Do Muslims still nowadays create new Qur’ans by changing the words?

Yes, they do! Especially scholars are masters in creating new Qira’ats

Are Muslims still creating new readings of their holy book? It seems yes. Let’s give a look at the 15^th qira’at of the Qur’an produced for example by Yusuf Ali. Muslims claim that the Qur’an is the same overall the world, that all MS and copies of the Qur’an are identical. But the better educated Muslims know that there are 14 different readings (or possibly seven or 10? (check here). So, it is not enough that there are all these different readings, but still today, Muslims are still fabricating new ones!

Let’s take the 1946 version of Yusuf Ali’s translation of the Qur’an, published in Pakistan. Here, we can find, in the notes to Surah 23:112 and 21:4: “the verses that begin with Qala (said/will say) follow the Arab text utilized in India (Indian reading, Hafs (the other one, most used: Nafi (Africa and Arabia), that Ali identifies as Qira’at of Kufa), while the same verses that follow the Basra Qira’at start with Qul: (=say).

Actually Ali creates another new version, instead of the Qira’at of Kufa for 23:112 (Hafsa reading), he chooses the one of Basra for 21:4 and 21:112. So, at the end, he mixes two different Qira’at, and by doing that the creates a new (non recognized) reading.

By doing so, he doesn’t consider as authoritative neither of the two Qira’at. But why are both deficient? Does one Qira’at make more sense in one passage than the other and vice versa? It seems a negligible issue but in fact it is a huge point! Do Muslims have freedom to change the Qur’an? Can they produce a new version? If both Qira’at mean the same thing, then, why does Y. Ali exchange the words? Why doesn’t he maintain the classical way of the Arab text (Hafs reading)? Does he translate it differently because one of the two readings is to be preferred? Does he prefer one because the meaning fits better in the context, than the usual one? Is the meaning of one better than the other? Actually, the meaning cannot be the same, otherwise Y. Ali would have not made the effort of utilizing the other reading, and having to explain it! In his notes, Y. Ali says that one reading is better than the other one: “the better reading is “say”” (Qul), imperative, other than “said/says” (indicative mode). But Ali is not the only translator that creates his own Qira’at of the Qur’an. Pickthall, Shakir, Hilai-Khan and Maulana M. Ali stay with the Arab Hafs reading (indicative), but in the translation utilize for “qala”: “ he said/he says/he will say”. Other ones that utilize other/new readings are: Muhammad Asad, Rashad Khalifa, Muhammad Sarwar and T.B. Irving. The Hafs reading goes with qala (he said) in all three verses 21:4 21:112 and 23:112. Asad goes the same way as Y. Ali, and writes: “According to the earliest scholars of Medina and Basrah, as well as some of the scholars of Kufah, this word is spelt qul whereas some of the Meccan scholars and the majority of those of Kufah read it as qala (said). In the oldest writings, we find q-l (you can read it as qul o qala). Following Tabari, the two readings have the same meaning.

The problem is that the two meanings are not the same. Otherwise Y. Ali and Asad would not have done the effort to translate differently the Arab in English (where you find qala). There are more than 100 verses in the Qur’an, where Muhammad is called with the verb “qul” (say). Would Muslims not object if we changed it in “qala”? Allah command is not the same as a “report”. A description is not the same as a prescription. Muhammad Asad translated 21:112 with qul (while it is qala). 21:4: “He said, my God..... 21:112: say, my God....23:112: Said “how much time have you bee…”, while in all passages in the Arab text we can find: qala (he said). Khalifa instead, in 21:112 (but not in 21:4 as for Ali e Asad) translates with the qul variation, without giving any justification. The Farsi (Shiite) version as well gives 21:4 as it were qul instead of qala (similarly to Sarwar and Irving). Here you have a resume:

	Hafs (Kufra)	Basra	Ali/Asad	Khalifa	Sarwar/Irving/Iran	M. & S. Ahmed	Progressive	Reformist
21:4	Qala (he said)	Qul (say)	Qul	Qala	Qul	qala	qul	Qul
21:112	Qala	Qul	Qul	Qul	Qala	qul	qala	Qul
23:112	qala	qul	qala	qala	Qala	qul	qul	qul

In bold the “deviations

For more on that: here.

So, at least five translations of the Qur’an in English (Ali, Asad, Khalifa Sarwas and Irving) have created three new readings by mixing two classical readings. Most importantly, the translations and the comments of Y. Ali were officially approved and revised in KSA, by changing the Arabic text! Moreover, by confronting the Arab text of 1946 with that of 1990, we can find that one word has been changed and has been written in a different form. The KSA publisher changed the Arabic text, by adding one “alif” in 21:4, so that the rasm of “qala” is the same in 20:125 and 21:4 i.e. qaf, alif, lam. Is this acceptable or is it a corruption of the Qur’an? In the notes to 21:4 we can find “a perfect Qur’an”. Edip Yuksel (one of the most proponents of the mathematical miracles of the Qur’an, has to assume that the Qur’an has been written with “qul” and not “qala”, otherwise all his theories don’t hold any more.

For Surah 21:4 thus we have:

Hilali & Khan & Shakir & Pickthall: He said;
Arberry: he says
Y. Ali & M Asad: Say.

The problem is that the Arabic text is not clear. Is it so confused? Or are the translators just guessing? Is the Qur’an clear but are the translators confused? Or are they trying to render the text more coherent in English than it is in Arabic? The same for 23:12: where we have the same word of 21:4 (qala=he said)!

Hilali& Khan & Shakir & Pickthall & Y Ali: he will say,
Rashad Khalifa: He said. (the only one who translates it correctly)

Why do all the others translate it with the future form? It is enough to give a look to the context of verses 23:99-115: it is clear that the passage describes a scene that will be on the “day of judgment”. So, it is in the future tense. That’s why almost all translators utilise a future form even   if the verse is in the past. This is the eloquence and the uniqueness of the Qur’an? Is it eloquent to utilize a past verb for an activity in the future? Lots of translators think that they can enhance the eloquence of the Qur’an, because the false utilisation of the verb confused a lot of Muslims. That’s why it has been translated differently by Arab scholars. That’s all because the Arabic text utilises a verb in a past tense for the future. Qala (he said) is thus translated first in the past, then in the future, in the space of few sentences. This is not just a problem for Y. Ali, and for obvious reasons: 23:123 makes reference to the expulsion of men from paradise (past) and 23:125-126 tells us of the final Judgment (future). To translate it orderly would cause a non-sense. This is not only a problem for the English translation, but for the Arab version as well. Why didn’t the man who wrote the Qur’an utilize the future tens of the verb in the last two sentences? Is this the clarity and eloquence of the Qur’an?

IHS