There are 2 other possibilities: 1. Manuscripts introduce errors from copyist writers. This could just be a copy of an incorrect version. 2. The Qur'an transmission in the early years was oral. This could be a scribal version of the oral Quran - which would then open it up to variations
The quran was clearly oral. If it literally was a book called the quran there would never had been arguments amongst the companions of whose recitation was correct, and then the prophet stating both variant recitations were correct. This is why uthman had to create a standardized version and then burn all the variants so there would be uniformity. Muhammad peace be upon him could have done that himself if this was a problem to him.
Problem is no one knows what an Uthmanic quran looks like as none have ever been found so there is no comparrison. Dr. Stephen J. Shoemaker's book Creating the Qur’ans delves into the Historical-Critical analysis of the Qur'ans.
It is important to make clear that Uthman was the Khalif and not an owner of the one of the Quran versions, his codex was established, instead, by the majority of the comoanions who are the real preserver of the Quran!
You should be aware that everything you've said is a narrative as per Muslim tradition. There is no way to to verify any of these claims about the existence of an Uthmanic Quran codex or any original codex from which all other Quran codices follow.
The lower text of the Sanaa Palimpsest should not be seen as a completely different Quranic text, but rather as an earlier stage in the transmission of the Quran, shaped by the natural scribal processes of correction, practice, and standardization. The variations observed are more likely to be minor adjustments, not a radical revision of the text. Similarly, the early versions and companion codices do not suggest a fundamental shift in the Quran’s content but reflect the ongoing process of refining and standardizing the text to ensure greater consistency and accuracy.
12:00 Mr Antony Actually Sana have overlap with some reports that Ibn Masid and Ibn Kab read like Sana... Other verses of Sana don't follow their readings.
Yes, it is "very striking" how uniform the Quran is. The Quran has complete uniformity of its text for nearly 1,500 years, unlike any other text in existence, Orientalists treat the Quran as if it was a modern book set down in type cast or even on a flash drive, but never compare its unique preservation to other ancient texts. The preservation of the Quran is even more striking, when you compare these meagre variations in Sanaa manuscript to the inability of Gospel and Old Testament scribes to transmit their texts without including hundreds of thousands of significant differences. Furthermore, these completely insignificant differences in the Sanaa manuscript were corrected in their own time unlike other texts which were edited for millennia. And although many are aware of the variances in the Gospel, but less are aware of the significant Old Testament variations in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Book of Jeremiah is 15% shorter, and there are thousands of significant word variations throughout the OT, but Bible Scholars give the OT a pass by applying a different set of criteria, and say of the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, "it is basically the same" as the current Bible, despite these significant differences, and despite there not being even a consistent "current " Bible..
Rather than stating "it's not so radically different," let us accurately enumerate and clarify the exact differences and their impact on the Quranic meaning. The assertion that it was "purposely overwritten" indeed suggests that it was considered erroneous, compelling someone to deem it necessary to amend it.
Read The Codex of a Companion of the Prophet and the Qur'an of the Prophet By Behnam Sadeghi and Uwe Bergmann' You can find the pdf by justa quick Google search. Down in the appendix, he lists all the difference.
Difficult because it was incomplete, your questions can be answered if entire quran is in Sanaa manuscript and we can visualized all of it , both in lower and upper texts.
I don’t think the chapters of the US edition of Harry Potter could be rearranged without the author’s approval. In the case of the Quran, the author is unknown, so who could have made final decisions on chapters arrangements and / or their contents ?
It does document the acceptance of the current text by somebody to whom this was not as a small a gesture as it is today; the gesture of erasing one's holy book to write on top is not a trifle. A docuemnt worth keeping in mind.
There are differences, but to what extent? You don’t provide any clear answer on that, likely because it doesn’t suit your argument. Initially, orientalists rejected dating the Qur'an due to the supposed lack of manuscripts. Now that manuscripts have surfaced, you pivot, suggesting that the dating of parchment doesn’t indicate the text’s writing date. Yet, is there anything in the surahs of the Tübingen Mushaf or the fragments in the Sanaa palimpsest that isn’t in our Qur'an? No. Any contradictions? No. Do they contain anything that goes against what the Qur'an says? Again, no. Compare this to the transmission process of Christian texts-there’s no reason for such excessive skepticism.
The contemporary Muslim belief is that the Quran we have today is identical, word for word and letter by letter, to what was originally revealed to the Prophet. If we were to travel back in time and read our copy of the Quran to the Prophet, he would recognize it as exactly what he received from God. Not 99% or 99.9%, but all 100%. However, if we begin to discover older copies of the Quran that have even a single preposition missing, this claim becomes difficult to uphold. If, at that point, Muslims argue that a minor difference makes no real impact on the message of the Quran, then they would effectively be admitting that their original claim was false. They would then be making a new revised claim, as the previous one has been proven incorrect. For this reason, it’s important to Muslims that earlier copies of the Quran match exactly with the Quran of today. If even a single word becomes suspect, the authenticity of all the words in today's Quran become suspect. There is no room for discrepancies and inconsistencies.
Not if all the differences that were found in manuscripts and attributed to Companion Codices were already documented by Muslim Historians themselves. Nothing was swept under the rug as there was nothing to shy away from. The common conception of the muslim layman is that it is preserved dot for dot, but that is simply not the understanding of the Muslim Scholars and First Generations who transmitted and preserved the Qur’an. So the first claim you mention is not the authentic theological position about th Quran’s preservation… If we find a variant that’s undocumented in Muslim sources, then sure, that would be an entirely different issue
@@stevesmith4901 Why don't you use the magic Google and explore what the "differences" are in the Sanaa Palimpest. You will see there are only change in word order or verse order, which are easily attributed to memorization errors. There are no word diferences.
@@arbitScaleModels Are you telling me before the discovery of the Sana Palimpsest, differences in word order and verse order were acceptable differences for the Quran to have? Or was it only after the differences were found in the Palimpsest did Muslims revise their claim of Quran's incorruptibility to include inconsistencies in word and verse order? And while we are on the topic, what in your opinion is an unacceptable difference or inconsistency in copies of the Quran to have? What is that point were you would admit to yourself that the Quran did not get preserved 100% like Muslims claim it has been. Would it be a difference of one letter, one word, one verse, or an entire chapter? How different would today's Quran have to be to earlier copies of the Quran for you to question the incorruptibility of the Quran claim?
It would be really helpful for Professor Reynolds to ask what Muslims believe about the Sanaa palimpsest, the Uthmanic text and the companion codexes. At least to understand what Muslims believe about these variants.
Most Muslims have little to no knowledge about the differences in either the palimpsest or the companion codices, as there’s a strong belief in the originality and perfection of what’s now called the Uthmanic text type. Insofar as they are aware, they generally consider any differences to be errors or distortions. The whole story of the creation and promulgation of Uthman’s version to be, essentially, as divinely directed as the original revelation. I do agree with you, though. I’d love to see an expert address the question.
@@dkf343 Most people, Muslim or otherwise, have little or no knowledge of the differences in codexes or palimpsest. So what? Muslims are the ones who have preserved the knowledge of the codexes and variants and Muslims were the ones to first recognize the palimpsest for what it was. Secondly this channel can have a Muslim scholar on to talk about how Muslims view the variants. A scholar who knows what codexes are. And your misinformed post about how Muslims view variants of the Quran is exactly the reason to have a Muslim on to explain how Muslims view the variants.
@ Sorry, how was my post misinformed? Like you, I’d love to see such a guest on the show. Although Muslims preserved evidence of variants, such as it is, in the Hadith literature, the vast majority of Muslims never learn about it. Given that Muslim apologetics lean so heavily on the idea of a pure and unadulterated process of transmission, I can understand why the topic isn’t widely taught within Islam. Surely, though, Dr. Reynolds ought to be able to find a practicing Muslim who is knowledgeable about the subject and doesn’t have a glib opinion on it.
The lower text of the Sanaa Palimpsest should not be seen as a completely different Quranic text, but rather as an earlier stage in the transmission of the Quran, shaped by the natural scribal processes of correction, practice, and standardization. The variations observed are more likely to be minor adjustments, not a radical revision of the text. Similarly, the early versions and companion codices do not suggest a fundamental shift in the Quran’s content but reflect the ongoing process of refining and standardizing the text to ensure greater consistency and accuracy.
@@M1idx That's not my point. The Sanaa palimpsest, the Uthmanic text, the companion codexes and the variant readings are all equally considered the Quran by Muslims. Yes, the Surah orderings may be different and some words may be different, but Muslims do not say that any of these are not the Quran.
I'd be more interested in the discovery of Qur'anic texts at that time from students, and people practicing and learning to write or memorize the Qur'an. I'm always skeptical when these sort of materials are found but never one that is certain to be of a High School student, Phd candidate. It always seems to belong to the top guys lol 😂
There was many reason others that deference Quran ..even today when people wrote something on paper and realise have mistake and they just erase then make a correction by re-write on the same paper ..becouse many secular scholar when they study about Quran they over look muslim uniqly have other way to preseved their scripture by mamorization of Quran and many the compenion of the prophet memorise it long before uthman standadise the quran..and this preserved by and your can test it by go any mosque anywere and by any time you like
Or because the Muslim traditions say that the first written Quran was because people were reciting it differently and getting into fights over it. And the instruction was to write it in the Quraysh dialect, which shoes that it was starting to diverge already at the time of the Rashidun. And that 9:131 was found with only one person and no other, and somehow made it into the Quran, which means it was forgotten by all the Hafiz but one... which is a problem for those who follow the strictest idea of perfect preservation. And many other traditions including ones about al-Hajjaj sending around bully boys to destroy Quran versions he didn't like, etc etc. Lots of questions in want of answers.
Quran is the JOB of Allah from A to Z. All the interpretations and hadiths attributed to the Companions are all lies. They are in fact interpretations that were said after the time of the Companions and have no relation to the Companions, but in order to promote the merchandise of the interpreters, they attributed it to the Companions and then to the Messenger. This is the Quran and not a hadith. Try to read the Quran because you do not know what is the Quran and what is a hadith/narration (human texts). The established statement is the Quran because it is the statement of truth. As for the narrations, they are an (un) established statement because they are false.
The Quran 5:48 says refer to the Torah & Gospel yet outright contradicts both. So why not leave Islam as a clearly false ab initio religion instead of saying quran 2:79 or there's a missing original Bible Allah didn't provide perv Pedo Mohammed?
@@Needlestolearn they certainly didn't and shouldn't read kosher jesus by rabbi Shmuley Boteach or real Kosher Jesus by Michael L Brown. But if they did they'd probably copy it and then realise it means the Torah is corrupt. Then somehow gospel corrupted Torah even more riiiight
There are 2 other possibilities:
1. Manuscripts introduce errors from copyist writers. This could just be a copy of an incorrect version.
2. The Qur'an transmission in the early years was oral. This could be a scribal version of the oral Quran - which would then open it up to variations
The quran was clearly oral. If it literally was a book called the quran there would never had been arguments amongst the companions of whose recitation was correct, and then the prophet stating both variant recitations were correct. This is why uthman had to create a standardized version and then burn all the variants so there would be uniformity. Muhammad peace be upon him could have done that himself if this was a problem to him.
Brilliant Gabriel, thank you for creating this channel
I loved this set and interview.
Problem is no one knows what an Uthmanic quran looks like as none have ever been found so there is no comparrison. Dr. Stephen J. Shoemaker's book Creating the Qur’ans delves into the Historical-Critical analysis of the Qur'ans.
Shoemaker is a joke, his ultra-skepticism is not warranted by the vast majority of Quran secular academia such as N. Sinai, M. Van Putjen, etc.
It is important to make clear that Uthman was the Khalif and not an owner of the one of the Quran versions, his codex was established, instead, by the majority of the comoanions who are the real preserver of the Quran!
You should be aware that everything you've said is a narrative as per Muslim tradition. There is no way to to verify any of these claims about the existence of an Uthmanic Quran codex or any original codex from which all other Quran codices follow.
The lower text of the Sanaa Palimpsest should not be seen as a completely different Quranic text, but rather as an earlier stage in the transmission of the Quran, shaped by the natural scribal processes of correction, practice, and standardization. The variations observed are more likely to be minor adjustments, not a radical revision of the text. Similarly, the early versions and companion codices do not suggest a fundamental shift in the Quran’s content but reflect the ongoing process of refining and standardizing the text to ensure greater consistency and accuracy.
It have smaller differences in message and rulings, also razm , sceleatel text is different drastically on several places.
12:00 Mr Antony Actually Sana have overlap with some reports that Ibn Masid and Ibn Kab read like Sana... Other verses of Sana don't follow their readings.
Yes, it is "very striking" how uniform the Quran is. The Quran has complete uniformity of its text for nearly 1,500 years, unlike any other text in existence, Orientalists treat the Quran as if it was a modern book set down in type cast or even on a flash drive, but never compare its unique preservation to other ancient texts. The preservation of the Quran is even more striking, when you compare these meagre variations in Sanaa manuscript to the inability of Gospel and Old Testament scribes to transmit their texts without including hundreds of thousands of significant differences. Furthermore, these completely insignificant differences in the Sanaa manuscript were corrected in their own time unlike other texts which were edited for millennia. And although many are aware of the variances in the Gospel, but less are aware of the significant Old Testament variations in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Book of Jeremiah is 15% shorter, and there are thousands of significant word variations throughout the OT, but Bible Scholars give the OT a pass by applying a different set of criteria, and say of the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, "it is basically the same" as the current Bible, despite these significant differences, and despite there not being even a consistent "current " Bible..
Rather than stating "it's not so radically different," let us accurately enumerate and clarify the exact differences and their impact on the Quranic meaning. The assertion that it was "purposely overwritten" indeed suggests that it was considered erroneous, compelling someone to deem it necessary to amend it.
Read The Codex of a Companion of the Prophet and the Qur'an of the Prophet
By Behnam Sadeghi and Uwe Bergmann' You can find the pdf by justa quick Google search.
Down in the appendix, he lists all the difference.
@@syedtahbibshams The corrections written in red also suggests it could've been a test or a class by a teacher. that is one of the theories atm.
Difficult because it was incomplete, your questions can be answered if entire quran is in Sanaa manuscript and we can visualized all of it , both in lower and upper texts.
@@syedtahbibshamsCan you share the link ?
@@nazhasan428 No.
I don’t think the chapters of the US edition of Harry Potter could be rearranged without the author’s approval. In the case of the Quran, the author is unknown, so who could have made final decisions on chapters arrangements and / or their contents ?
You're taking the Harry Potter reference too far and out of context.
Sana It have smaller differences in message and rulings, also razm , sceleatel text is different drastically on several places.
It does document the acceptance of the current text by somebody to whom this was not as a small a gesture as it is today; the gesture of erasing one's holy book to write on top is not a trifle. A docuemnt worth keeping in mind.
There are differences, but to what extent? You don’t provide any clear answer on that, likely because it doesn’t suit your argument. Initially, orientalists rejected dating the Qur'an due to the supposed lack of manuscripts. Now that manuscripts have surfaced, you pivot, suggesting that the dating of parchment doesn’t indicate the text’s writing date. Yet, is there anything in the surahs of the Tübingen Mushaf or the fragments in the Sanaa palimpsest that isn’t in our Qur'an? No. Any contradictions? No. Do they contain anything that goes against what the Qur'an says? Again, no. Compare this to the transmission process of Christian texts-there’s no reason for such excessive skepticism.
Well, razm, sceleatel text of Sana is on several places much different from today quran, also message and rulings are different on couple places.
The contemporary Muslim belief is that the Quran we have today is identical, word for word and letter by letter, to what was originally revealed to the Prophet. If we were to travel back in time and read our copy of the Quran to the Prophet, he would recognize it as exactly what he received from God. Not 99% or 99.9%, but all 100%. However, if we begin to discover older copies of the Quran that have even a single preposition missing, this claim becomes difficult to uphold.
If, at that point, Muslims argue that a minor difference makes no real impact on the message of the Quran, then they would effectively be admitting that their original claim was false. They would then be making a new revised claim, as the previous one has been proven incorrect. For this reason, it’s important to Muslims that earlier copies of the Quran match exactly with the Quran of today. If even a single word becomes suspect, the authenticity of all the words in today's Quran become suspect. There is no room for discrepancies and inconsistencies.
Not if all the differences that were found in manuscripts and attributed to Companion Codices were already documented by Muslim Historians themselves. Nothing was swept under the rug as there was nothing to shy away from. The common conception of the muslim layman is that it is preserved dot for dot, but that is simply not the understanding of the Muslim Scholars and First Generations who transmitted and preserved the Qur’an. So the first claim you mention is not the authentic theological position about th Quran’s preservation… If we find a variant that’s undocumented in Muslim sources, then sure, that would be an entirely different issue
@@stevesmith4901 Why don't you use the magic Google and explore what the "differences" are in the Sanaa Palimpest. You will see there are only change in word order or verse order, which are easily attributed to memorization errors. There are no word diferences.
@@arbitScaleModels Are you telling me before the discovery of the Sana Palimpsest, differences in word order and verse order were acceptable differences for the Quran to have? Or was it only after the differences were found in the Palimpsest did Muslims revise their claim of Quran's incorruptibility to include inconsistencies in word and verse order?
And while we are on the topic, what in your opinion is an unacceptable difference or inconsistency in copies of the Quran to have? What is that point were you would admit to yourself that the Quran did not get preserved 100% like Muslims claim it has been. Would it be a difference of one letter, one word, one verse, or an entire chapter? How different would today's Quran have to be to earlier copies of the Quran for you to question the incorruptibility of the Quran claim?
Just because the parchment is dated, doesn't mean the writing itself is dated. Old parchments can be reused.
It would be really helpful for Professor Reynolds to ask what Muslims believe about the Sanaa palimpsest, the Uthmanic text and the companion codexes. At least to understand what Muslims believe about these variants.
Most Muslims have little to no knowledge about the differences in either the palimpsest or the companion codices, as there’s a strong belief in the originality and perfection of what’s now called the Uthmanic text type. Insofar as they are aware, they generally consider any differences to be errors or distortions. The whole story of the creation and promulgation of Uthman’s version to be, essentially, as divinely directed as the original revelation. I do agree with you, though. I’d love to see an expert address the question.
@@dkf343 Most people, Muslim or otherwise, have little or no knowledge of the differences in codexes or palimpsest. So what? Muslims are the ones who have preserved the knowledge of the codexes and variants and Muslims were the ones to first recognize the palimpsest for what it was. Secondly this channel can have a Muslim scholar on to talk about how Muslims view the variants. A scholar who knows what codexes are. And your misinformed post about how Muslims view variants of the Quran is exactly the reason to have a Muslim on to explain how Muslims view the variants.
@ Sorry, how was my post misinformed? Like you, I’d love to see such a guest on the show. Although Muslims preserved evidence of variants, such as it is, in the Hadith literature, the vast majority of Muslims never learn about it. Given that Muslim apologetics lean so heavily on the idea of a pure and unadulterated process of transmission, I can understand why the topic isn’t widely taught within Islam. Surely, though, Dr. Reynolds ought to be able to find a practicing Muslim who is knowledgeable about the subject and doesn’t have a glib opinion on it.
The lower text of the Sanaa Palimpsest should not be seen as a completely different Quranic text, but rather as an earlier stage in the transmission of the Quran, shaped by the natural scribal processes of correction, practice, and standardization. The variations observed are more likely to be minor adjustments, not a radical revision of the text. Similarly, the early versions and companion codices do not suggest a fundamental shift in the Quran’s content but reflect the ongoing process of refining and standardizing the text to ensure greater consistency and accuracy.
@@M1idx That's not my point. The Sanaa palimpsest, the Uthmanic text, the companion codexes and the variant readings are all equally considered the Quran by Muslims. Yes, the Surah orderings may be different and some words may be different, but Muslims do not say that any of these are not the Quran.
I'd be more interested in the discovery of Qur'anic texts at that time from students, and people practicing and learning to write or memorize the Qur'an. I'm always skeptical when these sort of materials are found but never one that is certain to be of a High School student, Phd candidate. It always seems to belong to the top guys lol 😂
There was many reason others that deference Quran ..even today when people wrote something on paper and realise have mistake and they just erase then make a correction by re-write on the same paper ..becouse many secular scholar when they study about Quran they over look muslim uniqly have other way to preseved their scripture by mamorization of Quran and many the compenion of the prophet memorise it long before uthman standadise the quran..and this preserved by and your can test it by go any mosque anywere and by any time you like
They overlook the memorisation because its very hard to work with academically
Or because the Muslim traditions say that the first written Quran was because people were reciting it differently and getting into fights over it.
And the instruction was to write it in the Quraysh dialect, which shoes that it was starting to diverge already at the time of the Rashidun.
And that 9:131 was found with only one person and no other, and somehow made it into the Quran, which means it was forgotten by all the Hafiz but one... which is a problem for those who follow the strictest idea of perfect preservation.
And many other traditions including ones about al-Hajjaj sending around bully boys to destroy Quran versions he didn't like, etc etc.
Lots of questions in want of answers.
Quran is the JOB of Allah from A to Z.
All the interpretations and hadiths attributed to the Companions are all lies. They are in fact interpretations that were said after the time of the Companions and have no relation to the Companions, but in order to promote the merchandise of the interpreters, they attributed it to the Companions and then to the Messenger.
This is the Quran and not a hadith. Try to read the Quran because you do not know what is the Quran and what is a hadith/narration (human texts). The established statement is the Quran because it is the statement of truth. As for the narrations, they are an (un) established statement because they are false.
The Quran 5:48 says refer to the Torah & Gospel yet outright contradicts both. So why not leave Islam as a clearly false ab initio religion instead of saying quran 2:79 or there's a missing original Bible Allah didn't provide perv Pedo Mohammed?
How did you prove that all interpretation and Hadiths that have been passed down are all lies attributed to the companies of the prophet Mohamed ?
@Needlestolearn same way they proved the bible is corrupted. Lol
@@nicbentulan and how was that done ?
@@Needlestolearn they certainly didn't and shouldn't read kosher jesus by rabbi Shmuley Boteach or real Kosher Jesus by Michael L Brown. But if they did they'd probably copy it and then realise it means the Torah is corrupt. Then somehow gospel corrupted Torah even more riiiight
Its like "say something whatever that isn't standard academic work, just for me" we are historian, we are this and this😂