2

I asked this question a few minutes ago and someone said it is a duplicate to this but it is not. I want a modern proof!

Community
  • 1
  • 2
    Why didn't you just edit your old post? – Casanova Mar 20 '17 at 04:43
  • I lost the account. It was unregistered –  Mar 20 '17 at 04:52
  • The accepted answer points to the Birmingham folios, which are apparently part of the Codex Parisino-petropolitanus; wiki contains a small paragraph discussing that that codex overall contains some differences from modern mushafs (written copies of the Quran). The similarly early Sanaa manuscript also appears to contain differences to modern mushafs. Overall, this question with regard to archeological evidence would be a better fit for [history.se]. – G. Bach Mar 20 '17 at 08:49
  • What would fit well on here would be a question with regard to what early Muslim scholars had to say about variations, what the ahadith say about the compilation of the Quran, and basically what Islamic lore has to say on the subject - this can of course differ from what archeology/historical inquiry finds. – G. Bach Mar 20 '17 at 08:52
  • @G.Bach Early manuscripts are fairly consistent with modern versions, notwithstanding scribal errors, alternate spellings and punctuation differences. There aren't any swaths of omissions or insertions or variations which would make a plausible difference in meaning. Ofcourse that is also more or less true for the bible though my impression is that the Quranic manuscripts are measurably more consistent and surviving copies are closer to the claimed time of revelation. – UmH Mar 20 '17 at 11:20
  • @Uma "There aren't any swaths of omissions or insertions or variations which would make a plausible difference in meaning" That's a different claim than "it has not changed" - historians commenting on the earliest manuscripts seem to think that some differences cannot be explained other than by the text genuinely having changed since then; overall, this is a discussion for [history.se] though, not for here. What would fit here is a question about something like "is a single word or sentence changing/being omitted/being added inconsistent with the Quranic claim of being perfectly preserved". – G. Bach Mar 20 '17 at 11:27
  • @G.Bach "What would fit here is a question about something like is a single word or sentence changing/being omitted/being added inconsistent with the Quranic claim of being perfectly preserved" How will we define what negates preservation. Printing errors exist even in some modern editions produced prior to computerized systems. Alternate readings and non-Qurayshite dialect versions are well documented in Tradition and Hadith. In Tarawih prayers the reciters often make mistakes and are corrected. – UmH Mar 20 '17 at 11:45
  • @Uma Like I said, that's something that would fit on here because that's a doctrinal question that early Muslim scholars would have discussed. – G. Bach Mar 20 '17 at 11:48
  • Possible duplicate of How do we know that the Qur'an has never been changed? – Ahmed Apr 03 '17 at 04:03
  • You should mention why this answer is inadequate. What do you mean by modern proof? – Ahmed Apr 03 '17 at 04:04

0 Answers0