Refuting Islam

The Oldest Qur’ans: Do Early Manuscripts Match the Modern Text?

April 15, 2025

Muslims are taught that the Qur’an we have today is exactly the same as what was revealed to Muhammad in the 7th century. They believe it has been perfectly preserved — letter for letter, word for word — without alteration, addition, or loss:

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

This belief is central to Islamic faith. Unlike Jews or Christians, Muslims do not see their scripture as the product of historical development or transmission — they view it as eternally preserved and unchanged.

But there’s a problem:
The earliest Qur’anic manuscripts don’t support that claim.

Instead of confirming perfect preservation, they reveal a complicated textual history filled with variants, edits, omissions, and corrections.

So let’s examine the earliest Qur’anic manuscripts and see how they compare to the modern standardized Qur’an used today.

1. The Major Early Manuscripts

Several ancient Qur’anic manuscripts have survived — either in full or in large fragments. The most significant ones include:

❖ The Ṣan‘āʾ Manuscript (Yemen)

Discovered in 1972 in the Great Mosque of Ṣan‘āʾ.
Includes a palimpsest: an upper text (standard Qur’anic text) written over an earlier, erased lower text with significant variations.
Radiocarbon dated to before 671 CE, possibly within 30–40 years of Muhammad’s death.
The lower text does not match the modern Qur’an. It contains different verse orders, missing phrases, and textual variants — evidence of early, non-standard versions.

❖ The Birmingham Manuscript

Held at the University of Birmingham.
Radiocarbon dated to 568–645 CE — possibly predating Muhammad or at least overlapping with his lifetime.
Contains parts of Surahs 18, 19, and 20.
While close to the standard text, it’s far too fragmentary to prove uniformity. It also supports the idea that some form of the Qur’anic text was in flux in the early period.

❖ Topkapi & Samarkand Manuscripts

Held in Istanbul and Tashkent respectively.
Traditionally attributed to the Caliph ʿUthmān, but modern scholars date them to the late 8th or early 9th century — over a century after Muhammad’s death.
Both texts show orthographic and textual differences from the modern Qur’an — including variations in verse endings, diacritics, and sometimes full words.

❖ The Paris Petropolitanus Codex (Codex Parisino-Petropolitanus)

Dated to the early 8th century.
Shows multiple scribal hands, textual corrections, and numerous variant readings.
Matches neither the modern Hafs reading used today nor a consistent early version.

2. What These Manuscripts Reveal

The evidence from these manuscripts decisively undermines the traditional Muslim narrative of perfect preservation. Here’s why:

❖ Multiple textual traditions existed

Early manuscripts reflect different versions of the Qur’an circulating simultaneously. Some had different Surah orders, verse structures, or missing lines.

This suggests that the Qur’an was not a fixed, single book immediately after Muhammad’s death, but a fluid oral and written tradition subject to revision.

❖ The text was edited and standardized

The very existence of the lower text in the Ṣan‘āʾ palimpsest proves that an earlier version was intentionally erased and replaced. This aligns with historical accounts of a textual purge under Caliph ʿUthmān.

“Uthman then ordered that all the other Qur’anic materials be burned.”
— Sahih al-Bukhari 4987

In other words, a standard version was enforced, and competing versions were destroyed — not because they were heretical, but because they were different.

That’s not divine preservation. That’s political standardization.

❖ Diacritical marks and vowel signs were added later

Early Arabic script was consonantal only — it lacked dots and vowel markers. Many words were ambiguous, and early Muslims had to rely on context, recitation, and memory to interpret the text.

Only later were diacritical marks introduced to clarify meaning. This means even if the consonantal skeleton of the Qur’an was preserved, its readings and meanings were not fixed.

This is why there are multiple canonical “qira’at” (readings) of the Qur’an today — differing in pronunciation, grammar, and in some cases, meaning.

3. Modern Qur’an vs. Early Manuscripts

Today, the dominant version of the Qur’an is the Hafs transmission of the ʿUthmānic text, standardized and widely disseminated only in the 20th century (especially after the 1924 Cairo edition).

But it is just one among many early readings, and it differs from the oldest manuscripts in several ways:

Feature	Early Manuscripts	Modern Qur’an
Verse Order	Variable	Fixed
Textual Variants	Common	Eliminated
Vowel Markings	Absent	Fully present
Diacritics	Missing	Included
Qira’at Diversity	Present	Suppressed
Orthographic Consistency	Nonexistent	Standardized

This is not textual preservation. It is textual evolution — followed by textual enforcement.

4. What Does This Mean for the Claim of Perfect Preservation?

Muslims believe the Qur’an is a miracle because it has been perfectly preserved.

But the manuscript record disproves this claim:

The Qur’an underwent changes, editing, and standardization.
Multiple versions coexisted before being forcibly unified.
Key textual markers (vowels and diacritics) were added centuries later.
Even today, there are ten canonical versions of the Qur’an, with thousands of minor differences.

This is exactly what we’d expect from a humanly transmitted document — not a miraculously preserved divine revelation.

5. Conclusion: The Myth of a Perfectly Preserved Qur’an

The earliest Qur’anic manuscripts reveal what Islamic tradition tries desperately to hide:

The Qur’an as we know it was shaped by political decisions, editorial interventions, and gradual textual development.
The belief in perfect preservation is not a historical fact — it is a post-hoc theological myth.

If the Qur’an was truly preserved by God Himself, it would not need to be corrected, standardized, or defended against its own manuscript evidence.

Instead, we are left with a book that — like all other religious texts — reflects human hands, historical context, and evolving doctrine.

Far from proving its divinity, the manuscript history of the Qur’an shows us something far more familiar:

A man-made book, edited by men, enforced by men, and protected — not by God — but by political power.