Was The Qur’an Really Preserved?
Written By: Akeel Ahamed
Dear Reader,
The following answer was prepared in response to a dialogue with a Christian brother on a plane journey who questioned the preservation of the Qur’ān. He raised five claims stating that it was not preserved and in this document, we aim to respond to each of those five claims:
“Thanks for raising these points. I appreciate you being upfront about looking at this honestly - that's exactly the spirit I want to approach this with too. I've done some research and want to address each of your five points directly.
Brief Note: You may come across some names that are unfamiliar to you whilst reading this doc for example Yaqeen Institute. For more information, see the reference docs at the end for the sources I have used in the research for this article.
Bottomline: Most of what you've raised is based on either misunderstandings of Islamic scholarship or claims that don't quite hold up under scrutiny. Let me break it down.
Claim 1: "Early companions like Ibn Mas'ud and Ubayy had different Qur'ans with different surahs and verse counts"
The Clarification
This claim conflates several distinct issues and misrepresents what these “personal copies” (masahif) actually were. Let me explain what's actually going on here.
A. The Nature of Personal Copies (Masahif)
These were not alternative Qur'ans but personal study notes. When Islamic sources refer to "the mushaf (copy) of Ibn Mas'ud," they're talking about narrations where companions were heard reciting verses in particular ways - not that they had entirely different books.
Ibn Abi Dawud himself clarified: "We only say the copy of so-and-so for that which differs from our copy in writing, by addition or subtraction." In other words, he was cataloguing minor differences in recitation - not documenting entirely separate Qur'ans. The vast majority of the text was identical.
It's like someone documenting the differences between British and American spelling (colour vs color) and a critic claiming this proves they're entirely different languages. Same energy.
B. The Claim About Missing Surahs
Critics claim Ibn Mas'ud didn't include Surah al-Fatihah and the Mu'awwidhatain (Surahs 113-114) in his copy. But here's what they don't tell you: this claim is based on weak and contested narrations.
Islamic scholarship has a rigorous verification process for any historical claim. Every narration has to be traced back through a documented chain of narrators, and each narrator is checked for reliability. Think of it like a courtroom requiring verified witnesses rather than accepting hearsay.
When Yaqeen Institute researchers applied this standard to the 540 claimed 'variant readings' attributed to companions, only 177 even had a traceable chain. And of those, only 20 were classified as authentic. That's less than 4%. So the vast majority of these 'variant' claims wouldn't hold up in an Islamic court of evidence, let alone as proof of Qur'anic corruption.
C. The Context of Different Ahruf (letters)
Here's something critics leave out: the Prophet himself validated multiple ways of reciting the Qur'an. In Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim, 'Umar and Hisham ibn Hakim recited the same passage differently, and the Prophet confirmed both were correct, saying: "This Qur'an was sent down according to seven ahruf, so recite whatever of it is easy for you."
So what are ahruf? Simply put, they were divinely permitted variations in pronunciation and dialect to make recitation easier for different Arab tribes. Same message, just slight differences in delivery.
This means when companions like Ibn Mas'ud or Ubayy recited slightly differently, they weren't going rogue - they were reciting within the flexibility the Prophet himself authorised.
Key Point: Don't confuse ahruf with qira'at (the ten recognized readings today). They're related but not the same thing. Ibn Taymiyyah stated: 'There is no difference of opinion among the scholars that the seven ahruf are not the same as the seven famous qira'at.”
Claim 2: "Uthman created one official version and ordered all other Qur'ans to be burned"
The Clarification
This framing is misleading. Let me explain what actually happened.
A. The Purpose Was Unity, Not Alteration
Ali ibn Abi Talib (the Prophet's cousin and son-in-law) supported this action. He said:
"By Allah, he did not act or do anything in respect of the manuscripts except in full consultation with us, for he said, 'What is your opinion in this matter of qira'at? It has been reported to me that some are saying "My reading is superior to your reading." That is a perversion of the truth.'"
— Narrated in Abu Dawud and other sources
Think about it: If 'Uthman was trying to corrupt the Qur'an, why would Ali (who later became the fourth Caliph and is revered by Shia Muslims) support him? This wasn't some power grab - it was a consensus decision.
B. What Was Actually Standardized
'Uthman's codification unified the written rasm (consonantal skeleton) while still allowing for the multiple valid readings within that framework.
The codex was based on the compilation made during Abu Bakr's time, which was kept with Hafsah (the Prophet's wife), verified by eyewitnesses and those who had memorized the entire Qur'an.
'Uthman sent official copies with trained reciters to ensure both written and oral transmission remained consistent.
C. The Destruction Was of Regional Dialect Copies, Not Different Texts
The copies that were destroyed were regional copies that reflected pronunciation differences. The core text was identical. As the scholars note, the goal was unity - not cover-up.
Interesting comparison: No church council ever standardized the New Testament text by destroying variant copies. The Qur'anic approach was actually more rigorous in ensuring a standardized text from the beginning.
Claim 3: "Early manuscripts like the Sana'a Palimpsest show corrections and erased text underneath"
The Clarification
This is perhaps the most misunderstood claim. Let me explain what the Sana'a Palimpsest actually tells us.
A. What is a Palimpsest?
A palimpsest is simply a recycled manuscript where expensive parchment was washed and reused - a common ancient practice. This tells us nothing about textual corruption. It's like finding a notebook where someone erased old notes and wrote new ones - doesn't mean the new notes are fabricated.
B. The Upper Text Conforms to the Standard Qur'an
This is crucial: From academic sources: "The upper text entirely conforms to the standard Uthmanic Qur'an in text and in the standard order of surahs."
C. What Did the Original Researcher Actually Say?
Gerd Puin (one of the original researchers who caused initial controversy) later wrote:
"The important thing, thank God, is that these Yemeni Qur'anic fragments do not differ from those found in museums and libraries elsewhere, with the exception of details that do not touch the Qur'an itself, but are rather differences in the way words are spelled."
Bottomline: The guy who initially raised concerns clarified that the differences are spelling variations, not textual corruption.
D. What the Variations Actually Show
According to Stanford scholars Sadeghi and Goudarzi who published the definitive study in 2012:
The lower text represents a pre-'Uthmanic textual tradition
The comparison shows that the surahs were already formed before 'Uthman's standardization
The variations are consistent with what Islamic tradition describes about the seven ahruf
Dr. Asma Hilali's 2017 publication through Oxford University Press concludes that the palimpsest actually confirms aspects of the traditional Islamic narrative about early transmission.
Claim 4: "The Qur'an was revealed in seven ahruf, and today's qira'at still differ in wording and meaning"
The Clarification
This conflates two distinct concepts and misunderstands both. Let me untangle this.
A. Ahruf ≠ Qira'at
Scholars of Qur'anic sciences explain:
"This is contradicted historically, as there are more than seven qira'at, and the collection and codification of the qira'at occurred four centuries after the Prophet's death. None of the major scholars of Islam held this view."
Ibn al-Jazari (d. 1429 CE), the greatest authority on Qur'anic recitation, explicitly rejected equating the seven ahruf with the seven qira'at.
B. The Purpose of the Seven Ahruf
The ahruf were a divine facilitation for different Arab tribes with varying dialects to recite the Qur'an. As the hadith states, the Prophet requested this ease "because among [the ummah] are the old, and young boys and girls, and those who have never read."
Think of it like this: Different accents and dialects pronouncing the same text, not different texts.
C. The Qira'at Are Not Contradictory
The ten canonical qira'at (readings) studied today:
All conform to the 'Uthmanic rasm (consonantal skeleton)
Have unbroken chains of transmission (isnad) back to the Prophet
Differ in pronunciation, vowelization, and minor word forms without contradicting meaning
Example: The word "Māliki" vs "Maliki" (Owner/King) in Surah al-Fatihah 1:4 - both refer to Allah and complement each other theologically. Not a contradiction, just richness.
D. Every Qira'a Has a Living Chain
As Yaqeen Institute notes: "The different modes of recitation are named after the most famous early reciter known for teaching that mode, and individuals who master a mode and receive ijāzah (license to teach) in it become part of an unbroken chain of transmission of that mode back to the Prophet."
This is documented with ijazah certificates that trace every reciter's chain back to the Prophet - something no other scripture can claim.
Claim 5: "There are no Qur'an manuscripts from Muhammad's lifetime. The standard version came about 20 years later."
The Clarification
This claim is both factually incorrect and applies a double standard. Let me show you why.
A. The Birmingham Manuscript
In 2015, radiocarbon dating at Oxford University dated the Birmingham Qur'an manuscript parchment to 568-645 CE with 95.4% confidence. The Prophet Muhammad lived from approximately 570-632 CE.
Professor David Thomas of the University of Birmingham stated:
"The tests carried out on the parchment of the Birmingham folios yield the strong probability that the animal from which it was taken was alive during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad or shortly afterwards... These portions must have been in a form that is very close to the form of the Qur'an read today."
Let that sink in: The text matches what we have today.
B. Other Early Manuscripts
According to Corpus Coranicum, over 60 fragments comprising more than 2,000 folios exist from before 800 CE. Several have been carbon-dated to the 7th century, including:
The Tübingen Manuscript (649-675 CE)
What it is: A partial Qur'an manuscript held at the University of Tübingen in Germany. It contains Qur'anic verses from Surah 17:36 to Surah 36:57.
How it was dated: Carbon-dated in 2014 with 95.4% confidence to between 649-675 CE.
Why it matters: This date range falls right within the period of 'Uthman's codification (around 650 CE) and shortly after. The text matches what we have today, which supports the Islamic narrative that the Qur'an was standardised early and hasn't changed.
The Codex Parisino-petropolitanus (mid-7th century)
What it is: One of the oldest and most complete early Qur'an manuscripts. It's called "Parisino-petropolitanus" because its folios (pages) are split between Paris (Bibliothèque Nationale de France) and St. Petersburg (National Library of Russia). It contains about 46% of the Qur'anic text.
How it was dated: Dated palaeographically (by analysing the handwriting style) and historically to the early second half of the 7th century - so roughly 650-700 CE.
Fun fact: The Birmingham manuscript (the 568-645 CE one) was actually identified as belonging to this same codex. They're pages from the same original Qur'an that got separated over time.
C. The Oral Tradition is Primary
This is the most important point: Your claim fundamentally misunderstands Qur'anic preservation.
As Yaqeen Institute scholars note:
"Perhaps the most critical fallacy of Western academics who enter the arena of Qur'anic scholarship is that they presume that the Qur'an is like the Old or New Testament and consequently rely solely on manuscripts to construct a picture of its transmission and preservation, neglecting the importance of ritual memorization and oral recitation."
The Qur'an was:
Memorized completely by numerous companions during the Prophet's lifetime
Recited publicly in daily prayers from the beginning
Written on various materials during the Prophet's lifetime by official scribes
D. Compare to Biblical Manuscripts
Here's where I have to be direct with you: If you apply this standard consistently, Christianity has far greater textual concerns.
The earliest complete New Testament manuscript (Codex Sinaiticus) dates to approximately 350 CE - over 300 years after Jesus.
The earliest New Testament fragment (P52) dates to approximately 125-175 CE - nearly 100 years after Jesus.
The Qur'an has manuscript evidence within the Prophet's lifetime or shortly after. The New Testament doesn't have anything close to that.
Key Takeaways
To summarise, here are the main points with regards to the Holy Qur’ān’s preservation:
The Qur'an's dual preservation method (oral AND written) is unique among scriptures and provides multiple independent verification streams.
The variations that exist (ahruf, qira'at) were authorized by the Prophet himself and are documented within Islamic tradition, not discovered by critics.
'Uthman's standardization was an act of unification approved by the companions, including Ali, not a cover-up.
The manuscript evidence (Birmingham, Tubingen, Paris manuscripts) actually confirms the traditional Islamic narrative.
Every hafiz today can trace their chain of transmission back to the Prophet through documented ijazah certificates - a system unparalleled in religious history. No other scripture has this.
I myself managed to obtain an Ijazah of the first surah in the Qur'an (Surah al-Fatihah) when I was in the Prophet's city of Madinah, from one of the scholars there. I have a certification that proves my chain of recitation goes all the way back to the Prophet (peace be upon him). This isn't theory for me - I'm personally part of this unbroken chain. That's how seriously we take preservation.
As Kenneth Cragg (a non-Muslim scholar) noted: "This phenomenon of Qur'anic recital means that the text has traversed the centuries in an unbroken living sequence of devotion."
Further References & Study
I'd recommend checking out these sources for deeper study:
Yaqeen Institute - The Uthmanic Codex: Understanding How the Qur'an Was Preserved
https://yaqeeninstitute.org/read/paper/the-uthmanic-codex-understanding-how-the-quran-was-preserved
Yaqeen Institute - The Origins of the Variant Readings of the Qur'an
https://yaqeeninstitute.org/read/paper/the-origins-of-the-variant-readings-of-the-quran
Yaqeen Institute - How the Qur'an Was Preserved During the Prophet's Time
University of Birmingham - Birmingham Qur'an Manuscript
Wikipedia - Sana'a Manuscript (Academic Overview)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanaa_manuscript
SeekersGuidance - Are the Seven Ahruf the Same as the Seven Qira'at?
IslamQA - The Revelation of the Qur'an in Seven Styles (Ahruf)
https://islamqa.info/en/answers/5142
Recommended Books (if you have time only)
An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur'an - Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi (widely-used academic textbook)
The History of the Qur'anic Text from Revelation to Compilation - M.M. Al-Azami
The Sanaa Palimpsest: The Transmission of the Qur'an in the First Centuries AH - Asma Hilali (Oxford University Press, 2017)
The History of the Quran - Approaches and Explorations - Edited by F. Redhwan Karim (Kube Publishing, 2024)
Hope this helps clarify things. Happy to discuss further if you have questions.
Peace
Akeel Ahamed
”
0 Comments