Part 2: The True State Of The Qur'an 


Back To Main Index
Back To Part 2 Index

e/ More ‘Silencing’

Hamidullah also notes many other cases where ‘unwarranted’ consonantal symbols have been ‘silenced’. These are quite noticeable in the Egyptian text.

In the case of the alif Hamidullah notes two reasons for ‘silencing’ the Qur’an’s text, the first of which we cited earlier:

"In pre-Islamic days there was no uniformity in applying this superfluous letter at the end of certain plural forms, and its traces are found in the Qur’an where it is sometimes added to the singular also where it is not necessary according to the rule in vogue. But, as said, a "sign of silence" is marked wherever it occurs in the Qur’an and the absence in case of necessity has no bearing on the subject which we are treating, viz., how to read correctly." (Orthographical..., p.77; emphasis added)

Thus Hamidullah provides more ‘Proof’ for the assertion of ibn Khaldun that Muhammad’s scribes didn’t actually know how to write well. This is also another clear "Proof’ against the declaration that the Arabic is of such high quality that it indicates a Divine origin.

Hamidullah's examples include:

The 7th of these namely  , is given 4 times in Hamidullah's List B where he has written  after each of Q11:68, 25:38, 29:38 & 53:51

In the 1924 Egyptian Edition we find the last part of Q11:68 is  where the word thamUda appears twice. In the first instance, it has an excess alif as Hamidullah relates, and the "sign of silence" is plainly present thus "deleting" the excess alif on this singular noun . However, in the second instance we find the word is spelled correctly as  without the alif. In both instances the translation is "the Thamud".

Flugel lists the occurrences of thamUda, as can be seen at the right, on p.40. [again, his numbering system is different in some cases]. 

However, all are spelled without the alif indicating the correct spelling.

Another case for silencing given by Hamidullah is:

"Finally the same letter alif is written, I do not know why, in certain words of the Qur’an, and is absolutely unnecessary, and is completely silent in pronunciation. I refer to 

Back To Top


Part 2: The True State Of The Qur'an 

Back To Part 2 Index

which ought to have been written ." (p. 78, emphasis added).28

No declaration of defense for these either. All are easily visible in the 1924 Royal Cairo as having been ‘otiosed’ (silenced) by a tiny ‘o’ above the offending letters, and, although noticeable in other texts, are most clearly seen in those which have followed the Egyptian text displaying their version of `Uthman’s graphic form.

As in keeping with his admission that these are excess alifs, when we examine 2 of Hamidullah's examples in his ‘uncorrected’ list, namely  and , and their ‘corrected’ forms in his 2nd list namely  and , we find that an alif has been removed by him. This is confirmed also when we examine them in his ‘List B’, as, which is listed as being present in Q7:103; Q10:75; Q11:97; Q23:46; Q28:32; Q43:46, and as  in Q10:83.

Flugel lists them all only in the corrected form, the alif being removed, as can be seen from his text [p. 183 which can be seen at the right].

However, when we examine our printed Arabic texts we find no uniformity in the method of ‘correcting’ these texts, not all admit that the excess alif is the problem, some indicate it is the ya. Take, for example, Q43:46, for which we list the various printed forms:

-1924 Egyptian  -’silencing’ the ya stem and ‘ignoring’ the alif.

- Taj (as in the Swahili)  -’silencing’ the alif and ‘ignoring’ the ya stem.

- Indian  - another smaller Indian text (#147) is clearly .

- Turkish  -’ignoring’ the alif and ‘silencing’ (with hamza) the ya stem.

- Iranian  -as Turkish, ‘ignoring’ the alif and ‘silencing’ (with hamza) the ya stem.

- Mushaf al-Madinah  -as the 1924, ‘silencing’ the ya stem and ‘ignoring’ the alif.

- Warsh (Medinan)  -as the 1924, ‘silencing’ the ya stem and ‘ignoring’ the alif.

Thus while some are ‘silencing’ the ya stem and ‘ignoring’ the "superfluous alif", others are doing the opposite. There seems to be a great deal of guesswork going on behind the scenes.

However, when we consider that it is the Egyptians who are claiming

Back To Top


Part 2: The True State Of The Qur'an 

Back To Part 2 Index

to resuscitate the Qur’an from the record of the ‘Oral Tradition’, we wonder why they didn’t "silence" the ‘superfluous alif’? 

Perhaps it is because some 2,200 ‘oitiosed’ alifs are already present in, for example, the 1990 Mushaf al-Madinah, which is also the number in the 1924 Egyptian text, and the Egyptians were unwilling to admit to many more and thus make it 2,200 +_ +_ ... ? 

What more can we add, except that one is again dismayed at Allamah Rizvi and his plea that:

"every single letter has been meticulously recorded. For example we know there are 48872  [alifs]"! 

But, does this take into account the approximately 10,000 alifs which have been ‘added’ using ‘dagger alifs’ to ‘correct’ errors, or those included in the 2,200 alifs which have been ‘silenced’ (effectively ‘removed’), or the 2700 which everyone is uncertain about in "the essential personal name of God" - Allah /Alllah / Allaah / Alllaah?

It must be a ‘Heavenly’ arithmetic that causes this to add up to 0 (zero), i.e. a perfect text.

Even those who wrote the Samarqand ‘original’ were busy trying to make it all ‘add up’ to ‘0’ [zero] since they too omitted certain alifs which the Egyptians ‘silenced’. [See Q2:94 on Page #30, line #5 seen at right].


f/ More Symbols Ignored

Yet, we need also to ‘subtract’ some other letters for while Hamidullah writes of bi-aydin (Q51:47) in his List B 

, not only have we seen many other ‘rare cases’ where alifs, etc, have been "superfluous", but Hamidullah also gives an example where an extra graphic consonant s is not ‘silenced’ (otiosed), but is simply ignored.

In his List B we find he has listed Q5:89 and noted . True to his purpose, in fact it is not the ‘qq’ that he is wanting the people of Islam to notice, for in his transliteration he has omitted the graphic letter dal, as also does the Indian transliteration with ! Even the 1924 Egyptian Edition with every sort of technique in full application has no ‘sign of

Back To Top


Part 2: The True State Of The Qur'an 

Back To Part 2 Index

silence’ on this dal.

Ad-Dani also points us to a similar case where the text has an excess letter lam in Q6:32.29 He notes it should be 

indicating a single lam. However, the printed texts, including the 1924 Egyptian Edition (which claims to be founded upon ad-Dani’s records), have  with 2 lams! This ‘difficulty’ has been overcome by simply ignoring this graphic letter, as we clearly find in the Indian transliteration which has  , only one lam is transliterated into .

Again we see the consequences for Islam of not only having had to accept the corrupt `Uthmanic texts, but also the ‘7 new Readings’ which it admits are only "close to" the corrupt `Uthmanic texts. It has cost the Qur’an’s ‘perfection’ dearly.

g/ A ‘Strange Prounciation’?

Yet another case exists in which a strange pronunciation is not from the graphic form. The Note X to the 1938 Hyderabad text reads:

This particular example is Q11:41 which happens also to be one example in Hamidullah's long ‘List B’. There we find Hamidullah's transliteration and ‘caution’:

When introducing this "peculiar pronunciation" in his main text Hamidullah stated:

Indeed a "particular sign" is needed when ‘ai’ is easily obtainable through the use of the correct letters, that is if the scribes had known how to write properly. As seen in Note X above the sign is.30

But. is it after all a case of ‘a peculiar pronunciation’ or a case of a ‘new reading’ not matching the graphic form?

NOTE: It is also important to understand, in this regard, that the usual Qur'anic texts do not have the 2 dots under the graphic 'ya' which Hamidullah has placed there. What is in the graphic form is NOT identified as a 'ya'.


Back To Part 2 Index
Back To Top

                                         CHAPTER 13 (CONT'D)