Preservation: The Qurʾān and The New Testament
‫الر ِحي ِْم‬
َّ ‫الرحْ مٰ ِن‬
َّ ِ‫ِبس ِْم هللا‬
The following document will attempt to present a brief history of the compilation and preservations of the Qur’an and
Bible. It will discuss various stages in the history of the development of the Texts, and attempt to answer frequently
asked questions, regarding the science of Textual Criticism and the preservation of the respective scriptures.
Introduction
The poor state of the New Testament manuscript record has, in our time led the Judaeo-Christian world to have great
doubt in the veracity and authenticity of the Bible as a scripture. Because of this, Muslim preachers have taken the
initiative in using this important information to confirm the Qur’anic claim of corruption regarding the scriptures of
the Jews and Christians in Surah 2, Verse 79. Christian apologists in response to this weakening of their scripture, are
now attempting to weaken the stature of the Qur’an’s preservation. Muslims for centuries, since the Qur’an’s
revelation have held strongly to the belief that it is God who would guard the transmission and preservation of the
Qur’an as is mentioned explicitly in Surah 15, Verse 9. We have been accused of not critically studying the Qur’an
using Textual Criticism, Christian apologists have challenged the Muslim world to apply their methodology of Textual
Criticism to the Qur’an, because of the underlying guilt they have, knowing that the Bible has been corrupted, and that
the Qur’an is preserved.
If only they knew, Muslims have been practising stringent critical studies of the Qur’an’s manuscript tradition since its
revelation. For centuries before the development of New Testament Textual Criticism as it is known today, Muslims
have been utilising the science of ‘Uloom al Qur’an (the sciences of the Qur’an). One such field within ‘Uloom al
Qur’an is ‘Ilm al Rasm al Mushaf, or the Science of the Writing of the Copies of the Qur’an. Most importantly, the
identity of the scribes of the Qur’an has been known to us for centuries as we have employed the sciences of Rijal al
Hadith, Mustalah al Hadith (the sciences of evaluating the characters of scribes and transmitters) and Jarh wa Ta’deel.
Due to this, we can list the identities of a significant number of Qur’anic scribes during the Prophet’s ‫صلى هللا عليه وسلم‬
lifetime. Christian criticism of the Qur’anic manuscripts has been appalling to say the very least, on applying the
methodology of New Testament Textual Criticism to the Qur’an, we have come to know that the Qur’an has indeed
been well preserved. The manuscript record does show changes. However these changes in the manuscripts are
generally of two types. Orthographic changes and scribal mistakes. Orthography, is the representation of a language in
a textual graphical form. As the language developed textually, the manuscript records demonstrate that the Qur’an
remained consistent in its contents whereas changes being made were those of the representation of its letters, vowels
and punctuation marks. In the case of scribal errors, these did not manifest themselves into the Qur’anic tradition and
as such remained as the odd anomaly here and there which scribes later corrected, but which never found themselves
to be seen as part of the Qur’an.
This is at odds with the New Testament textual tradition which shows changes manifesting themselves into the Bible,
believed by all Christians. Two such infamous cases are the inclusion of several key doctrinal verses in Mark 16:9-20
and 1 John 5:7. There is nothing in the Qur’anic textual tradition which demonstrates such a level of corruption.
Therefore, when missionaries attempt to criticize the Qur’an’s textual tradition, they have encountered great difficulty.
Consequently, as we will soon learn, they have been forced to invent claims, manufacture studies and to manipulate
their methodology through dishonest and irrational means. The Qur’an’s textual tradition and the New Testament’s
textual tradition are indeed not equal. While missionaries may attempt to equate them, the evidences we will present
today wholly demonstrate that this is not the case. They do not stand on equal footing. Whereas the Qur’an’s
preservation has been consistent with Surah 15 Verse 9, the same cannot be said of the Bible. Muslims have been
meticulous in their conveying of the Qur’an since its revelation, preserving it via mutawatir transmission. In the study
of stemmatics, this is referred to as multiple and simultaneous independent chains of transmission on a grand scale.
Today we will examine the studies of the latest research into the Biblical and Qur’anic textual tradition. [1]
What do we know about the Preservation of the New Testament?
Many Christians maintain that the New Testament we have today is the literal, inspired word of God, but this is
blatantly contrary to the evidence. The New Testament that we have today is in fact the corrupted word of numerous
scribes who freely added and changed to it over many centuries of copying. Lets start with the facts, we know that:
•
•
•
The original language of the New Testament is Greek; this is the language of the most ancient manuscripts.
There are almost 6000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, with no two pages being identical.
Of these 6000 Greek manuscripts, over 90% of these come after the 10th century AD [2]
•
Of these 6000 Manuscripts, there are 0 in the 1st century, and almost 0 in the 2nd Century, apart from one small
fragment called p52, which has small sections of 4 verses from the Gospel of John, this is written almost 200
years after the time of Jesus and there are some small fragments in the 3rd century. [3]
The 1st time we get a complete New Testament is nearly 4 Centuries after the time of Jesus, called Codex
Sinaiticus.
•
So, we know that there are many manuscripts, with many differences, which come hundreds of years after the New
Testament was written. But what was the view of Ancient Christian Scholars and Non-Christian Academics, writing in
the 2nd, and 3rd centuries?
•
•
•
Origen of Alexandria, A famous Church Father from the 3rd Century, complains about the amount of
corruption of the Gospels, saying “The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either
through the ignorance of some scribes or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check
over what they have written, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or subtractions as they
please” [4]
Tertullian of Carthage, a famous 2nd Century Church Father claims there is, “proof of the Gospel…having
become altered” by certain heretical sects, and also says that they make “additions and subtractions for their
own purposes” and that “they adapt the scriptures, by removing the proper meaning of every particular word,
and adding fantastical arrangements with no basis”. [5]
Irenaeus of Lyons, the respected 2nd Century Church Father complains that heretics would corrupt the Gospel,
“by transferring passages, and dressing them up anew, and making one thing out of another.” [6]
•
Even Non-Christians noticed how heavily the Gospels were corrupted, like Celsus, the 2nd Century Greek
Philosopher, who noticed that Christians would change the Gospel to suit themselves, he writes, “Some
Christians, as if they were drunk, go so far as to oppose themselves and alter the original text of the gospel
three or four or several times over, and they change its character to enable them to deny difficulties in face of
criticism.” [7]
It is undeniable, to say the least, that Christian and Non-Christians in the ancient world, believed that the Gospel was
being corrupted left, right, and centre, by “Heretics”, and nearly everyone was accusing someone of changing the
Gospel.
The obvious question now to ask is, “Do we have proof that there was corruption?” and the answer would be
undoubtedly, yes.
Examples of Corruptions
1. The Johannine Comma
The Johannine Comma is an infamous fabricated verse of the New Testament, it is the only verse that explicitly talks
about the Trinity, however, Scholars have unanimously agreed, it is totally made up.
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the father, the word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one [1 John
5:7]
The NET Bible, a translation made and used by several Christian Biblical Scholars states:
“1 John 5:7 Before τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα (to pneuma kai to hudōr kai to haima, “the Spirit and the water
and the blood”) at the beginning of v. 8, the Textus Receptus (TR) reads ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον
πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. 5:8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ (“in heaven, the Father, the Word, and
the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that testify on earth”). This reading, the
infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation.
However, the evidence—both external and internal—is decidedly against its authenticity. For a detailed discussion,
see TCGNT 647-49. Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence. This longer reading is found only in ten
late MSS, four of which have the words in a marginal note. These MSS range in date from the 10th century (221) to the
18th (2318). They include the following (with dates in parentheses) 221 (X), 177 (XI), 88 (XII), 429 (XIV), 629
(XIV), 636 (XV), 61 (ca.1520), 918 (XVI), 2473 (1634), and 2318 (XVIII)… Thus, there is no sure evidence of this
reading in any Greek MS until the 14th century”. [8]
Desiderius Erasmus, A 16th Century Christian Scholar, who wrote the Greek Text which is translated into the KJV
Bible included this fabrication due to being, “pressured by the Catholic Church” …he argued that he did not put in the
Comma because “he found no Greek Manuscript that included it…but eventually felt obliged to include it due to
pressure”. [8]
2. The Ending of the Gospel of Mark, Mark 16:9-20.
Biblical Scholars have known for decades now that the ending of the Gospel of Mark, is a total fabrication. In the
Gospel of Mark, Jesus is resurrected, Mary the mother of James, Mary Magdalene and Salome, go to the tomb of
Jesus, they see an angel telling them that Jesus is resurrected, and they run away in fear, and that is the end of the
Gospel. In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus does not appear to the disciples, and does not do any of the things he did in the
Gospel of Matthew, Luke, or John. Now, several fabricated endings of the Gospel of Mark have been created.
In one of these fabricated endings, Jesus allegedly mentions that Christians will be able to survive handing snakes and
drinking deadly poisons:
“These signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new
languages;[j] 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands, and whatever poison they drink will not harm them; [k] they
will place their hands on the sick and they will be cured.” 19” Mark 16:17-18.
The depressing irony of this verse is that many faithful Christians have believed these to be the true words of Jesus
and have attempted these dangerous acts, without knowing that these verses are total fabrications. The NET Bible
states, in its commentary on the Ending of Mark that, “Internal evidence strongly suggests the secondary nature of
both the intermediate and the long endings…All of this evidence indicates that as time went on, scribes added the
longer ending, either for the richness of its material or because of the abruptness of the ending at Verse 8”. [9]
3. The Pericope of the Adulteress
John 7:53-8:11 is the story of a woman that is about to be stoned on the accusation of adultery by the Jews. The Jews
say that according to the Law of Moses, anyone who does Adultery is to be stoned. In these verses Jesus, when
questioned about what her punishment should be, utters the famous words, “Let he who is without sin cast the first
stone”, meaning that whoever is not blameworthy themselves, should not judge others. This parable is actually very
beautiful, but there is an issue, it is a total fabrication. This whole story is another later addition as the earliest New
Testament manuscripts do not contain it. In fact, the story does not even exist in any manuscripts before the 5th
century, and the vast majority of those prior to the 8th century lack the story.
The NET Bible commentates on this forgery in the Gospel of John, writing:
“This entire section, 7:53-8:11, traditionally known as the pericope adulterae, is not contained in the earliest and
best MSS and was almost certainly not an original part of the Gospel of John. Among modern commentators and
textual critics, it is a foregone conclusion that the section is not original but represents a later addition to the text of the
Gospel. B. M. Metzger summarizes: “the evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is
overwhelming” (TCGNT 187). External evidence is as follows. For the omission of 7:53-8:11: P66,75 ‫ א‬B L N T
W Δ Θ Ψ 0141 0211 33 565 1241 1424* 2768” [10]
Other Omissions
We have analysed 3 examples of large substantial textual corruption, however, to many people it may seem that these
are rare case scenarios, odd exceptions, and anomalies. The reality of the matter is that these examples are like drops
in the ocean compared to the swathes and stacks of corruption that we know has happened, (and we have no idea how
much corruption happened before our earliest manuscripts, however, it is likely very high).
The following are a few examples of other notable omissions from the early manuscripts [11]:
Codex Sinaiticus Omitted: Matt. {12:47}, 16:3, 17:21, 18:11, 23:14, 24:35, Mark 1:33, 7:16, 9:44, 46, 10:36, 11:26,
15:28, 47, 16:9-20, Luke 10:32, {17:35}, 17:36, John 5:4, 7:53-8:11, 9:38, 16:15, {19:20}, 20:6, {21:25}, Acts
{2:21}, 8:37, 15:24, 24:7, 28:29, Rom. {11:30}, 16:24, {1Cor. 2:15}, {Eph. 2:7}, {Heb. 4:9}.
Codex Alexandrinus Omitted: Mark 15:28, Luke 17:36, 22:43-44, 23:17, {John 5:12}, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29,
Rom. 11:12, 16:24, 1Cor. 6:3-6, 9:2, 16:19, Rev. 5:4.
Codex Vaticanus. Omitted: Matt. 12:47, 16:3, 17:21, 18:11, 23:14, Mark 7:16, 9:44, 46, 11:26, 15:28, 16:9-20, Luke
17:36, 22:43-44, 23:17, John 5:4, 7:53-8:11, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29, Rom. 16:24, 1Pet. 5:3.
Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus. Omitted: Mark 9:44, 46, 11:26, 15:28, John 5:4, Acts 8:37, Rom. 8:1-2, 16:24
Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis. Omitted: Matt. 5:20, 30, 9:34, 21:44, 23:14, Mark 15:28, Luke 3:30, 5:39, 11:32, 36,
12:21, 19:25, 33, 22:20, 24:12, 40, John 5:4, 8:46, 12:8, 15:3.
Codex Borgianus. Omitted: Luke 22:43-44, 23:17, John 5:4, 7:53-8:11.
Codex Washingtonianus Omitted: Matt. 4:21-22, Mark 1:43, 9:44, 46, 10:48, 11:26, Luke 3:24-38, 17:36, 19:25,
22:43-44, John 5:4, 12, 7:53-8:11, 9:38.
Westcott, Brooke Foss and Fenton John Anthony Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek, MacMillan and
Co.: Cambridge, England, 1885 Omitted: Matt. 12:47, 16:3, 17:21, 18:11, 23:14, Mark 7:16, 9:44, 46, 11:26, 15:28,
16:9-20, Luke 17:36, 22:20, 43-44, 23:17, 24:12, 40, John 5:4, 7:53-8:11, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29, Rom. 16:24.
Institute for New Testament Textual Research, Novum Testamentum Graece: Nestle-Aland, 28th edition, German
Bible Society: Berlin, Germany, 1993 Omitted: Matt. 17:21, 18:11, 23:14, Mark 7:16, 9:44, 46, 11:26, 15:28, 16:9-20,
Luke 17:36, 22:43-44, 23:17, John 5:4, 7:53-8:11, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29, Rom. 16:24.
Holmes, Michael W., The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition, Society of Biblical Literature: Atlanta, GA, 2010
Omitted: Matt. 17:21, 18:11, 23:14, Mark 7:16, 9:44, 46, 11:26, 15:28, 16:9-20, Luke 17:36, 23:17, John 5:4, 7:538:11, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29, Rom. 16:25-27.
Alan Bunning, Bunning Heuristic Prototype Greek New Testament, Center for New Testament Restoration: Lafayette,
IN, 2012. Omitted: Matt. 16:3, 17:21, 18:11, 23:14, Mark 7:16, 9:44, 46, 11:26, 15:28, 16:9-20, Luke 17:36, 22:43-44,
23:17, John 5:4, 7:53-8:11, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29, Rom. 16:24.
G. Pierpont, The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform 2005, Chilton Book Publishing:
Southborough, MA, 2005 December 1. Omitted: Luke 17:36, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7.
Conclusion
As is evidential from our earliest manuscripts, the testimony of early Christians and Non-Christians, and the consensus
of Biblical Scholarship today, the New Testament has been corrupted, to deny this would be to deny an observable
reality. The only point of contention that scholarship disputes today, is whether or not it is even “possible to
reconstruct” an original text, but the idea that the New Testament was corrupted at some point in history is certain, and
this is confirmed by Allah َّ‫ َعزَّ َو َجل‬in the Qur’an, Chapter 2, Verse 79.
“So woe to those who distort the Scripture with their own hands then say, “This is from Allah”—seeking a fleeting
gain! So, woe to them for what their hands have written, and woe to them for what they have earned.”
What do we know about the Qur’an’s preservation?
Muslims today claim that the Holy Qur’an has been preserved by God himself, and that it is the verbatim word of
God, and the Qur’an dentifies itself as being protected and preserved in Surah 15, Verse 9:” Indeed, it is We who sent
down the Qur’an and indeed, We will be its guardian.” Let us analyse this claim, we know that:
•
•
There are over two dozen confirmed 1st century hijrī /7th century CE Manuscripts of the Qurʾān extant right now
and many others out there waiting to be identified.
We have 100% of the Qurʾān in extant MSS witnesses from the first Islamic century. (Dr. Hythem Sidky, Dr.
Marijn Van Putten, and Dr. Sean Anthony) [12]
1st Century Hijiryya Manuscripts
•
Sarayi Medina 1a
Topkapi Ms. (99%)
-Tubingen Ms. (26%)
•
Codex ParisinoPetropolitanus (46%)
•
Codex BL Or. 2165 (57%)
•
Codex Mashhad (90%)
•
Codex 331 (29%); Codex
330g (21%); then Codices
Marcel 17, 18, and 19 (15, 10
and 7% of the Quran
respectively).
•
San’aa Palimpsest, which is
called San’aa I or C1 (41%)
•
The bottom line is: The
entire Qurʾān without dispute is
attested in multiple manuscript
witnesses dated within the
seventh century CE (before 700
CE).
Aḥruf al-Sabʿah and Al- Qirāʾāt
Al-‘Ashr
In the Islamic tradition, we know
the Qur’an was revealed in 7
Aḥruf, and the majority opinion
of the Scholars is that, the main objective of these was to facilitate the recitation for those who were unaccustomed to
the Qur’aishiyy Dialect, and that this was a mercy from Allah, and that the 7 Aḥruf are ‘Modes of Recitation”.[13]
The other purpose which the Ahruf accommodate, is the multi-formic nature of the Qur’an, which allows one Ayat, to
contain multiple complimentary meanings, which increases the beauty and miraculous nature of the Qur’an.
Umar ibn al-Khattab reported: I heard Hisham ibn Hakim reciting the Surat al-Furqan in a way different from how I
recited it and how it was taught to me by the Messenger of Allah, ‫ﷺ‬. I was about to argue with him, but then I waited
until he finished and I tied his shirt around his neck and took him to the Prophet ‫ﷺ‬. I said, “Indeed, I heard this man
recite in a way different from what you taught me!” The Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬said to me, “Bring him to me.” Then, the Prophet
‫ ﷺ‬said to him, “Recite.” He recited and the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬said, “this is as it has been revealed.” Then, the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬said
to me, “Recite.” I recited and the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬said, “this is as it has been revealed. Verily, the Quran has been revealed
in seven modes of recitation, so recite whichever of them you find easy.” [14]
Grade: Muttafaqun Alayhi (authenticity agreed upon) according to Al-Bukhari and Muslim
‘Ubayy (bin Ka'b) also reported, The Prophet encountered Jibril at the outskirts of Madinah and told him, "I have been
sent to a nation of illiterates, among them is the old man, the old woman and the young (children)." Jibril replied, "So
command them to recite the Qur'an in seven modes”.
So we know what the 7 modes of Recitation are, but what are the 10 Qirāʾāt (Accepted Recitations) and where do they
come from? We know that, during the time of ‘Uthman, the standardised manuscripts of the Qur’an were sent to 5
major cities, Makkah, Madinah, Sham, Kufa, and Basra. [15] These manuscripts contained variants which were
adapted for each specific city, and these variants all came from the 7 Aḥruf (we will discuss how later), and each
manuscript was sent with 2 master Qurra’, trained Reciters of the Qur’an who memorised the Qur’an from the Prophet
himself.
The Qirāʾāt have an extremely strict criteria for acceptance, these are [16]:
•
Authentic Chain of Narration (Ṣaḥīḥ in Sanad)
Multiply Attested Regional Mass Transmission (Mutawātir, it is important to make a distintion, just because a
Qirāʾā is attributed to a specific person, for e.g. Ḥafṣ An-‘Asim or Warsh An-Nafi’, it does not mean that person
‘invented’ this Qirāʾā, each Qirāʾā was recited by 1000’s of people, and the names were only assigned for the
purpose of identification. Imam Ibrāhīm Ibn Nakha’ī used to dislike people saying that this is the Qira’a of
this person or that person, because it implies that only 1 person came with it, when in reality there were
1000’s)
•
Conformity with Arabic Grammar (Naḥw al-‘Arabī)
•
Conformity with the 5 Uthmanic Manuscripts (Maṣāḥif)
•
If any Qirāʾā does not fulfil all 4 criteria, it is rejected, these are known as Qirā’āt al-Shādh (Rejected recitations), and
it ḥarām to call this Qur’an. Imam Ibn Abd Al-Birr reported ‘Ijmā that this is the case, and anyone who does this must
repent. There is a famous story regarding Ibn Shunbūdh and Ibn Miksam. It was said regarding Ibn Shunbūdh that he
would recite with the Qirā’āt al-Shādh. He was thereafter taken to court, punished, and commanded to repent from
this. Ibn Miksam would recite the Qur’ān in accordance to the the structure of the ‘Uthmānī Mushaf and in line with
the Arabic language. However, he would not recite as that which the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬recited – as per authentic chains of
transmission. He was also taken to court, punished, and asked to repent for this. [17]
Example of Qirā’āt al-Shādh:
In Surah Al-Qariah Verse 5, the Uthmanic Reading is:
“And the mountains will be like wool, fluffed up.”. However, one variant Qirā’ā, which is attributed to Ibn Mas’ud
reads, Ṣūf instead of ʿIhn, both words mean ‘wool’, but there is a clear difference. Why?
•
•
Potential Synonymic Variation (Ṣūf may have been a revealed Harf (mode) that was abrogated)
Potential Scribal Error due to the similarity of the meaning of the words
•
Potential Exegetical Note, (Ibn Mas’ud or another scribe may have used the word Ṣūf as a note next to the
word ʿIhn, as a reminder as to what the word ʿIhn means)
As you can see, most of these differences are very minor, and easily explainable, unlike the Biblical Textual
Variants.
Example of Ṣaḥīḥ in Sanad for Ḥafṣ An-‘Asim
•
Isnād: the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬to ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib, and ʿAbd Allah b. Masʿūd, and Ubayy b. Kʿab, and Zaid b. Thābit to
'Abd al-Raḥmān al-Sulamī to ʿĀṣim b. Abī Najūd to Ḥafṣ b. Sulaymān. [18] [19].
So, as a quick summary, the Islamic Tradition states that the Qur’an was revealed in 7 modes of recitation, to
accommodate for the various Muslims at the time, to make reciting easier for them, as a mercy from Allah, and these
modes were all validated by the Prophet ‫ﷺ‬, then the Companions memorised the Qur’an, and passed it onto multiple
students, who memorised it and transmitted the Qur’an all over the Muslim world, and these were accepted and known
as the 10 Qira’at, if they fulfilled the strict criteria. The 10 Qira’at are NOT the 7 Ahruf, but the 7 Ahruf are contained
within them, as variants, and none of these variants contradicts each other, (for example Malik (king) and Maalik
(owner) in Surah Fatiha Verse 4, but they add to the linguistical perfection of the Qur’an.
So we know with historical certainty that the 10 Recitations we have today are exactly as the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬recited them,
and we know that they are all multiply attested and in line with the ‘Uthmanic Masahif, but now the question would
be, what are the ‘Uthmanic Masahif, and how do we know it is reliable?
The Uthmanic Masahif
The first Codex Committee was established during the reign of Abu Bakr, and as many of you may know, during the
time of Abu Bakr, the “Apostasy Wars”, occurred, a period where many false Prophets and rebels began to revolt
against Abu Bakr and the Muslim Caliphate. Abu Bakr, therefore, waged war against these rebels, one such war was
the battle of Yamamah, in this Battle, many of the reciters of the Qur’an were martyred. Due to this, ‘Umar Ibn alKhattāb suggested to Abu Bakr that the Qur’an should be compiled in one place in vigour to preserve the Qur’ān.
When this was presented to Abu Bakr, he accepted this proposal. [15] This resulted in the 1st Codex Committee of
Zayd ibn Thabit, the committee compiled the Qur’an into one manuscript, including the 7 Ahruf, and preserved the
Qur’an in one place. After Abu Bakr passed away, this manuscript was given to ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattāb, who gave it to
his daughter, Hafsa.
Several years later, during the time of ‘Uthmān, an issue arose. Due to the fact that the Islamic Empire had spread so
quickly in such a short time, individuals from the general mass began to dispute about recitations, some people would
claim their recitation was better than anyone elses. In order to efficiently resolve this dilemma, ‘Uthmān
commissioned the 2nd Codex Committee of Zayd Ibn Thābit, ‘Abdullāh Ibn al-Zubayr, ‘Abdul-Rahmān Ibn al-Hārith
and Sa’īd Ibn al-Ās. These men obtained the Codex of Abu Bakr from Hafsa, and were tasked with creating
manuscripts of the Qur’an to be sent all over the Muslim world (Makkah, Madinah, Sham, Kufa, and Basra), these
became known as the Uthmanic Masahif (Manuscripts). But how do we know these were reliable?
The Codex Committee of Zayd Ibn Thabit had highly strict conditions for compiling the Qur’an:
•
Two witnesses were demanded for every portion of Qur’an presented.
•
What does two witnesses mean? Ibn Ḥājar Al-Asqalani tells us: “Two witnesses who testified that the verse (lit.
that which was written) was written verbatim in the very presence of the Prophet ‫ﷺ‬.” Meaning every word in the
Uthmanic Masahif was verified by the Prophet ‫ﷺ‬. Meaning, it was not 2 only 2 witnesses that were needed, but
these witnesses had to hear and see, first-hand, when it was specifically revealed or authenticated by the Prophet
‫ ﷺ‬as being in the Qur’an.
•
Why was Zaid b. Thābit chosen to head the Committee?
•
Whenever a manuscript was witnessed by two men, the Committee checked it against other manuscripts, and
then against their own memories and the memories of the well-known Ḥuffāẓ of the Qurʾān. Those readings that
were deemed to be the most widely recited among the Ḥuffāẓ – the Quranic Masters among the Companions – as
well as among the generality of the other Companions, those readings were officially transcribed in the Master
Uthmanic Codex. Thus, the written and recited materials were compared against each other to determine the
most dominant readings.
•
Uthman did allow for a slight variance in the rusūm (writing) his manuscripts, when it came to some particular
variations (prepositions and particles, but not words or phrases). According to Abū ʿUbayd b. Sallām, Uthman’s
six Codices were in 99.999% agreement in their rusūm. There was a difference of 43 characters out of almost
374,000 characters; and these variants were intentional, in order to preserve the 7 Ahruf into the text.
Based on all these strict textual standards, we can be absolutely certain that
the Committee of ‘Uthman preserved the Qur’an in its totality, and every
early Qur’anic Manuscript is in agreement with the Text of ‘Uthman.
In summary, the Qur’an was revealed in 7 Ahruf, and these were validated
by the Prophet ‫ﷺ‬, and memorised by the companions. The Committee of
Zayd Ibn Thabit produced 5 manuscripts based on the manuscript of Abu
Bakr and the memorisation of all the reciters of the Qur’an. These
Manuscripts did not contain dots or diacritical marks, and were therefore
sent to major cities, with professionally trained reciters who taught the
recitation as they heard it from the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬and taught many students until
it was mutawatir (mass transmitted), and these became known as the Qirā’āt,
and they were only accepted if the chain of narration was authentic.
So why are there Textual Variants in the Qur’anic Manuscripts?
Many critics will point out the fact that, if the Qur’an was so well preserved, why is it that there are some textual
variants in our Manuscripts? While this is true and we do accept this, it is NOT for the same reason that Christians
have Textual Variants in the Bible, as this would be a categorization error. The Textual Variants of the Qur’an are of
4 types:
1. Various orthographies used, that do not affect recitation (Orthographic Style is like Punctuation,
Spelling Practices, Diacritical Marks like the Fatha, Dhamma, Kasrah, for example the word “Son” and
“Sonne”, or “Old” and “Olde” in Modern English and Shakespearean English, have the same meaning
and pronunciation, but different orthographies)
2. Variants due to the revealed 7 aḥruf where the rasm is different (and these are accepted by Muslims as
the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬verified them)
3. Scribal errors (Small, insignificant anomalies that don’t affect the preservation)
4. Exegetical glosses or notes (Scribes would sometimes make notes for themselves, like Tafsir, and this
could be confused as a Variant, when in reality they are not)
This is why Textual Variants of the Qur’an cannot be equated to textual variants in the Bible, as many of the variants
are due to the 7 Ahruf, which are accepted by Muslims, whereas the Bible has no such concept of 7 Modes. Similarly,
any Scribal errors or additions or subtractions in Qur’an Manuscripts, ALWAYS stay confined to the first manuscript
that that change was made in, unlike the Bible, where you have entire chapters and stories being fabricated from a
singular manuscript and then being accepted as authentic. This is nowhere to be seen with the Qur’an.
But what about Atheist Scholars?
Some may argue that all these sources are biased because they are all from Muslims, however this could not be further
from the truth, the reality is that many Atheist Scholars and Orientalists have accepted that the preservation of the
Qur’an is undeniable.
•
Stanley Lane Poole, A British Orientalist and Archaeologist writes, “It is an immense merit in the Quran that
there is no doubt as to its genuineness, every word we can now read with full confidence has remained
unchanged through nearly thirteen hundred years.” [20]
•
Dr John Burton, A British Scholar of Islamic Orientalism says, “the text which has come down to us is in the
form in which it was organized and approved by the Prophet (‫)ﷺ‬. What we have today in our hands is the
Mushaf of Muhammad (‫)ﷺ‬.” [21]
•
Sir Thomas Arnold, A British Historian of Islam stated, “there is a general agreement by both Muslim and
non-Muslim scholars that the text of this recension substantially corresponds to the actual utterances of
Muhammad (‫ )ﷺ‬himself.” [22]
•
Professor Phillip Hitti, a Scholar of Middle Eastern History at Harvard University wrote, “Modern critics
agree that the copies current today are almost exact replicas of the original mother-text as compiled by Zayd,
and that, on the whole, the text of the Koran today is as Muhammad (‫ )ﷺ‬produced it. As some Semitic scholar
remarked, there are probably more variations in the reading of one chapter of Genesis in Hebrew than there
are in the entire Koran.” [23]
•
Ronald Bodley, an Orientalist Author stated, “Today there is no possible doubt that the Koran which is read
wherever there are Moslems is the same version as that translated from Hafsa’s master copy.” [24]
As you can see, the Ijmā’ of the Muslim Scholars, that the Qur’an is preserved, is also shared by Non-Muslim
Orientalists. The same cannot be said for the Bible, which in fact is the exact opposite, where the majority of even
Christian Scholars agreeing that the Text has been corrupted.
Comparisons and Conclusion
As we have seen, the Bible does simply not even come close to the Qur’an in terms of preservation. In the Bible, the
manuscripts we have are mostly of poor quality, and come many several centuries later, and we don’t even have the
entire Bible until the 4th century, whereas the Qur’an is the polar opposite, we have manuscripts that are so early, they
were written during the Prophets lifetime, this level of strong manuscript attestation is something Christian Biblical
Scholars could only dream of.
We have also seen the impact of variants on both texts, where variants of the Bible completely impact the text,
theologically and historically, and have severe implications for the reliability of scripture, with multiple occasions of
entire stories and chapters being totally fabricated. The Qur’an meanwhile is totally different, where almost all
variants are because of the intentional 7 Ahruf, and they increase the beauty of the linguistic miracle of the Qur’an, by
adding meaning, not contradicting it, or inventing entirely new meanings. Additionally, the other unintentional
‘variants’, like scribal errors, are always extremely minute, and easy to spot, and they are never included into the
actual Qur’an themselves, they remain as isolated mistakes in singular manuscripts.
We have also seen the Qur’an has an extremely strong criteria for acceptance, with multiply attested oral chains
backing up every word and tracing it back to the Prophet ‫ﷺ‬. On the flip side you have the Bible, where one single
addition in a manuscript was enough for all the Christians to see it as inspired holy scripture! And there is no oral
chain of transmission for any of it at all.
All this evidence only goes to show the truth of everything Allah says in the Qur’an:
So woe to those (Jews and Christians) who write the “scripture” with their own hands, then say, “This is from Allah,”
in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they
earn. Surah 2:79
“Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur’an and indeed, We will be its guardian.” Surah 15:9.
Anything incorrect I have said is from Shaytan, and Allah and his messenger are free from it. And JazakAllah Khayr
for listening.
Wa salāmu ʿalaykum wa-raḥmatu -llāhi wa-barakātuh.
FAQ’s
Question 1: There are so many thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament, in so many different languages, and
scholars say we have more New Testament manuscripts than any other document in the ancient world, so how could
you say it is corrupted?
Answer: As previously mentioned, most of these manuscripts are from the 9th century onwards, they serve absolutely
no purpose to textual critics who are attempting to find out what the New Testament originally said. Additionally,
manuscripts from other languages, Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Slavonic, Ethiopic etc. are mostly useless apart from helping
scholars to identify where corruptions could have potentially entered the Bible (for example, the Latin Vulgate
contains many unique verses that are not in our earliest Greek manuscripts, therefore scholars can conclude that these
corruptions were introduced via the Latin translations). The superiority of the Qur’an is that all manuscripts are
Arabic, (so we don’t get instances of corruptions due to translations). Additionally, the claim that, the New Testament
manuscripts are earlier than manuscripts of other ancient works, like Homer’s Iliad, Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews,
the Annals of Tacitus, etc, is irrelevant. Even if the New Testament is more well preserved in RELATION to these
other works, it does not therefore follow now that the New Testament itself is reliable. Take for example,
hypothetically, 3 books. Out of these 3 books, 2 of them are entirely full of a bunch of nonsensical falsehoods, (like
1+1=3, 2+2=5, 3+3=10…and so on), and in the 3rd book, there are some truths, (like 4+4=8, 5+5=10…and so on) but
the 3rd book also contains a lot of its own false statements (6+6=13, 7+7=15…and so on). We may say that this 3 rd
book, in RELATION to the first 2 books, is more accurate, because it has some truths in it which are mixed in with
falsehoods, whereas the first 2 books are only full of falsehoods, however, it does not logically follow, that just
because the 3rd book is more accurate in relation to the first 2 books, now the 3rd book is totally accurate and reliable.
This is essentially what the Christians try to argue when trying to show you that the manuscripts of the Bible are
earlier than manuscripts of other ancient writings. Additionally, the New Testament is a religious text, whereas books
like Homer’s Iliad, Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews, the Annals of Tacitus, are complex historical compilations. It is
obvious then that, people read religious text far more frequently than complex historical texts, (think when the last
time was you read the New Testament Vs. the last time you read Homer’s Iliad!), meaning obviously there will be
more manuscripts of the New Testament than other works, simply because more people were reading it, this does not
make the New Testament “specially preserved”.
Question 2: But the entire New Testament is preserved in the Writings of the Church Fathers! So why should we care
about what the manuscripts say?
Answer: This question comes from an underlying ignorant assumption, that the Church Fathers are always quoting
scripture perfectly and harmoniously. The truth is, when Church Fathers quote scripture, they do so, usually, in a nonverbatim, paraphrased manner, and they use composite quotations (stitching together many verses to make one quote),
while also adding in their own commentary, and most of the time they do this without reference to where the quotes
actually come from in the scripture, (this is a common theme in the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, this makes it
extremely difficult, even impossible, to reconstruct the New Testament from the quotations of the Church Fathers
alone. The truth is that you need to know what the New Testament says already (from the manuscripts), to then find
and locate exactly where the Church Fathers quote them, this beats the entire purpose of not relying on Manuscripts!
Additionally, this is not even considering whether the manuscripts of the Church Father writings themselves are even
reliable, which is highly debatable.
Question 3: But what about the Alexandrian Text Type? Many scholars claim that by using Alexandrian Manuscripts,
we can get close to the Original Text!
Answer: Firstly, by asking this question it must be conceded that the New Testament has been corrupted at some point
in history, because the whole entire reason scholars use Alexandrian Manuscripts to reconstruct the original text is
because they do not contain the corruptions and defects of other Text Types, like Byzantine, Western or Caesarean
Manuscripts, therefore making the Qur’anic Claim in Surah 2;79 true. The claim that the Alexandrian Text Type can
provide us with a textual tradition which can be traced back accurately to the original text comes from an argument,
frequently propagated by a scholar named Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, who argues that manuscripts like p75 and Codex
Vaticanus, which are written ~150 years apart, can be used to establish a phylogenetic link between a common
ancestor manuscript shared between both of them, which would have been very closely related to the original text.
Firstly, Dr Daniel B. Wallace, ascribes to a School of Textual Criticism known as Eclecticism, in which, scholars
attempt to reconstruct the original words of the text, so it must be noted that by adopting this methodology, the fact
that the New Testament has been corrupted is already conceded and accepted, this claim is rather arguing for whether
or not the New Testament can be restored not whether or not it has been corrupted, as that fact is already accepted by
Eclecticists.
One metric used by Textual Critics to determine the commonality between 2 Manuscripts is known as the
Pregeneological Coherence (the number of shared readings expressed as a percentage). Scholars such as Dr. P. Gurry
and Dr. Wasserman state that 2 manuscripts should at least share a 78-80% coherence to be EVEN considered Textual
relatives.[25] P75 and Codex Vaticanus share a 79% Pregeneological Coherence (meaning at least 21% of the time,
the witnesses do not even agree). A 79% Coherence puts these 2 manuscripts as barely considered to be Textual
relatives, to say this is evidence of strong and clean textual transmission would be misleading. Wallace says p75 is 150
years older than Vaticanus. However, Pasquale Orsini, a respected papyrologist and palaeographer, has recently
offered dates for the various papyri in the Bodmer collection, dating both P66 and P75 to the 3rd/4th century CE
(which would roughly equate to 250-325 CE). [26] Professor Nongbri also dates p75 to the 4th century. His argument
for this involves a close comparison of the handwriting of P75 with various other manuscripts, focusing particularly
on those that can be dated more securely. These include several dated in the late 3rd century or early 4th century CE.
[27] This means, instead of having 2 manuscripts written 150 years apart, that share a common ancestry due to their
similarity, in reality, Wallace has 2 manuscripts written roughly in the same century, in the same region, that more
often than not, agree with each other in their reading, but this doesn’t therefore substantiate that the Alexandrian Text
Type can be accurately traced back to an original text.
Question 4: If the Qur’an is so preserved, why did ‘Uthman burn variants?
Answer: As discussed previously, the reason for ‘Uthman’s standardisation of the text was so that there would be no
potential room for any kind of disagreement in terms of Rasm. [17] In doing so, the text was undoubtedly preserved,
and the evidence for this is the fact that the Sahabah had Ijmā’ when it came to the Maṣāḥif Al-‘Uthmaniyya that were
distributed to the 5 major metropolitan areas. [15] The reason for burning variant readings is that they did not meet the
stringent criterion for acceptance by the committee of Zayd b. Thabit, which may have been for many reasons, like for
example variant readings arising due to scribal errors, exegetical notes, or abrogated readings from the 7 Ahruf.
Question 5: What about the 1924 Cairo Qur’an, why is that different?
Answer: Many Christian Apologists, from the likes of Jay Smith and David Wood, posit a silly argument that the text
of Ḥafṣ An-‘Asim in the Kufic Script of the 1924 Cairo (King Fahd) Qur’an, which is what the majority of Muslims
recite today, is different to many early manuscripts that we have, like the Topkapi manuscript. Dr. Altıkulaç, a Turkish
Islamic scholar states: “There are 2270 instances where there is dissimilarity between the Topkapı Mushaf and the
Fahd Mushaf -most of them concerning whether or not the word was written with an alif-. The reason that this this
numbers seems so great is that many words that are written with a different spelling are repeated in the Qur'an. Let us
give a few examples: [28]
According to Dr. Altıkulaç himself, the vast majority of these differences have to do with the differences in the
spelling of the same words. This is what we refer to as a difference in orthography. What this means, is that the way a
word can be represented in a language may vary over time but it will carry the same pronunciation and the same
meaning. The English language equivalent would be the Shakespearean spelling of “sonne”, which we know today as,
“son”. Do both of these words have the same pronunciation? Yes. Do both of these words have the same meaning?
Yes. As Dr. Altıkulaç states, the differences between the words are the variation in spelling of the same word. 13
There is quite literally no other difference. [29]
Question 6: Why did a goat eat a page of the Qur’an?
Answer: This claim comes from the Hadith, Āʾishah narrated: “The Verse of stoning and of breastfeeding an adult ten
times was revealed, and the paper was with me under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah died, we were
preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep came in and ate it” – Sunan Ibn Mājah 1944.
There are several problems with this hadith...
1. Ibn Isḥāq (unreliable transmitter, condemned for being a fabricator by many scholars and
contemporaries, such as Imam Ahmed, Imam Malik, Shaykh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah. Imam Ahmad
Ibn Hanbal was asked about the solitary reports of Ibn Ishaq if they are considered reliable. He said
“No!” [30])
2. The versions of this narration through: Imām Mālik b. Anas and Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd al-Anṣārī do not
mention a goat/sheep.
According to this hadith, if it was true, the reason why this verse is no longer recited as the Qurʾān is because a goat or
sheep ate the piece of paper upon which this verse was transcribed. As if losing a piece of paper suddenly erases the
verse from the memories of human beings!
Question 7: Why did Ibn Mas’ud’s Codex not have Surah Al-Fatiha, Surah An-Nas, or Surah Al-Falaq?
Abū Bakr al-Anbārī (d. 304 h) is quoted by Imām al-Qurṭubī... Ibn Masʿūd was asked point blank why he did not
write al-Fātiḥah in his Mushaf. And Ibn Masʿūd responded: (‫)لو كتبتها لكتبتها مع كل سورة‬. “If I would have written it, I
would have written it before every surah.”
The answer to this question is that Surah Fatiha was so widely transmitted, Ibn Mas’ud did not feel that it was
necessary to even include it, this does not mean he did not believe it was from the Qur’an!
Some singular reports claim that Ibn Mas’ud did not believe Al-Mu’awwaḏtayn (Surah An-Nas and Al-Falaq), was
in the Qur’an. According to Imām Shams al-Dīn al-Jazarī [31], FOUR of the TEN mass-transmitted Readings
Traditions: ʿĀṣim, Ḥamzah, al-Kisāʾī, Khalaf, all in Iraq, can be traced to the Prophet through Abdullah Ibn Masʿūd
all include Al-Mu’awwaḏtayn.
Question 8: What about the 2 extra Surah’s of ‘Ubayy ibn Ka’b?
This comes from an alleged narration about ‘Ubayy ibn Ka’b, which says “And in the mushaf of Ubayy there were
[one hundred and] sixteen surahs, for towards the end of it he had written Surahs ‘Hafd’ and ‘Khal.”, and “Written in
the text of ‘Ubayy ibn Ka‘b were the Fatihal-kitab (the Opening Surah) and Al-Mu’awwaḏtayn and ‫( للهم إنا نستعينك‬O
Allah, we seek your help) and ‫( اللهم إياك نعبد‬O Allah, we worship you).” [32] These are the alleged, “extra Surah’s” of
‘Ubayy ibn Ka’b:
“Sūrah al-Khalaʿ”:
ْ َ‫علَيْكَ ال َخي َْر َون‬
• َ‫شكُ ُركَ َو ََل نَ ْكفُ ُركَ َون َْخلَ ُع َونَتْ ُركُ َم ْن ئَّ ْفج ُُرك‬
ْ ِ‫علَيْكَ َونُثْن‬
َ ‫ئ‬
َ ‫اَللَّ ُه َّم إنا نَ ْستَعِينُكَ َونَ ْستَ ْغف ُِركَ َونُؤْ مِ ُن ِبكَ َونَت ََو َّك ُل‬
• O Allah! We invoke you for help, and beg for forgiveness, and we believe in you and have trust in you,
and we praise you, in the best way we can; and we thank you and we are not ungrateful to you, and we
forsake and turn away from the one who disobeys you.
“Sūrah al-Ḥafd”:
• ‫حق‬
َ َّ‫عذَابَكَ إِن‬
َ ‫صلِئ َونَ ْس ُجدُ َوإِلَيْكَ نَسْعأئ َونَحْ ِفدُ َونَرْ جُو َرحْ َمتَكَ َون َْخشآئ‬
َ ‫ار ُم ْل‬
ِ َّ‫عذَابَكَ بِالكُف‬
َ ُ‫اَللَّ ُه َّم إِيَّاكَ نَ ْعبُدُ َولَكَ ن‬
• O Allah! We worship you and prostrate ourselves before you, and we hasten towards you and serve you,
and we hope to receive your mercy and we dread your torment. Surely, the disbelievers shall incur your
torment.
This is Duʿā al-Qunūt, It is reported in numerous hadiths that the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬would often recite this supplication
during the audible prayers, such as in Sunan Ibn Mājah (1182), Sunan al-Nasāʾī (1699), Jāmī al-Tirmiḏī (401). These
are obviously supplications. The Sahabah did not consider these to be Qur’an, otherwise they would have made it into
the ‘Uthmanic Text, but they did not, because they knew these were only Duʿā, like the Duʿā al-Qunūt which is
recited in the Witr prayer of ‘Isha. And anyone who attributed these supplications to being Surah’s, was mistaken,
even the overwhelming majority of laymen Muslims are able to distinguish between Duʿā and Qur’an, it is obvious
because supplications begin with ‫( اَللَّ ُه َّم‬O Allah!), whereas a Surah never begins with ‫( اَللَّ ُه َّم‬O Allah!).
Question 9: What about the Ṣanʽā’ Palimpsest, isn’t the lower text completely different to the ‘Uthmanic Rasm?
The Ṣanʽā’ Manuscript is one of the oldest Quranic manuscripts in existence, discovered in the Great Mosque of
Ṣanʽā’, Yemen, which contains an upper and lower layer of text. The upper text is the text that is visibly written and
extant, and the lower text is the text which was written and then erased and written over again, the Ṣanʽā’ Palimpsest
is written on parchment, which is paper made from dried animal hide, it is durable enough that it can be written on in
ink, and the ink can be scraped away, and the parchment can be reused, the text which is scraped away is known as the
“lower” text. Textual Critics can use scientific methods involving UV-light to see what the lower text said. Regarding
the upper layer, it complies very well to the standard Uthmanic codex, the lower layer of text which has been erased
and replaced with the upper layer contains some textual variants, conflicting with the Uthmanic codex. Radiocarbon
dating has dated the lower layer of text Manuscript to around 578-669 CE.[33]
The claim is that, the lower text was an early recension, or version of the Qur’an which was erased, and this proves
that the ‘Uthmanic Text is not the original Qur’an. This claim is demonstrably false for several reasons, firstly, it is
highly probable, that the scribe of the lower text was not a professionally trained scribe, or writing a Qur’anic text
intended for public use. Why is this the case?
Dr. Asma Hilali (Research Associate in the Department of Academic Research and Publications at The Institute of
Ismaili Studies) has proposed that both the upper and lower text show characteristics of being schoolroom "exercises"
in Qur’anic writing, in which case scraping and re-use was to be expected”. This is also characterised by the fact that
the lower text contains many grammatical mistakes, scribal mistakes, variation in letter shapes and sizes, in an
irregular pattern. [34] This shows that the lower text of Ṣanʽā’ was never being written as official Qur’an in the first
place. Furthermore, the Ṣanʽā’ Lower Text contains scribal notes, for example in Surah Al-Tawba
In Surah Al-Tawba, the basmala is not recited, and the scribe of the lower text made a personal note next to the
beginning of Surah Al-Tawba saying, “Do not recite Bismillah”, showing that this manuscript was somebody’s
personal manuscript, not an official public Qur’an.
So, are these variant readings in San’a problematic? No.
Benham Sadeghi and Mohsen Goudrazi mention in their Harvard University Paper, "...Nothing was revealed about the
manuscripts beyond the finding that there are variants, a banal observation from the standpoint of traditional Muslim
scholarship. The mysterious information gap was explained by putting the responsibility at the door of Yemen and its
presumed propensity for withholding purportedly embarrassing evidence.” [35]
Ursula Dreibholz mentions, “Despite the rumors that have circulated, it is important to emphasize here that no
distortion was found in the manuscripts found in the Great Mosque in Ṣanʽā’, as the differences were limited to the
vowel symbols used in the early Islamic ages". [36]
According to Sadeghi and Dr.Cook, the Ṣanʽā’ palimpsest’s underscript is an accurate transmission of the qira’at of
the Qur’an, which is based on the modes of recitation (Ahruf Al-Qur’an). He concludes that we have an archetype
manuscript of the Qur’an, which means that it is from this Ṣanʽā’ underscript that many other copies of the Qur’an
were written accurately. Shocked by the accuracy Dr. Cook describes the multiple witness, yet simultaneous
transmission as having, “strikingly regular patterns”, that it is not due to chance, “the great regularity of the patterns
requires an explanation other than chance” and that it is, “difficult to explain why the texts fit this very specific set of
stemmata if not as a result of having emerged in accordance with one of them”. Not by chance, accurate, mass
transmitted with independent chains of transmission, all these claims of the Qur’an, lead him to conclude that the
Qur’an was accurately transmitted, and that the traditional Islamic history of their transmission was, “a testimony to
the continuing accuracy of the transmission of the variants” in the Qirāʾāt literature.” [37]
In reality, the lower text of the Sana'a Manuscript was never official Qur'an which was intended to be used, as the
authorship and penmanship indicate low-level understanding of Arabic, possibly from a student or someone else doing
practice, Muslim scholarship has been aware of variants for centuries, and the lower text was erased and replaced with
the Uthmanic conforming Codex as commanded by the Caliph ‘Uthman. Despite this, the lower and upper text are
remarkably accurate, even according to western academics. In fact, the Ṣanʽā’ manuscripts prove the reliability of the
Islamic Aḥādīth, as they are extant and living proof of the standardization of the text that occurred under ‘Uthman, as
mentioned in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 4987.
Question 10: The Bible came way before the Qur’an, so the Qur’an will obviously be more well preserved because its
newer, so why are you comparing them?
Christians may argue that such a comparison is highly anachronistic, and falls under the fallacy of presentism, because
the Bible came before the Qur’an, meaning it cannot be held to the same standard. To this we would simply say that
we as Muslims do not believe the word of God can have any corruption or human conjecture, (Surah 15:9, 4:82),
whereas you as Christians, evidently do believe that. (2 Timothy 3:16)
“Then do they not reflect upon the Qur’an? If it had been from [any] other than Allah, they would have found within it
much contradiction”. – Surah 4:82
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction
in righteousness” – 2 Timothy 3:16
They may also argue that this is not a fair comparison, and that a more accurate comparison would be between the
Bible and Ḥadīth, like for example, the New Testament Vs. Al-Kutb As-Sittah, however we would see this as a
concession from the Christians, as no Muslim believes that the authors or narrators of books of Ḥadīth are infallible or
inspired, and that only the Qur’an is truly from God, in the Islamic tradition, Ḥadīth have always been susceptible to
historiographical criticism under sciences such as ‘Ilm al-rijāl (Biographical Evaluation) and Al-jarḥ wa al-taʿdīl
(Critiquing and Praising), so in doing so, a Christian would have to concede Biblical fallibility and the potential for
scrutiny, which is impossible if the Bible is “Inspired by God”.
Anything incorrect I have said is from Shaytan, and Allah and his messenger are free from it. And JazakAllah Khayr
for reading.
Bibliography
[1] A Critical Analysis: Jay Smith’s Claims About the Qur’an by Br. Ijaz Ahmad Page 5
[2] Aland, Kurt; Aland, Barbara (1995). The Text of The New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and
to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism.
[3] The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel, Dr. Brent Nongbri
[4] Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 4th ed, p. 200.
[5] Tertullian, Contra Marcionem IV.2, in Ante-Nicean Fathers 3:347
[6] Irenaeus, Contra Heresis 1.8.1, in The Ante-Nicean Fathers
[7] Contra Celsum Volume II Chapter XXVII
[8] The New English Translation Bible, 1 John 5:7, Footnote B
[9] The New English Translation Bible, Mark 16:9-20, Footnote I
[10] The New English Translation Bible, John 7;53-8:11, Footnote EI
[11] The Center for New Testament Restoration (CNTR Project)
[12] On the Regionality of Qurʾānic Codices by Dr. Hythem Sidky
[13] The History of the Qur’anic Text, from Revelation to Compilation, A comparative study with the Old Testament
and New Testament, by Muḥammad Musafa Al-Azami, Page 154
[14] Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 2287, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 818
[15] ʻAqīlat atrāb al-qaṣaʼid fī asna al-maqāṣid by Imam Shāṭibī, al-Qāsim ibn Fīrruh
[16] Munjid al-muqri'īn by Imam Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad Ibn al-Jazarī
[17] Ma’rifah al-Qurra’ al-Kibar by Imam Dhahabi 1/306-309
[18] Kitab al-Masahif by Abdullah ibn Sulayman
[19] Kitāb al-Sab‘ah fī al-qirā’āt by Ibn Mujāhid, Aḥmad ibn Mūsā
[20] Edward William Lane and Stanley Lane Poole, Selections from the Kur-an, London: Trubner, 1879
[21] John Burton, The Collection of the Quran, рр.239-40
[22] Thomas Walker Arnold, The Islamic Faith, Lahore: Vagar Publications, 1983, p.9
[23] Philip Hitti, History of the Arabs, London: Macmillan, 1937, p. 123
[24] R. V. C. Bodley, The Messenger: The Life of Mohammed, New York: Greenwood Press, 1969, p.235
[25] Gurry & Wasserman, A New Approach to New Testament Textual Criticism, 137
[26] I Papiri Bodmer: Scritture e Libri, Pasquale Orsini, Adamantius 21 (2015), Page 77
[27] Reconsidering the Place of Papyrus Bodmer XIV-XV (P75) in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, Brent
Nongbri” JBL 135.2 (2016): 405-37
[28] Tayyar Altikulaç, Al-Mushaf Al-Sharif: Attributed To ‘Ali b. Abi Ṭalib, Istanbul: Research Centre for Islamic
History, Art and Culture, 2011, p.102.
[29] A Critical Analysis: Jay Smiths Claim’s About the Qur’an, by Br, Ijaz Ahmad, page 12
[30] Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, Da’ira Ma’arif Nizamia, Hyderabad, 1326 A.H. vol.9 p.43
[31] Kitāb al-Nashr fī Qirāʾat al-ʿAshr by Imām Shams al-Dīn al-Jazarī
[32] As-Suyuti, Jalal ad-Deen, al-Ittiqan fi ‘Uloom al-Qur’an, (Egypt: Haeya al-Masriyah al- ‘Aamah lil-Kitab, 1974)
Vol.1, 226
[33] Sadeghi, Behnam; Bergmann, Uwe (2010). "The Codex of a Companion of the Prophet and the Qurʾān of the
Prophet"
[34] Hollenberg, David; Rauch, Christoph; Schmidtke, Sabine (2015-05-20). The Yemeni Manuscript Tradition
[35] Ṣan‘ā’ 1 and the Origins of the Qur’ān, Benham Sadeghi and Mohsen Goudarzi, Page 34
[36] Ursula Dreibholz (1989). Early Quranic parchments discovered in the Great Mosque in Sanaa. Sana'a: German
Archaeological Institute. p. 13.
[37] Behnam Sadeghi, Uwe Bergmann, Arabica 57 (2010), p. 368