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!
10
-
2Why didn't you just edit your old post?– CasanovaMar 20, 2017 at 4:43
-
I lost the account. It was unregistered– user21654Mar 20, 2017 at 4:52
-
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.– G. BachMar 20, 2017 at 8:49
-
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. BachMar 20, 2017 at 8:52
-
@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.– UmHMar 20, 2017 at 11:20
|
Show 5 more comments