thought that the last two chapters should not be written along with the rest of the Divine revelation. But the opinion of a solitary person, especially when it is clearly seen to be based on a misconception of the real facts, can have no weight against the unanimous testimony of all the other companions, based as that testimony is on their sure and certain knowledge. But, besides this, there is no other report whatever showing that anything which forms a part of the Qur-án at present was not a part of it in the lifetime of the Holy Prophet. This circumstance is very valuable in considering the question whether any passage which is not to be found in our copies of the Holy Qur-án was at any time a part of it. Only by means of a profound investigation and searching inquiry could the Holy Qur-án be so collected that nothing might find its way into it which could not be considered a part of it; and as the collection in our hands has been admittedly successful in this respect, it follows that such an inquiry was made. But the same searching inquiry which successfully kept everything out of the Holy Qur-án which was not part of it, must reasonably be taken to have been successful in embodying in the Holy Book everything which was a part of it. Such an inquiry was possible on account of the presence of many of those who knew the whole of the Qur-án by heart, and whose collective testimony as to whether any passage was or was not a part of the Holy Qur-án was the most conclusive and certain proof that could be obtained. Had there been any carelessness, it was as probable that anything should have been lost as that something should have been added. But the absence of all proof as to addition indirectly leads to the conclusion that no passage was overlooked.

The next point on which I wish to lay special stress is the wrong method of drawing inferences from certain reports, a method which is generally followed by all European critics. It is not the collective evidence of reports on which conclusions are based in all cases, but sometimes, when there is a preconceived idea, or where there is a proneness to hostile criticism, a solitary report is made to yield a conclusion which contradicts the strongest historical testimony, however absurd on the face of it such a conclusion may be. There is a large element of historical unreliability in many of the reports, and it was only after great patience and diligent search that the more reliable and authentic reports were compiled by some of the collectors. The chief place among these is occupied by the Bukharee, and, accordingly, it is safest to resort to it where some reports give rise to conflicting evidence. The first rule, then, which should be followed in interpreting reports is to distinguish the reliable from the unreliable generally. Without this we can never be safe in drawing a conclusion from any report. The second rule which should be followed, in the case of conflicting testimony afforded by certain reports, more or less reliable, is to see on which side the weight of evidence lies. But the most important and the surest test of all is, what conclusion is supported by practice?

These tests I shall now apply to the different reports which are relevant to the question of the purity of the text of the Holy Qur-án. But before doing this, I will quote the reports on which the objections are based. They are as follows:—

(a) In the Ṣaḥiḥ Muslim, Kitáb-uz-Zakát, ’Abdul Aswad reports the words of Abu Musa Ash'ari, who said: “Surely we used to recite a