Three in One — Page 199
In the first instance, this citation has not been quoted from. Hadhrat Ahmad's as original handwritten manuscript but from the first cover of the publication of Izalah Auham. Therefore, the error was not committed by Hadhrat Ahmadas but by the printer's copyist who prepared the script for publication. . Secondly, had there been an intentional alteration of the Quranic text by either Hadhrat Ahmadas or even the copyist, then this passage would not have been recorded elsewhere in the first cover of the same book as: پچیسویں آیت یہ ہے كل من علیها فان ويبقى وجه ربك ذو الجلال والاکرام (الجزء نمیر ۲۷ صورة الرحمن). PHOTOCOPY OF THE QURANIC PASSAGE IN IZALA AUHAM, P. 419, RUHANI. KHAZAIN, VOL. 3, P. 434 i. e. , Kullu man 'alay-haa faan: Wa yabqaa Wajhu Rabbika Zul-Jalaali wal-'Ikraam, which is a perfect citation of the Quranic passage in. Surah al Rahman. Incidentally, this Quranic passage has also been correctly cited on another occasion in Izalah Auham³ as well as in Sat Bachan; Islami Usul ki Philosophy³ and Chashma. Marifat. Hence, had there been any intent by Hadhrat Ahmadas to alter the text of the sacred Scriptures, then he would have altered these verses in question in every one of the other instances cited above. The mere fact these have been correctly recorded elsewhere on several occasions bears evidence that in this particular instance cited by Abdul Hafeez, a copyist error had been made in the recording of this passage which was eventually detected and subsequently corrected in future editions. Hence, one observes that in one of these subsequent editions of Izalah Auham, this particular recording of the passage cited by Abdul Hafeez as evidence of the alteration of 3. Ahmad, [Hadhrat] Mirza Ghulam. Izalah Auham, p. 764; Ruhani Khazain, vol. 3 p. 513 4. Ibid. , Sat Bachan, Ruhani Khazain, vol. 10, p. 230 5. Ibid. , Islami Usul ki Philosophy, p. 56; Ruhani Khazain vol. 10, p. 370 6. Ibid. , Chashma Marifat, p. 89; Ruhani Khazain vol. 23, p. 87 199