Continues from Part I: Was the Holy Quran perfectly preserved?

It may sound surprising to many but an allegation that has gained in popularity in recent years is that the Quran somehow has various “versions” that differ from one another. This is especially heard from Christian critics of Islam who make it sound like the Quran is somehow similar to the Bible in that it has contradictory readings which in turn show that the Quran is not perfectly preserved and cannot be termed a unique, matchless Word of God (God forbid).

At the very outset, it is very strange to see such a criticism coming from Christian preachers. This is because despite admitting that the Bible has undergone corruption and has been edited and has differing versions, many of them would still consider the Bible the “inerrant” Word of God. Yet, when it comes to the Quran, they would want us to believe that multiple readings nullify the Quran’s claim of being the Word of God.

In any case, this is a gross misrepresentation of facts. The Quran does not have contradictory readings or so-called versions. What it has are different qira’aat or recitations and that is a well-known fact among the scholars of the Quran and it is in fact one of the beauties of the Holy Quran.

In the article Was the Holy Quran perfectly preserved?, I have discussed how much care was taken to preserve the Holy Quran perfectly and to ensure that it does not come into any danger of being corrupted. This protection was granted to it by God Almighty through various means. What is remarkable is that the Quran was both written down in its entirety and memorized in full by several companions of the Holy Prophet^(sa) during his lifetime. No other religious book in history has undergone such rigorous protection and preservation.

After the death of the Holy Prophet^(sa), Hazrat Umar^(ra) proposed to Hazrat Abu Bakr^(ra) that a single manuscript of the Quran should be prepared.^[i] During the life of the Prophet^(sa), several companions wrote down the Quran and the Quran had indeed been written down in its entirety, but it was not compiled or put together into a single-volume book. The writings were scattered and needed to be put together. The manuscript that was prepared out of this effort is called mashaf-e-umm, and all the companions had consensus over the legitimacy of this manuscript. What is truly astounding is how early on this happened after the death of the Holy Prophet^(sa).

The History of the Dialects

Later on, during the time of Hazrat Usman^(ra), an issue arose regarding the different ways in which the Quran was being recited. Many new converts to Islam did not understand differences between the different dialects of the Quran and there was confusion. The companions of the Holy Prophet^(sa) knew about the dialect-based differences but since the new converts were having some trouble, Hazrat Usman^(ra) decided to standardize the Quranic recitation to its main dialect, that is, the Qureshi dialect.

This Qureshi dialect was the dialect of the Holy Prophet^(sa) and the people of Mecca. This was the dialect in which the Quran was revealed for much of its history. However, the Quran was also revealed in other dialects as illustrated by the following Hadith:

أَنَّ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ ـ رضى الله عنهما ـ حَدَّثَهُ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏ “‏ أَقْرَأَنِي جِبْرِيلُ عَلَى حَرْفٍ فَرَاجَعْتُهُ، فَلَمْ أَزَلْ أَسْتَزِيدُهُ وَيَزِيدُنِي حَتَّى انْتَهَى إِلَى سَبْعَةِ أَحْرُفٍ ‏”‏‏.‏

It is narrated by Hazrat ‘Abdullah bin ‘Abbas^(ra) that the Holy Prophet^(sa) said, “Gabriel recited the Quran to me in one way. Then I requested him (to read it in another way), and continued asking him to recite it in other ways, and he recited it in several ways till he ultimately recited it in seven different ways”.^[ii]

This hadith uses the phrase sab’atu ahruf (i.e. seven huroof) which is the way the Holy Prophet^(sa) referred to differences in dialects.

The need for these recitations or readings arose during the growth of the Muslim community while in Medina. This is illustrated by the following narration:

Hazrat ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab^(ra) says, “I heard Hisham bin Hakim^(ra) reciting Surah Al-Furqan during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet^(sa) and I listened to his recitation and noticed that he recited in several different ways which the Holy Prophet^(sa) had not taught me. I was about to jump over him during his prayer, but I controlled my temper, and when he had completed his prayer, I put his upper garment around his neck and seized him by it and said, “Who taught you this Sura which I heard you reciting?” He replied, “The Holy Prophet^(sa) taught it to me”. I said, “You have told a lie, for the Holy Prophet^(sa) has taught it to me in a different way from yours”. So I dragged him to the Holy Prophet^(sa) and said to the Holy Prophet^(sa), “I heard this person reciting Surah Al-Furqan in a way which you have not taught me!” On that the Holy Prophet^(sa) said, “Release him (O ‘Umar!). Recite, O Hisham!” Then he recited in the same way as I heard him reciting. Then the Holy Prophet^(sa) said, “It was revealed in this way,” and added, “Recite, O `Umar!” I recited it as he had taught me. The Holy Prophet^(sa) then said, “It was revealed in this way. This Quran has been revealed to be recited in seven different ways, so recite of it whichever (way) is easier for you”.^[iii]

Hazrat Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmood Ahmad^(ra) has discussed this narration at length in Tafsir-e-Kabir. He writes that the qira’aat on the basis of which many critics make allegations are basically a reference to the different dialects among the Arabs. Some Arabs were able to pronounce the letter ر (raa) while others pronounced ل (laam) in its stead. At other occasions, they would use a different word as the other word would be difficult for them to pronounce. Huzoor writes, “The meanings do not change; instead, in some cases, the meanings are expanded, and it enabled every tribe (in Arabia) to recite (the Quran) with ease”.^[iv]

During the period of the Holy Prophet’s^(sa) stay in Mecca, the qira’aat or readings of the Quran did not exist as history does not record their existence at that time. Maulana Ahsanalluh Danish writes that the need arose at the time when Islam began to spread rapidly among various Arab tribes. This happened in the later years of the Holy Prophet’s^(sa) stay in Medina. The above Hadith refers to Hazrat Hakim bin Hisham^(ra) reciting the Quran in a reading which was not known to Hazrat Umar^(ra). Hazrat Hakim accepted Islam in the 9^th Hijri which is a strong indication that the alternative readings were revealed late and for most of the life of the Holy Prophet^(sa), Muslims learned the main reading, that is, the Hijazi or Qureshi qira’ah. Maulana Ahsanullah Danish estimates that out of the 22 and a half years of revelation of the Holy Quran, more than 21 years were devoted to the recitation of the Quran in its main dialect.^[v] Hence, the main dialect always remained the Qureshi dialect and the other dialects were sub-ordinate to it and permission to recite them was meant for a temporary period of time due to necessity.^[vi]

The Types of Differences

Considering all the historical records, Maulana Ahsanullah Danish notes three types of differences that were caused by the different dialects.^[vii] One form of difference is due to the sound of a letter that eventually came to be represented by diacritical marks to help non-Arabs recite with correct sounds. For instance, one tribe may pronounce a letter with a zabar while the other pronounces it with a zair. For example, یَفْعَل (yaf’al) is pronounced as  یِفْعَل (yif’al).^[viii]

The second form of difference is due to the replacement of a letter altogether. A س sin may be replaced by a ت taa, or a ک kaaf may be replaced by a ش sheen, and so on.^[ix] In commentary of the above quoted Ahadith, Hazrat Sayyid Zainul Aabideen Waliullah Shah sahib^(ra) gives an example of this form of difference when he writes, “حتی hattaa (up to here) is stated in the Qureshi dialect. The tribe of Huzail (however) pronounce the same word as عطی ‘attaa (ain instead of haa). The Qureish could in fact say it in both ways”.^[x]

The third form of difference is one where the words do not change but they have different meanings based on the tribe they are used in.^[xi] Illustrating an example of this, Hazrat Musleh Mau’ud^(ra) writes about a rich lady who used to live in Mecca who had a servant from Yemen. She gave him an instruction with the words غَیِّرِ الشِّیْشَةَ  (gayyir-ish-sheeshah) which meant that he is required to change the water in her hookah but due to his Yemeni dialect he thought that he was being instructed to break the container in which the water is kept. The words were the same but the different dialects meant that the meanings of the words were understood in different ways.^[xii]

As such, the differences of dialects did, in fact, exist and the Quran was revealed in these dialects so that the learning of the Quran remained easy for most Arabs. Hazrat Musleh Mau’ud^(ra) notes, “If this permission had not been given, the memorization and reading of the Holy Quran would have become difficult for people living outside of Mecca and the Holy Quran would not have spread as rapidly as it did”.^[xiii]

Standardization of the Main Dialect of the Holy Quran

As it was discussed above that different dialects of the Holy Quran existed in the time of the Holy Prophet^(sa) while the main one remained the Hijazi or Qureshi dialect. That was also the dialect of the Holy Prophet^(sa). In the early years, the need for the dialects—other than the main one—remained for a time as different tribes which spoke different dialects of Arabic entered Islam and needed to be taught the Holy Quran. However, as time passed and Islam spread throughout the Middle East, it became no longer necessary to learn each one of the dialects of the Holy Quran. The main dialect was the Hijazi dialect and this dialect became common among all Arabs. This was especially true by the time of Hazrat Usman^(ra).

Explaining the conditions of this time, Hazrat Musleh Mau’ud^(ra) writes that Medina had become a capital and all the various tribes had mixed with one another and had become one nation. The leaders of the Muslims were the companions from Mecca and the companions of Medina had also learned the Hijazi dialect which meant that the time was right for the standardization of the main dialect of the Holy Quran.^[xiv] This is what Hazrat Usman^(ra) did by ensuring that the manuscripts written for the other dialects were all brought to Medina and burned while the main dialect was standardized.

Hazrat Usman^(ra) sent a request to Hazrat Hafsah^(ra) to send him the manuscript that had been prepared at the time of Hazrat Abu Bakr^(ra) with the unanimous approval of all the companions. This was the mashaf-e-umm and it was used by Hazrat Usman^(ra) to make standard copies of the Holy Quran. Hazrat Usman^(ra) instructed Hazrat Zaid bin Thabit^(ra), Hazrat Abdullah bin Zubair^(ra), Hazrat Sa’id bin ‘Aas^(ra), and Hazrat Abdur Rahman bin Harith bin Hisham^(ra) to prepare the standard manuscript. He further gave the instruction:

فَاكْتُبُوهُ بِلِسَانِ قُرَيْشٍ فَإِنَّمَا نَزَلَ بِلِسَانِهِمْ

That is, “Write it in the language of the Qureish, because the Quran was revealed in their language”.^[xv] As such, using the mashaf-e-umm, Hazrat Usman^(ra) had seven manuscripts prepared. One was kept with him in Medina while the other six were sent to various provinces of the Islamic empire. Furthermore, an official reciter (qaari) of the Quran was sent along with each manuscript so that the reading of each of these manuscripts is also standard based on the language or dialect of the Qureish.^[xvi]

This entire exercise laid the foundation of the official manuscript of the Quran that was now being spread widely. Hazrat Ali^(ra) is reported to have said:

لولم یصنعہ عثمان لصنعتہ

That is, “If Hazrat Usman^(ra) had not done it, I would have certainly done it”.^[xvii] In other words, this task of Hazrat Usman^(ra) was so important that if he had not done it, Hazrat Ali^(ra) would have taken it up and done it during his Khilafat.

Why was the Mashaf-e-umm not Standardized?

A question may be asked here that why did Hazrat Usman^(ra) set up a committee of companions to prepare the standard manuscript and why did he not simply use the mashaf-e-umm? Answering this question, Maulana Ahsanullah Danish writes that the intention of Hazrat Usman^(ra) was to standardize the text of the Quran to the Qureshi dialect or form of recitation. There was only one difference that arose between the mashaf-e-umm and the manuscript that was prepared by Hazrat Usman^(ra) and that was related to the way the word تابوت taabut is to be written. The tribe of Hazrat Zaid^(ra) wrote the word as تابوة taabut with a round taa. The Quresh on the other hand wrote it with the regular ت taa. When this case was presented to Hazrat Usman^(ra), he said that it should be written in the language of the Quresh as تابوت taabut with regular ت taa. The standard manuscript that was prepared during the time of Hazrat Usman^(ra) is called mashaful Imam.

As far as the differences between the mashaf-e-umm and mashaful Imam are concerned, Maulana Ahsanullah Danish sahib writes that even if all the inauthentic traditions are considered to be true, the total number of differences amounts to 12 which were all related to the style of writing similar to the one example discussed above and did not impact the meaning.^[xviii]

Differences in Dialects not due to Diacritical Marks

One thing to note here is that it is sometimes assumed that the qira’aat or readings are due to the variants in the diacritical marks and dots. This is not the case at all. The different readings existed from the time of the Holy Prophet^(sa) as it has been discussed in this article. However, diacritical marks were added much later, in the 40s A.H.[^xix]  The mashaful Imam prepared by Hazrat Usman^(ra) came prior to the 40s A.H. which means that the Muslim world had a standard reading and qira’ah prior to the addition of diacritical marks. The early companions did not need these marks or the dots in order to read the Quran properly. The scriptural style of writing of each letter determined its pronunciation and they felt no need for the dots or marks. However, later generations and new converts who were not Arab required them for ease of learning and reading the Quran.

What happened to Other Qira’aat?

The other important point to note is that the other qira’aat did not totally disappear after the time of Hazrat Usman^(ra). While the standardization process was taking place, the other qira’aat lived on through oral tradition. Eventually, 80-100 years after the time of Hazrat Usman^(ra), the Muslim community started to write down the other qira’aat.^[xx] Hence, the main, authentic, perfectly preserved dialect of the Quran that comes straight from the time of the Holy Prophet^(sa) is the Qureshi dialect. The other dialects and qira’aat are based on traditions—similar to the way Ahadith were transmitted—and did not enjoy the same kind of preservation through history as the Qureshi dialect did.

The Hafs and Warsh Readings

The subject of multiple of qira’aat of the Holy Quran continued to developed as a form of knowledge and served the Muslim community as an additional subject in the commentary of the Quran and to understand its meanings. Maulana Ahsanullah Danish notes that over time, the popular qira’aat developed further and the unpopular ones were confined to books. In the 9^th century A.H., Ibn Mujahid wrote a book Al-Qira’aatus-Sab’ listing 7 qira’aat named after famous reciters, namely, Warsh, Qanbal, Susi, Ibn Zakwan, Hafs, Khallaad, and Doori.

The most famous among them are Warsh and Hafs. Among these, Hafs is in accordance with the language of the Quresh while Warsh is a little different.^[xxi] One website^[xxii] has listed 51 small differences and if we go through the list, we come to realize that the meaning of the Quran is not impacted at all and the differences are within the parameters that have been defined in this article. That is, they are no more than the differences one expects between dialects. Nevertheless, the Hafs reading—which is based on the Qureshi dialect—is the most common in the Muslim world.

It is these differences of dialects that critics of the Holy Quran use to somehow prove that the Quran has different “versions” and those versions somehow “contradict” one another. To illustrate, I will quote a famous online critic, Mr. Jay Smith, who presents these differences to audiences whom he is preparing to preach to Muslims. Using his criticisms as case studies would be fair as they are in popular discussion and since he has an agenda to convert Muslims to his faith, he must have placed maximum efforts to find those differences that he considers to be the most problematic for Islam.

Example #1: Qaatala and Qutila

One example Mr. Smith quotes is that of Surah Aal-e-Imran, 3:147. In the Hafs, Qureshi reading, it is as follows (note the word qaatala):

وَ کَاَیِّنۡ مِّنۡ نَّبِیٍّ قٰتَلَ ۙ مَعَہٗ رِبِّیُّوۡنَ کَثِیۡرٌ ۚ فَمَا وَہَنُوۡا لِمَاۤ اَصَابَہُمۡ فِیۡ سَبِیۡلِ اللّٰہِ وَ مَا ضَعُفُوۡا وَ مَا اسۡتَکَانُوۡا ؕ وَ اللّٰہُ یُحِبُّ الصّٰبِرِیۡنَ ﴿۱۴۷﴾

Translation: “And many a Prophet there has been beside whom fought numerous companies of their followers. They slackened not for aught that befell them in the way of Allah, nor did they weaken, nor did they humiliate themselves before the enemy. And Allah loves the steadfast” [3:147].

In the Warsh reading, it is written as follows (note the word qutila):

Mr. Smith translates it as follows: “And how many prophets were killed, with whom were many worshippers of the Lord”.^[xxiii]

At the very outset, we can note that the translation of the Warsh reading is a gross misrepresentation of the original text. The correct translation is: “And many a Prophet there has been beside whom were killed numerous companies of their followers. They slackened not for aught that befell them in the way of Allah, nor did they weaken, nor did they humiliate themselves before the enemy. And Allah loves the steadfast”.

The Hafs reading says that the followers of prophets fought while the Warsh reading says that the follows of prophets were killed. The meaning and purport of the statement is the same: The followers of prophets risked their lives and fought and were killed. What is more is that the meanings are complimentary to one another and only increase our understanding of the Holy Quran, and expand the meanings of the statement.

Example #2: Bariyyah and Baree’ah

The Hafs reading of Surah Al-Bayyinah, 98:6, is as follows:

اِنَّ الَّذِیۡنَ کَفَرُوۡا مِنۡ اَہۡلِ الۡکِتٰبِ وَ الۡمُشۡرِکِیۡنَ فِیۡ نَارِ جَہَنَّمَ خٰلِدِیۡنَ فِیۡہَا ؕ اُولٰٓئِکَ ہُمۡ شَرُّ الۡبَرِیَّۃِ ؕ﴿۷﴾

Translation: “Verily, those who disbelieve from among the People of the Book and the idolaters will be in the Fire of Hell, abiding therein. They are the worst of creatures”.

The Warsh reading, on the other hand, is as follows:

Mr. Smith translates it as follows: “Indeed, they who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. Those are the worst of the innocent”.^[xxiv]

The problem here is that Mr. Smith has betrayed his lack of knowledge of the Arabic language. The words baree’ah and bariyyah are from the same root and have the same meaning. The only difference is that one Arabic dialect pronounced the word with the hamzah and the others did not. This matter is discussed in Arabic dictionaries and commentaries of the Holy Quran. For instance, Lisanul Arab, makes the following note:

والنَبِيءُ: الـمُخْبِر عن اللّه، …..قال: ويجوز فيه تحقيق الهمز وتخفيفه. يقال نَبَأَ ونَبَّأَ وأَنـْبَأَ. قال سيبويه: ليس أَحد من العرب إِلاّ ويقول تَنَبَّأَ مُسَيْلِمة،بالهمز، غير أَنهم تركوا الهمز في النبيِّ كما تركوه في الذُرِّيَّةِ والبَرِيَّةِ والخابِيةِ، إِلاّ أَهلَ مكة، فإِنهم يهمزون هذه الأَحرف ولا يهمزون غيرها، ويُخالِفون العرب في ذلك. قال: والهمز في النَّبِيءِ لغة رديئة، يعني لقلة استعمالها، لا لأَنَّ القياس يمنع من ذلك. أَلا ترى إِلى قول سيِّدِنا رسولِ اللّه، صلى اللّه عليه وسلم: وقد قيل يا نَبِيءَ اللّه، فقال له: لا تَنْبِر باسْمي، فإِنما أَنا نَبِيُّ اللّه.

وفي رواية: فقال لستُ بِنَبِيءِ اللّهِ ولكنِّي نبيُّ اللّه. (لسان العرب)

Translation: An-Nabee’u: The one who informs from Allah… It is said: it is allowed to include the hamzah or drop it. It is reported: naba’a, nabba’a, anba’a. Saibwiyah says: All the Arabs say Musailamah prophesied (tanabba’a with hamzah). However, they dropped the hamzah in the word, an-nabiyyi (النبیّ) just as they drop it in the words, az-zurriyyati (الذُرِّيَّةِ) and al-bariyyati (البَرِيَّةِ) and al-khaabiyati (الخابِيةِ).  The exception existed among the people of Mecca, for they used the hamzah in these words, and did not use the hamzah in other words. Other Arabs differed from them. It is said: The hamzah in the word an-nabee’i is outdated use. It is observed that such usage is incorrect. You are encouraged to look at the usage of our master, the Prophet of Allah^(sa): it was said (to him), O Nabee’-Allah (Prophet of Allah), and he said to him: Do not address me with that word, for I am a Nabiyyullah (Prophet of Allah). In one narration, he said: I am not Nabee’-Allah; instead I am Nabiyyullah (Prophet of Allah).

Another dictionary, Al-Qamoosul Muheet, writes, وتَرْكُ الهمزِ المختارُ, (leaving of the hamzah is a choice). Similarly, the commentary of Imam Razi adds the following note under Chapter 98, verse 6:

كيف القراءة في لفظ البرية؟ الجواب: قرأ نافع البريئة بالهمز، وقرأ الباقون بغير همز وهو من برأ الله الخلق، والقياس فيها الهمز إلا أنه ترك همزه، كالنبي والذرية والخابية، والهمزة فيه كالرد إلى الأصل المتروك في الاستعمال، كما أن من همز النبي كان كذلك وترك الهمز فيه أجود، وإن كان الهمز هو الأصل، لأن ذلك صار كالشيء المرفوض المتروك. وهمز من همز البرية يدل على فساد قول من قال: إنه من البرا الذي هو التراب.

Translation: What about the variant reading of the word, al-bariyyah? Answer: Nafi’ recited it as al-baree’ah with hamzah. Others recited it without the hamzah. And its origin is: Allah bara’a (created/originated) the creation. Regarding hamzah, it is understood that it is dropped, as done for (the words) an-nabiyyu, az-zurriyyatu, and al-khaabiyatu. In these words, the hamzah is removed in usage. This is seen in the hamzah of an-nabi which exists in original form, but is dropped in final form. Regardless, hamzah remains in the original form of the word because that is like the thing that is discarded. The hamzah in the word al-bariyyatu highlights the issue as in the saying: Certainly, it is from al-bara’a, that is, it is from sand.^[xxv]

In light of these references, it must be clear that the words baree’ah and bariyyah are the same. The only difference is that of pronunciation and dialects. Hence, the translation of 98:6 is the same for both qira’aat: “Verily, those who disbelieve from among the People of the Book and the idolaters will be in the Fire of Hell, abiding therein. They are the worst of creatures”.

Example #3: mautihi and mautihim

The Promised Messiah^(as) has also used the different readings as a legitimate practise in the commentary of the Holy Quran to expound on the meanings of words and phrases. This is especially true for Surah An-Nisaa’, 4:160:

وَ اِنۡ مِّنۡ اَہۡلِ الۡکِتٰبِ اِلَّا لَیُؤۡمِنَنَّ بِہٖ قَبۡلَ مَوۡتِہٖ ۚ وَ یَوۡمَ الۡقِیٰمَۃِ یَکُوۡنُ عَلَیۡہِمۡ شَہِیۡدًا ﴿۱۶۰﴾ۚ

Translation: “And there is none among the People of the Book but will believe in it before his death; and on the Day of Resurrection, he (Jesus) shall be a witness against them”.

Non-Ahmadi Muslims argue that the words “before his death” refer to Jesus Christ^(as) and that the verse is saying that the People of the Book will all believe in Jesus Christ^(as) before his death, and this in turn means that Jesus^(as) is still alive. Refuting this argument based on the qira’aat of this verse, the Promised Messiah^(as) writes in Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya Part V:

Hence, the correct translation of the above-mentioned verse I quoted is, ‘Every person from among the People of the Book will, before his death, believe in the Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, or in Hadrat ‘Isa.’ The word مَوْتِہٖ  [‘his death’] refers to the People of the Book, and not Hadrat ‘Isa. This is why in another reading of this verse the words are مَوْتِھِمْ [‘their death’]. Why would مَوْتِھِم [‘their death’] be present in the other reading if it referred to Hadrat ‘Isa? See Tafsir Thana’i, for it strongly confirms my statement.[xxvi]

He further writes, “the alternative reading of the verse, according to the norms held by the scholars of Hadith, holds the status of an authentic hadith—and here the alternative reading of the verse قَبْلَ مَوْتِہٖ does exist, as قَبْلَ مَوْتِھِمْ, which has to be taken as an authentic hadith…”.^[xxvii]

Conclusion

There is no doubt that the Holy Quran is a perfectly preserved book and there is also no doubt that the Quran was revealed in multiple dialects to help its quick spread among the various tribes of Arabia in the early days. By the time of Hazrat Usman^(ra), a need was felt to standardize the Quran back to its main Qureshi dialect, which was also the dialect of the Holy Prophet^(sa). Since then, Hafs Qurans based on the main dialect have been published over the centuries in all parts of the Muslim world. The other dialects and readings of the Quran also survived and are treated like authentic Ahadith, and help elaborate meanings of the Quran through its commentary.

__________

References:

[i] Introduction to the Study of the Quran, page 362

[ii] Sahih Bukhari, Book of Virtues of the Quran, Chapter: The Quran was revealed to be recited in seven different ways https://sunnah.com/bukhari/66/13

[iii] Sahih Bukhari, Book of Virtues of the Quran, Chapter: The Quran was revealed to be recited in seven different ways https://sunnah.com/bukhari/66/14

[iv] Tafsir-e-Kabir, vol. 6, p. 414.

[v] Ahsanullah Danish, Az-Zikrul Mahfuz (Qadian: Fazle Umar Printing Press, 2007), 293.

[vi] Tafsir-e-Kabir, vol. 9, p. 49.

[vii] Ahsanullah Danish, Az-Zikrul Mahfuz (Qadian: Fazle Umar Printing Press, 2007), 289-291.

[viii] Ibid., 289.

[ix] Ibid.

[x] Sahih Bukhari with Urdu translation and Commentary, volume 6, commentary of narration no. 3219, page 54.

[xi] Ahsanullah Danish, Az-Zikrul Mahfuz (Qadian: Fazle Umar Printing Press, 2007), 291.

[xii] Tafsir-e-Kabir, vol. 9, p. 49.

[xiii] Tafsir-e-Kabir, vol. 9, p. 48.

[xiv] Ibid.

[xv] Sahih Bukhari, Book of Virtues of the Quran, Chapter: The collection of the Quran http://sunnah.com/bukhari/66/9

[xvi] Ahsanullah Danish, Az-Zikrul Mahfuz (Qadian: Fazle Umar Printing Press, 2007), 295.

[xvii] Abu Bakr Abdullah bin Sulaiman, Kitabul Masahif (Beirut: Darul Basha’ir-il-Islamiyyah, 2002), 177.

[xviii] Ahsanullah Danish, Az-Zikrul Mahfuz (Qadian: Fazle Umar Printing Press, 2007), 297.

[xix] Ibid., 306.

[xx] Ibid., 302.

[xxi] Ibid., 309.

[xxii] http://muslimprophets.com/article.php?aid=64 [Accessed April 26, 2020]

[xxiii] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nBO6ja0_RU [Accessed April 26, 2020]

[xxiv] Ibid.

[xxv] Imam Muhammad Ar-Razi Fakhruddin, Tafsir Al-Fakhrir Razi, part 32 (Darul Fikr, 1981), 50.

[xxvi] Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad^(as), Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya—Part V (UK: Islam International Publications Ltd., 2018),  540.

[xxvii] Ibid., 541.