Page:Maulana Muhammad Ali Quran.djvu/90

xc Qur-án is the one and the same and has always remained the same, for these leaves do not show the omission, addition, or variation of any verse or part of a verse, or any change in the order of a chapter or in the order of the verses contained in a chapter, nor do they show that any verse was misplaced. Substantially, the Qur—án as found in these manuscripts is the same as that of the received text. If there are any differences, they are such as would necessarily arise in the transcription of copies by inexperienced hands. Mistakes would necessarily occur in making transcriptions from other copies, and it was to guard against such mistakes that 'Us̲man caused the official copies to be prepared, so that all copies made should be compared with them and mistakes arising in transcription should thus be corrected. It is clear that the very few mistakes discovered in these ancient leaves are the mistakes of transcription by inexperienced hands, as the text given by Dr. Mingana clearly shows; for instance, writing ضل instead of ضلال; واعرضن instead of واعرض; قرن instead of قرٰان; ينللوا instead of ينالوا; اذنا instead of اذاننا; and so on. These are clear mistakes of transcription, as recognized by Dr. Mingana, and it is rather amusing to ﬁnd him contesting the purity of the text of the Holy Qur-án on the basis of certain stray leaves, containing unknown and uncultured writing, once obliterated to give place to quite another writing. If there is an omission in these leaves it is not due to a clerical mistake of the writer, according to Dr. Mingana, but it is a clear proof that the received text was interpolated, and this in spite of the admission that it is uncertain which of the two was written first. It is clear from this that bias against the Holy Qur-án quite unbalanced the mind of Dr. Mingana. The "discovery" of the manuscripts only shows that there has always been only one text of the Holy Qur-án. As for the alleged variations, it may be said, without entering into details, that they are partly due to a slip of the pen of the scribe, partly to the rubbing off of the vellum for a second writing, partly to cross super-impositions, and partly, perhaps, to doubtful reading on the part of Dr. Mingana himself. The smallest variation in the style of writing has been proclaimed to be a variation giving an entirely different meaning, as in the case of the word bárakná, occurring in 17:1, which means We have blessed, whether written as بٰركنا, or as باركنا, the former being the style adopted by the Qur-án, the variation in Dr. Mingana's manuscript only omitting the alif written over the letter bá.

As regards the fifth objection, viz. that the Shias regard the Qur-án as incomplete, the following remarks from Muir's Life of Mohammad, which has raised and answered this question, will be a sufficient answer. He says:—

"Assuming, then, that we possess unchanged the text of 'Us̲man's recension, it remains to inquire whether that text was an honest reproduction of Zaid's, with the simple reconcilement of unimportant variations. There is the fullest ground for believing that it was so. No early or trustworthy tradition throws suspicions upon 'Us̲man of tampering With the Qur-án in order to support his own claims. The Shias, indeed, of later times pretend that 'Us̲man left out certain súras or passages which favoured 'Ali. But this is incredible. When 'Us̲man's edition was prepared, no open breach had taken place between the Omeyyads and the 'Alyites. The unity