Refuting Islam

Can We Really Know?
How Do We Verify That Today’s Qur’an Is Identical to What Muhammad Originally Revealed?

April 15, 2025

Muslims are taught to believe that the Qur’an they hold in their hands today is exactly — word-for-word, letter-for-letter — the same as what was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad over 1,400 years ago. Not a syllable has changed, not a verse has been lost.

This idea of perfect preservation is central to the Islamic claim of divine authenticity.

“Indeed, it is We who sent down the Reminder, and indeed, We will guard it.”
— Qur’an 15:9

But the question is: Can this claim be verified?

What does manuscript evidence, historical data, and textual comparison actually reveal about the Qur’an’s preservation? Does the physical record confirm the idealized claim — or expose a more complicated and human process?

Let’s investigate.

1. The Claim of Perfect Preservation: A Recap

Muslim apologists often assert:

The Qur’an has been preserved exactly as revealed.
No word or verse has ever been added, removed, or changed.
It was both memorized and written during Muhammad’s lifetime.
Caliph Uthman’s standardization merely unified the recitation styles — not the content.
All Qur’anic manuscripts in the world today are identical.

This is a bold claim. And like all bold claims, it invites scrutiny.

So we turn to the evidence.

2. The Manuscript Record: Earliest Qur’anic Codices

Islamic tradition claims the Qur’an was compiled under Abu Bakr, and later standardized by Uthman, roughly 20 years after Muhammad’s death. But what do the earliest physical manuscripts tell us?

❖ Topkapi, Sana‘a, Tashkent, and Birmingham Manuscripts

These are among the oldest known Qur’anic fragments, and they raise serious questions:

Topkapi Codex (Istanbul) — 9th century CE. Often claimed to be Uthmanic, but palaeographic analysis shows it is too late.
Tashkent Manuscript (Uzbekistan) — Also dated to the 8th–9th century, not from the time of Uthman.
Sana‘a Manuscript (Yemen) — Contains palimpsests (erased and rewritten texts), showing an earlier Qur’anic text beneath the current one, with significant textual differences.
Birmingham Fragments (UK) — Radiocarbon dated to 568–645 CE, but contain only parts of Surahs 18–20, making them inconclusive for full-text preservation claims.

These manuscripts are crucial — because instead of confirming perfect consistency, they demonstrate variation, textual development, and evolution in the Qur’anic text.

3. The Sana‘a Manuscript: A Case Study in Qur’anic Fluidity

Perhaps the most devastating evidence against the idea of an unchanging Qur’an comes from the Sana‘a manuscript.

Discovered in the 1970s in Yemen, the manuscript contains two layers of text:

An upper text, which aligns more closely with the standard modern Qur’an (the Hafs recension).
A lower text, written earlier, with multiple differences — in wording, order, and content.

Scholars such as Gerd Puin and Asma Hilali have studied this manuscript and concluded that the Qur’anic text was not fixed in its earliest decades.

“The text is significantly different from the standard text… it shows that the Qur’an was still undergoing changes.”
— Dr. Gerd Puin, Qur’anic manuscript specialist

These findings suggest that the Qur’an — far from being a perfectly preserved, single text — was edited, adjusted, and standardized over time.

That undermines the Islamic narrative of miraculous preservation.

4. Variant Readings and Qira’at: Multiple “Perfect” Qur’ans?

Islamic tradition acknowledges the existence of seven (later expanded to ten or fourteen) canonical “readings” (qira’at) of the Qur’an.

Each reading differs in:

Pronunciation
Word choice
Verb tenses
Singular vs. plural forms
Even meanings in some cases

Muslim scholars claim these differences are all “divinely sanctioned” and part of a miraculous oral tradition.

But from a textual-critical standpoint, these are variant versions of the Qur’an — not identical copies.

If divine revelation can have multiple versions, which one is truly “the” Qur’an revealed to Muhammad?

The claim of “one unchanged book” collapses under the weight of its own diversity.

5. The Uthmanic Standardization: Elimination, Not Preservation

According to Islamic sources (e.g., Sahih Bukhari 4987), Caliph Uthman commissioned an official recension of the Qur’an and ordered:

All other copies to be burned.
Reciters and companions with differing versions to conform to the official copy.

This is not preservation. It’s censorship and textual suppression.

Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud — one of the Prophet’s top reciters — refused to give up his copy, which differed from the Uthmanic version and reportedly lacked Surah 1, 113, and 114.

What happened to his version?

Gone. Destroyed. Forgotten.

This was a deliberate process of textual unification, not divine protection.

6. Logical Consequences: Can the Qur’an Be Verified?

To answer the question — Can we verify that today’s Qur’an is what Muhammad revealed? — we must face the evidence:

Early manuscripts show variations, corrections, and evolution.
Some companions had different surah counts and verse orders.
The Sana‘a palimpsest proves that textual diversity existed before Uthman’s standardization.
The burning of alternative codices erased vital evidence of what might have been original.
The qira’at reflect multiple versions, not a singular preserved text.

These facts render it impossible to verify — with historical certainty — that today’s Qur’an matches exactly what Muhammad recited.

To believe in perfect preservation requires faith, not evidence.

7. Conclusion: A Faith Claim in Search of Historical Support

The doctrine of Qur’anic preservation is theologically essential to Islam — but historically unsustainable.

Rather than reflecting an unchanging divine message, the Qur’an’s textual history shows all the marks of a human transmission process:

Variation
Selection
Editing
Standardization
Political control

To insist that the modern Qur’an is identical to what Muhammad revealed is to ignore the manuscript evidence, rewrite history, and pretend away the complexity of oral transmission.

And if even the earliest Qur’anic texts show differences, then the claim of divine preservation becomes not a fact — but a myth.

Refuting Islam

Tuesday, April 15, 2025