Corrections in Early Qurʾān Manuscripts: Twenty Examples

An excellent book. Scholalrly, yet accessible to the layman. Very clear in presentation. The book explodes the myth of an unchanged Qur'an, and shows that on the contrary, teh Qur'an has faced the same problems of textual emendation, both intentional and unintentional, as have Biblical manuscripts - indeed, manuscripts of any kind. Brubaker has done everyone a great service - his book is to be highly recommended +++++!

The book is good but I am disappointed that the pictures used are in black and white so I can really easily identify a marking or different colour additions which has limited my study.Hence that's why I give it a three stars.Otherwise, it has exposed the lies Muslims claim that their book is in their hearts and that the Quran is a miracle.So how can you miraculously erase, forget and add things? How can the scribes make mistakes if it's in their hearts. It's like a surgeon operating someone and making a mistake and saying the knowledge is in my heart.Islamic Scholars will try to argue with this and try goal post shifting. Their lies have been exposed.Am getting the coloured version.

Man , where do I start , phenomenal way of putting wrong to right , Dan is great, love his work .Thanks man

The Quran's origins (and that of 'Islam') have come under examination from western based scholars and this is such a book.Part of the 'controversy' amongst Muslims over such work is that they have their traditional stories about how the Quran was compiled after Muhammad's death (rebutted by the Quranic text which refers to itself as written down and by the discovery of the Birmingham Quran dated to the lifetime of 'Muhammad') as well as their general lack of knowledge that there are several versions of the Quran with minor textual variants.The revisionists also have their issues too, but they should be commended for their work in trying to decode the mysterious book that is the Quran!Most of the manuscripts he uses date from 200 years after Muhammad's death and largely concord with the Cairo version. Indeed, even the ones that are corrected are corrected to the Cairo version.There are no smoking guns, there are no huge differences, there are of course some scribing errors which are hardly unexpected given the technological limitations.

One must really question the motivations behind this book as it overlooks some obvious possibilities that anyone observing the data would consider. When commiting a memorized text to paper one inevitably makes mistakes. I know alot of the quran by heart but if i were to commit it to writing, or even to recite it .. i would make many mistakes In fact that is part of the process of learning, memorizing and writing a text and then having it corrected by a teacher. . That could easily account for the discrepancies, considering the hugh volumes he is supposed to have sifted through he can only manage 20 examples here, examples which are not hugely disparate and fall within the realm of mistakes/practise runs etc and not hugh deviations . The ommision of the word 'Allah' strengthens this claim as unless the manuscript is preserved for propogation muslims would avoid writing the sacred word on paper as it can be mishandled. The fact that there after 1400 years there is only one version of the quran is itself pretty miraculous and triumphs the conjecture put forward here and only serves to strengthen the premise of the promise that god makes that he will preserve the book. As for the various version of the bible they are is not even in the language jesus spoke so a comparative analysis of the historical integrity of these two great works is redundant. However in the case of Christianity the revelation is Christ himself not the book and thus role of the bible is equivalent to that of the hadith and if they are fully authentic or not is not of grave importance.

It is clear to anyone with even a basic level of Arabic language studies that the author has overstepped boundaries by entering an area in which he is not qualified to comment, let alone hold a credible opinion. His knowledge of the Arabic language is shockingly lacking and this is manifested in basic errors which have been pointed out by other readers, here and elsewhere on the internet. It is interesting to see the author sheepishly defend these accusations on his YouTube channel.This book cannot be taken as a serious scholarly examination of Quranic manuscripts, but rather, as a shoddy attempt to answer a legitimate question. I can't help but see the author as a shock jock rather than a scholar.