The Corruption of the Koran: Evidence and New Research

By Keith Thompson

The Corruption of the Koran: Evidence and New Research

By Keith Thompson

The Islamic View of the Koran

Almost all Muslims believe after Muhammad died and his alleged revelations ceased, the
Koranic surahs were then compiled by the first Caliph Abu Bakr and then standardized and
distributed by Caliph Uthman. They believe the Koran they read today, based on the Arabic 1924
Cairo edition, which is the standard around the world, is exactly the same as the one Caliph
Uthman allegedly standardized and distributed in the mid seventh century.

Islamic writer Ejaz Naqvi gives the popular Muslim view,

Uthman appointed twelve members, headed by Zaid bin Thabit (the same scribe used by
Abu Bakr), to write the Quran in the mode of the tribe of Quraish, the one used by the
Prophet in his recitation. The intent was to preserve the Quran exactly as it was revealed and
organized at the time of Prophet Muhammad. Uthman relied on two sources: the written text
that had been previously ordered by Abu Bakr, and the various oral traditions of Muslims
who memorized it during the lifetime of Prophet Muhammad. In Islamic history, there is no
variation between these two sources, so the Uthmanic rescension is largely a codifying of a
single version of a text. This version, the Uthmanic rescension, is the version of the Quran
that has remained unchanged and is the one currently in use (Ejaz Naqvi,The Quran: With
Or Against the Bible?, [iUniverse, 2012], p. 16).

However, this common Muslim view has now been called into question by the evidence. We will
refute it and prove the Koran Muslims read today is not the one Uthman allegedly standardized
and distributed. We will prove we have no codices of Uthman, even though Muslims claim we
do. We will prove the earliest Koranic manuscripts we do possess all have significant variants
and errors contradicting each other and the 1924 Arabic standard Cairo edition of the Koran
Muslims use today. We will examine intentional changes which have been found in the earliest
Koran manuscripts which calls into the question the idea it was complete and uniform at
Uthmans time. This will also disprove the idea the earliest Koranic manuscripts come from a
complete, perfect Uthmanic Koran. And finally, we will prove from early Islamic sources that
much of the original Koran of Muhammad had been lost and forgotten shortly after his death.
Such findings will cumulatively prove the Koran Muslims use today does not go back to Uthman
or Muhammad, that it is not from God, and that it is not eternal as Muslims falsely claim.

Dating the Uthmanic Manuscripts

Muslims believe they possess various Korans Caliph Uthman had created in the mid seventh century
when he allegedly standardized and distributed the Koran after Muhammad died. To them this proves
the Koran of Uthman has been perfectly preserved reaching us today.

As Islamic writer Murad Hofmann claims,

Page 1 of 10
 The Corruption of the Koran: Evidence and New Research
By Keith Thompson

Uthmans copy is on display at the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul, the second one is preserved in
Tashkent (Murad Hofmann, Islam and Quran: An Introduction , [Amana Publications, 2007], p.
27).

However, world authorities of early Koranic manuscripts are now admitting, after their studies of
such manuscripts, that Muslims do not actually possess any of Uthmans Korans.

For example, world-class Muslim Koranic manuscript scholar Ekmeleddin hsanolu wrote,

One of the most important questions of Quranic history is the whereabouts of the Mushafs
attributed to Caliph Uthman and whether any of them reached the present day. Unfortunately, we do
not have a positive answer to this question (Ekmeleddin hsanolu, Al-Mushaf al-Sharif Attributed
to Uthman bin Affan, p. 35).

Now, one of the early Koranic manuscripts Muslims falsely claim comes from Uthman is the Topkapi
manuscript. However, Ekmeleddin hsanolu notes,

Judging from its illumination, the Topkapi Mushaf dates neither from the period when the Mushafs
of the Caliph Uthman were written nor from the time when copies based on those Mushafs were
written (Ekmeleddin hsanolu, Al-Mushaf al-Sharif Attributed to Uthman bin Affan, The Copy at
the Topkapi Palace Museum, [IRCICA, 2007], p. 10).

Confirming this is Tayyar Altkula, another high-level Koranic manuscript scholar, who says,

Even though we would like to publish this sacred text as the Mushaf of Caliph Uthman, our research
indicated that it was neither the private Mushaf of Caliph Uthman, nor one of the Mushafs he sent to
various centers (Tayyar Altkula, Al-Mushaf al-Sharif Attributed to Uthman bin Affan, p. 23).

Another Koranic manuscript Muslims falsely claim comes from Uthman is the Sammarqand
manuscript housed in Uzbekistan. However, Altkula notes this one is not Uthmanic either,

Muslims generally believed that this manuscript was one of the four Uthman sent out, and
widespread opinion is that he was reading this copy when he was martyred [due to blood stains on
it] . . . But [due to] its spelling . . . it is neither one of Caliph Uthmans copies nor his private
Mushaf (Tayyar Altkula,Al-Mushaf al-Sharif Attributed to Uthman bin Affan, p. 65 parenthesis
mine).

He continues,

[There are] six reasons why it could not be so, including almost no discipline of spelling, different
ways of writing the same word, scribal mistakes, copyists mistakes, written by a scribe who had no
writing experience, and later added signs after verses. In conclusion, we can say that the Tashkent
[Sammarqand] Mushaf was neither the Mushaf which Caliph Uthman was reading when he was
martyred, nor any one of the Mushafs that he sent to various centers . . . nor the copy that was kept in
Medina for the benefit of the people (Tayyar Altkula, Al-Mushaf al-Sharif Attributed to Uthman
bin Affan, pp. 71-72 parenthesis mine).

Page 2 of 10
 The Corruption of the Koran: Evidence and New Research
By Keith Thompson

Franois Droche dates it to the eighth century (Franois Droche, "Note Sur Les Fragments
Coraniques Anciens De Katta Langar (Ouzbkistan)", Cahiers D'Asie Centrale, 1999, Volume 7, p.
65).

The Muslim writers at www.Islamic-Awareness.org also admit concerning this manuscript, The
dates generated by this radiometric technique and palaeographic studies suggest an 8th century (2nd
century hijra) date.

In regards to the Istanbul Mushaf (also known as TIEM Mushaf), which is attributed to Uthman by
Muslims, this codex does not belong to Uthman either. Altkula notes the dotting and vowelling of it
shows the manuscript was written after the time of Uthman in the second half of the first century AH
and first half of the second century AH (Al-Mushaf al-Sharif Attributed to Uthman bin Affan, The
Copy at Al-Mashadal-Husayni in Cairo, p. 113).

Islamic Awareness likewise admits it is dated to the Beginning of 2nd century AH / 8th century CE.

Regarding the Al Husayni Cairo manuscript housed in Egypt, Altkula notes,

It was stated that the Cairo copy . . . might have been written on the order of Abd al-Aziz b.
Marwan (d.704), the governor of Egypt. However, the reason for reaching this conclusion has not
been explained. We share the view that this copy is not one of the Mushafs attributed to Caliph
Uthman (Tayyar Altkula, Al-Mushaf al-Sharif Attributed to Uthman bin Affan, p. 36 n. 14a).

And:

. . .it belongs to the end of the 2 nd (8th) century and the beginning of the 3 rd (9th) century (Tayyar
Altkula, Al-Mushaf al-Sharif Attributed to Uthman bin Affan, The Copy at Al-Mashadal-Husayni in
Cairo, 124-125).

Another Koranic manuscript claimed by Muslims to come from Uthman is the Paris Petropolitanus
manuscript (also called BnF Arabe 328). However, this manuscript is dated to the late seventh
century or early eighth century (Franois Droche, The Abbasid Tradition, [Nour Foundation, 1992],
p. 38; Tayyar Altkula, Al-Mushaf al-Sharif Attributed to Uthman bin Affan, The Copy at al-
Mashhad al-Husayni in Cairo, p. 131). Thus, it does not come from Uthman who, again, reigned in
the mid 600s.

Muslims also claim the Saint Petersburg Hijazi manuscript is Uthmanic. However, according to the
Russian manuscript expert Efim A. Rezvan, this codex was produced in the late eighth century (Efim
A. Rezvan, The Quran of Uthman, p. 12; Daniel Brubaker, Intentional Changes in Quran
Manuscripts, p. 47).

In regards to the Saana Mushaf Sharif manuscript which Muslims claim come from Caliph Ali,
Altkula notes it actually comes from the end of the first century AH, or the first half of the second
century AH, and is neither Uthmanic nor written by Ali (Tayyar Altkula, Al-Mushaf al-Sharif
Attributed to Uthman bin Affan,The Copy at Al-Mashadal-Husayni in Cairo, p. 149; cf. Daniel
Brubaker, Intentional Changes in Quran Manuscripts, p. 50).

Page 3 of 10
 The Corruption of the Koran: Evidence and New Research
By Keith Thompson

As we can see, we do not have Korans from Uthman. Thus, the common Muslim claim we do is a
total falsehood.

Textual Variants of the Koran

The work of the Semitic languages scholar Arthur Jeffery demonstrated based on early Islamic
traditions there were various Koranic codices possessed by Muhammads companions. Some were
incomplete missing entire surahs, or they contained extra surahs. And in them were thousands of
meaningful variants or differences among themselves and with the modern edition of the Koran
Muslims read today. Jeffery observed,

Tradition knows the names of several of these, e.g. Salim b. Mu'qib, who was killed at the battle of
Yemamah, and who, tradition says was the first to make such an attempt at setting all his material
down in Codex form; 'Ali b. Abi Talib, who is said to have endeavoured to arrange the revelations in
their chronological order; Anas b. Malik, whose Codex may have been based on that of his uncle Abu
Zaid, who was well known as one of the early collectors of revelation; Abu Musa al-Ash'ari whose
Codex was a large one, and was familiarly given the name of Lubab al-Qulub; and various others,
including the two famous Codices of Ubai b. Ka'b and of 'Abdallah b. Mas'ud from both of which a
great body of variant readings has survived.. . . we know that the Codex of Ibn Mas'ud omitted Suras
I, CXIII and CXIV, and that both the Codices of Ubai and Abu Musa included two short Suras, which
are not in our present text, while a considerable body of variant readings from these Codices is to be
gathered from the grammatical, lexical, exegetical and masoretic literature of latter generations
which still remembered and discussed them. There were once, indeed, a number of special works,
under the name of Kitab al-Masahif, which specially discussed this stage of the Old Codices, and it
was a fortunate accident which enabled the present writer to discover and publish the text of the sole
surviving example of these, the Codex Book of Ibn Abi Dawud. . . . the mass of variant readings that
has survived to us from the Codices of Ubai and Ibn Mas'ud, shows that they were real textual
variants and not mere dialectal peculiarities (Arthur Jeffery,The Quran as Scripture, [Books for
Libraries, 1980], pp. 94, 95, 97).

Jeffery provided a list of the thousands of variants from these early Korans in his work Materials For
The History Of The Text Of The Qur'an.

For example, Surah 2:275 says Allathiina yaakuluunar-ribaa laa yaquumuuna (those who devour
usury will not stand). Ibn Mas'ud's Koran, however, read the same but also added the following
remark after: yawmal qiyaamati, (i.e., they would not be able to stand on the Day of Resurrection).

Surah 6:153 says Wa anna haathaa siraatii (Verily this is my path). Ibn Mas'ud's Koran,
however, readWa haathaa siraatu rabbakum (This is the path of Your Lord).

Surah 33:6 says the following about Muhammads wives and believers: wa azwaajuhuu
ummahaatuhuu (and his wives are their mothers). Ibn-Mas'ud's Koran had the extra words wa
huwa abuu laahum (and he is their father).

Page 4 of 10
 The Corruption of the Koran: Evidence and New Research
By Keith Thompson

The number of variants in all these early Korans is so large they fill up around three hundred and
fifty pages of Arthur Jefferys book Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Qur'an (show
picture).

In regards to copyist mistakes in the 8 th century Korans Muslims falsely claim are Uthmanic, as well
as other fragments and partial codices from the same period, these count as textual variants.
Regarding the Topkapi manuscript, Altkula notes: There are deviations from grammatical rules . . .
and spelling mistakes in the Mushafs attributed to Caliph Uthman (Tayyar Altkula, Al-Mushaf al-
Sharif Attributed to Uthman bin Affan, p. 41).

Regarding the Sammarqand manuscript Muslims also falsely claim is Uthmanic, Altkula says there
are scribal mistakes [and] copyists mistakes (Tayyar Altkula, Al-Mushaf al-Sharif Attributed to
Uthman bin Affan, pp. 71-72).

Muslim apologist Adnan Rashid claimed the only variants in these early Koranic manuscripts are
minor spelling mistakes or scribal errors, but that there are no major word or phrase variants and
this is what allegedly makes the Koran superior to the Bible (Unbelievable Radio, March 6th, 2010,
Adnan Rashid vs. James White, Which is more trustworthy - The Qur'an or the Bible?, 32:12).
However, this is a complete lie.

Regarding variant words or phrases which affect the meaning of the text in early Korans, in the lower
or earlier text of the Sanaa palimpsest manuscripts (or Sanaa 1 as it is sometimes called), which
is an incomplete codex comprising about half of the Koran, dated possibly to the late seventh
century (Behnam Sadeghi, Mohsen Goudarzi, Sana'aa and the Origins of the Qur'an, [Der Islam,
2012], p. 1), there are many variants differentiating it from the standard 1924 Cairo edition of the
Koran Muslims use today.

For example Behnam Sadeghi (Behnam Sadeghi; Uwe Bergmann, The Codex of a Companion of
the Prophet and the Qurn of the Prophet, Arabica, Volume 57, Number 4, 2010, p. 21) notes the
lower text of this early Koran disagrees with the modern edition of the Koran in Surah 2:196. Here
the Sanaa palimpsest says Do not shave until the offering reaches its destination, while the
modern edition says Do not shaveyour heads until the offering reaches its destination. In the same
verse the Sanaa palimpsest says fasting, or alms, or an offering, while the modern edition says
fasting or an offering. In Koran 2:201 the Sanaapalimpsest says, Our Lord, give us in this world
and the next, while the modern edition says, Our Lord, give us good in this world and good in the
next. Sadeghi and Goudarzi list many more variants in the lower text of this manuscript which affect
the meaning of the text (Behnam Sadeghi, Mohsen Goudarzi, Sana'aa and the Origins of the Qur'an,
[Der Islam, 2012], pp. 116-122).

Such variants show this Koran does not come from Uthman. Such variants should not exist in this
text if the Koran was complete, perfect and standardized in the time of Uthman. In fact, these
scholars note the Sanaapalimpsest represents a textual tradition different than the Uthmanic textual
tradition, which refutes the Muslim claim that there were no different textual traditions prior to the
Koranic standardization of Uthman, but that the Koran was perfect from the time of Muhammad, to
Abu Bakr, to Uthman (Ejaz Naqvi, The Quran: With Or Against the Bible?, [iUniverse, 2012], p. 16).
Yet, Sadeghi and Goudarzi say otherwise noting there were different Koranic traditions: . . . the
textual tradition to which it [the Sanaa palimpsest] belonged and the Uthmnic tradition must have
diverged some-time before the spread of the Uthmnic tradition in the mid-seventh century AD

Page 5 of 10
 The Corruption of the Koran: Evidence and New Research
By Keith Thompson

(Behnam Sadeghi, Mohsen Goudarzi, Sana'aa and the Origins of the Qur'an, [Der Islam, 2012], p.
8). This is groundbreaking.Which one is the word of God?

One of the variants among the supposed Uthmanic manuscripts listed in Altkula`s Al-Mushaf al-
Sharif Attributed to Uthman bin Affan, The Copy at the Topkapi Palace Museum, pp. 87-89 is that
while Koran 3:158 in the modern edition reads, If you should die or be slain, before Him you shall
undoubtedly be gathered, the great Paris manuscript reads, If you should die or be slain, you shall
not be gathered due to an extra Arabic letter changing the entire meaning of the text.

In regards to other word or phrase variants in the earliest Koran manuscripts changing the meaning of
the text, Koran textual critic Keith Small notes,

Migana notes one instance of an omitted word in a palimpsest. Fedeli notes three omissions in
palimpsests, two of which are phrases, and an omission of a word in a normal manuscript. E. Puin
notes additional and missing passages in the inferior script of another palimpsest. These larger
omissions in the palimpsests, though, were probably not accidental. Instead they probably represent a
different form of the text, possibly from before the basic standardization of the consonantal text
(Keith Small, Textual Criticism and the Quran Manuscripts, [Lexington Books, 2012], p. 67).

He lists the following sources for these findings (Alphonse Mingana and Agnes Smith Lewis, Leaves
from Three Ancient Qurans, [Cambridge University Press, 1914], xl, item C; Alba Fedeli, Early
Evidence of Variant Readings in Quranic Manuscripts, in Karl-Ohlig and Gerd-R. Puin, ed., Die
dunklen anfange, [Hans Schiler, 2005], pp. 293-316, 300, 309-310, 312-313; Elisabeth Puin, Ein
fruher Koranpalimpsest aus Sana(DAM 01-27.1), in Karkus Grob and Karl Heinz-Ohlig,
eds., Schlaglichter, [Hans Schiler, 2008], pp. 461-493, 463).

Moreover, with regards to diacritical marks changing the meaning of a sentence, in the Topkapi
manuscript in Koran 14:38 it says You know what we conceal and what he revealed, while the
modern edition reads, You know what we conceal and what we reveal (Keith Small, Textual
Criticism and the Quran Manuscripts, [Lexington Books, 2012], p. 74).

In the Petropolitanus manuscript (or BnF arabi 328a), in Koran 14:37 it says, Our Lord, I have
settled some of my descendants in an uncultivated valley near Your sacred House, our Lord, that they
may establish prayer,and make hearts among the people incline toward them. However, in the
standard edition of today it says, Our Lord, I have settled some of my descendants in an
uncultivated valley near Your sacred House, our Lord, that they may establish prayer. So make hearts
among the people incline toward them (Keith Small,Textual Criticism and the Quran Manuscripts,
[Lexington Books, 2012], p. 80). This changes the meaning of the text so that the repentance of the
people is no longer a result of Abrahams settling people near Gods sacred house (as in the
Petropolitanus manuscript), but instead their repentance is something Abraham is requesting of God
(as in the standard edition of today).

Thus, the idea all you find in the earliest Koran manuscripts are minor spelling errors or copyists
mistakes and not word or phrase variants that affect the meaning of the text is false.

Commenting on weather not we can trace the Koran back to Muhammad in light of textual variants,
corrections, and Islamic history, Small notes,

Page 6 of 10
 The Corruption of the Koran: Evidence and New Research
By Keith Thompson

How much the meaning of the text of the Quran was changed by this editing is impossible to
quantify one way or the other. The idea of one precise version of the Quran going back to
Muhammad cannot be substantiated in this situation (Keith Small, Textual Criticism and the Quran
Manuscripts, [Lexington Books, 2012], p. 179).

Intentional Changes in the Earliest Koranic Manuscripts

Dan Brubakers 2014 PhD thesis which is called Intentional Changes in Quran Manuscripts sheds
new and groundbreaking light on how the earliest Korans, including the ones falsely claimed by
Muslims to come from Uthman, have many intentional changes so that in many cases what was
originally written is either censored, lost, or changed by later editors. Such intentional changes in the
earliest Koranic manuscripts refutethe idea the earliest Koranic codices we have represent a uniform,
complete, perfect Uthmanic Koran. The changes, and the material we already discussed, proves none
of the supposed Uthmanic Korans are the same.

The changes Brubaker discusses include: insertions (which are post-production additions to the text
between letters, above lines or in margins), erasures (which are intentional removals of texts from a
page), erasures overwritten (which is writing covering an erasure), overwriting without apparent
erasure (which is the altering of a text without an erasure), covering (which are horizontal strips
covering a text), and covering overwritten (which is writing over top of horizontal strip covering).

In light of the presence of these changes and variants in the earliest Korans, Brubaker notes the
manuscripts

show few signs of meticulous conformity to a standard, an odd fact indeed considering the care that
Muslim historical accounts attribute to the standardization campaign of the caliph Uthman prior to 36
AH/ 656 AD. (Dan Brubaker, Intentional Changes in Quran Manuscripts, p. 4).

This is severely damaging to the Muslim claim that these earliest Korans are reflective of what
Uthman had written. They cant be since they do not meticulously conform to such a standard.
Brubaker has found many hundreds of changes in the these earliest Koran's and included lots of
them in his thesis (Dan Brubaker, Intentional Changes in Quran Manuscripts, p. 38). Many of the
changes bring the ancient manuscripts into conformity with the standard 1924 Cairo edition of the
Koran, and others bring it out of conformity with it (Dan Brubaker, Intentional Changes in Quran
Manuscripts, p. 300). We will cover a few of the ones that show variants affecting the meaning of the
text, weather viable or not, and then quote Brubaker on some of his overall conclusions.

In regards to insertions, in a late 7 th century or 8th century (Dan Brubaker, Intentional Changes in
Quran Manuscripts p. 37) partial codex called BnF arabe 327, there are variants. In Koran 23:86 it
originally lacked the word al-saba (which means the seven), a word which is in this verse in the
modern addition of the Koran. This early Koran was later changed by a scribe to then include the
word bringing into conformity with the modern addition. So originally this manuscript did not read
as the modern edition reads (Dan Brubaker, Intentional Changes in Quran Manuscripts, pp. 60-
61). Moreover, in the eighth century Saana Mushaf Sharif manuscript, in Koran 49:15, it originally
had the word mu minu which means they believe. But then a later scribe added the
letter nun changing the word to mu minun believers. The manuscript made no sense originally
(Dan Brubaker, Intentional Changes in Quran Manuscripts, p. 99). In the Topkapi Mushaf of the
eighth century the word Allah is added by a later scribe in Koran 66:8. So, originally the text did

Page 7 of 10
 The Corruption of the Koran: Evidence and New Research
By Keith Thompson

not read O ye who believe! Turn unto Allah in sincere repentance! Instead it read O ye who
believe! Repent until you give by it sincerely (Dan Brubaker, Intentional Changes in Quran
Manuscripts, p. 106).

In regards to erasures, in the eighth century Saint Petersburg Hijazi manuscript two words were
erased after the word what and before the words do you worship in Koran 26:70 (Dan Brubaker,
Intentional Changes in Quran Manuscripts, p. 141). Only after this erasure is the verse the same as
the 1924 Cairo edition of the Koran Muslims use today. In the eighth century Saana Mushaf Sharif
manuscript letters are erased between the words you all and of whom in Koran 7:158 (Dan
Brubaker, Intentional Changes in Quran Manuscripts, p. 155). The modern reading does not contain
what was erased here. In the Topkapi Mushaf manuscript of the eighth century something is erased
between the words two third and the night in Koran 73:20 (Dan Brubaker, Intentional Changes
in Quran Manuscripts, p. 163). Whatever was erased is not in the edition of the Koran currently use.
Regarding the eighth or ninth century Al Husayni Cairo manuscript, something is erased after the
word fasaqa in Koran 49:6 (Dan Brubaker, Intentional Changes in Quran Manuscripts, p. 166), and
whatever it was is not in the 1924 Cairo edition of the Koran Muslims use today. Moreover, while for
this verse the word fasaqa is used in this manuscript, conversely the word fasiq is instead used in the
1924 Cairo edition of the Koran Muslims use today, proving there is a variant.

In regards to erasures overwritten, in the Paris Petropolitanus manuscript (or BnF arabe 328), in
Koran 3:171 there is an erasure overwritten where the word favor is added later by a different
scribe when it was not originally there (Dan Brubaker, Intentional Changes in Quran Manuscripts,
pp. 173-174). Moreover, in the eighth century Saint Petersburg Hijazi manuscript there is an entire
line erased and then overwritten in Koran 7:189 (Dan Brubaker, Intentional Changes in Quran
Manuscripts, p. 234). The resultant writing matches with the 1924 Cairo edition of the Koran
Muslims use today which means whatever was originally under the newer text is not in the Koran in
use today. In the same manuscript part of the word he listens was erased and then written over to
then read they listen, which is how the 1924 Cairo edition of the Koran in use today reads (Dan
Brubaker, Intentional Changes in Quran Manuscripts, p. 235). What is interesting is he listens in
this manuscript is probably accurate, and the they listen of the modern Koran is probably not. This
is because the preceding word he who ordinarily suggests a singular object as in this manuscript,
not a plural object as in the modern Koran.

In regards to overwriting without erasures, in the eighth century Saana Mushaf Sharif manuscript, in
Koran, 3:104, there is a combination of letters that do not make sense written over some text, which,
in the modern 1924 Cairo edition of the Koran, reads the commanding (Dan Brubaker, Intentional
Changes in Quran Manuscripts, p. 283). In the Topkapi Mushaf of the eighth century, in Koran
70:32 the first instance of they in the text is written over-top replacing something which is not
discernable (Dan Brubaker, Intentional Changes in Quran Manuscripts, p. 284). Because of the
change it now agrees with the Koran in use by Muslims today.

Regarding covering, the eighth or ninth century Al Husayni Cairo manuscript, in Koran 2:187, covers
something between the words so eat and until (Dan Brubaker, Intentional Changes in Quran
Manuscripts, p. 288). The edition of the Koran Muslims use today reads eat and drink, until the
white thread of dawn appear. . . What was originally covered in the area which now reads and
drink, we will never know. But whatever it was, it is not in the edition of the Koran Muslims read
today. In the same manuscript, on one page there are numerous phrases covered in Koran 2:191-193.
According to the modern edition of the Koran, the phrases covered are drive them out from where,

Page 8 of 10
 The Corruption of the Koran: Evidence and New Research
By Keith Thompson

and if they fight you, then you kill them, and if they desist, forgiving, merciful, the
religion belongs to Allah, enmity and in the mouth (Dan Brubaker, Intentional Changes in
Quran Manuscripts, pp. 288-289). What was originally covered, we will never know. Why was this
portion of text censored? That is a very interesting question. In the same manuscript in Koran 3:161,
what in the modern edition Muslims use reads he brings and judgement is covered censored.
Why? (Dan Brubaker, Intentional Changes in Quran Manuscripts, p. 289).

In regards to covering overwritten, the eighth or ninth century Al Husayni Cairo manuscript, in
Koran 11:7, has a covering with the word clear written over it (Dan Brubaker, Intentional Changes
in Quran Manuscripts, p. 293). The new writing agrees with the modern edition of the Koran
Muslims use, but what was covered can not be discerned.

These are but a small handful of the many hundreds of intentional changes Brubaker has uncovered
in the earliest Koran manuscripts. Such intentional changes refute the idea these earliest Koranic
manuscripts come from a uniform, complete, perfect Uthmanic Koran. The following are some of
Brubakers conclusions. He notes the evidence shows

a process over time of movement toward a standard that was not entirely complete during the period
represented by the manuscripts I have considered. . . . the theory of a single written standard by 656
AD/ 35-36 AH seems inconsistent with what is seen in the manuscripts (Dan Brubaker, Intentional
Changes in Quran Manuscripts, pp. 297, 298-299).

Yet Muslims tell us the Koran was perfect, complete, and standardized at the time of Uthman. He
also notes

There can now be no doubt that manuscripts of the Quran have undergone some alteration, and that
simple standardization of orthography of the technology of written Arabic is insufficient to explain
every instance of this alteration. Neither do the early Muslim historical, exegetical and qiraat
literature seem to fully account for the range (Dan Brubaker, Intentional Changes in Quran
Manuscripts, pp. 311-312).

Lost and forgotten Parts of the Koran

Despite the traditional Islamic narrative that the Koran of Uthman was complete, perfect and
standardized, being based on a uniform Koranic tradition, according to numerous early, authoritative
Islamic sources, there are reports of numerous missing Koranic verses.

For example, in Sahih Muslim we learn that a verse in the Koran about adult breastfeeding was
actually lost:

A'isha reported that it had been revealed in the Holy Qur'an that ten clear sucklings make the
marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings and Allah's Apostle died
and it was before that time (found) in the Holy Qur'an (and recited by the Muslims) (Sahih
Muslim, Book 8, Hadith 3421).

Thus, a verse about five breastfeedings which is supposed to be in the Koran today actually got lost
when Muhammad died. This proves the Koran is corrupted. Were Muslims too ashamed to keep it as
part of the Koran? Or did they simply forget it?

Page 9 of 10
 The Corruption of the Koran: Evidence and New Research
By Keith Thompson

Moreover, in Sahih Bukhari we have an account from one of Muhammads companions that there
used to be a verse in the Koran about stoning. The problem is there is no verse about stoning in the
Koran today. This means it is now missing and the Koran is now corrupted:

Narrated Ibn Abbas. . . . Allah sent Muhammad with the Truth and revealed the Holy Book to him,
and among what Allah revealed, was the Verse of the Rajam (the stoning of married person (male &
female) who commits illegal sexual intercourse, and we did recite this Verse and understood and
memorized it. Allah's Messenger did carry out the punishment of stoning and so did we after him. I
am afraid that after a long time has passed, somebody will say, 'By Allah, we do not find the Verse of
the Rajam in Allah's Book,' and thus they will go astray by leaving an obligation which Allah has
revealed (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 8, Book 82, Hadith 817).

Also, in Sahih Muslim we read that the best reciters of the Koran in Basra used to recite a surah of
the Koran which they forgot, except for one verse they report. Yet, the verse they report is not in the
Koran today:

We used to recite a surah which resembled in length and severity to (Surah) Bara'at. I have,
however, forgotten it with the exception of this which I remember out of it: If there were two valleys
full of riches, for the son of Adam, he would long for a third valley, and nothing would fill the
stomach of the son of Adam but dust (Sahih Muslim, Book 5, Hadith 2286).

Other ahadith also affirm Muhammad used to recite this forgotten verse (Sahih Muslim, Number
2284, 2285). This verse is now lost and not in the Koran proving the Koran is corrupted.

Moreover, we know part of Koran 33:6 is missing since the modern the edition of the Koran Muslims
read today there is no mention of Muhammads fatherhood over all believers in this verse, like there
was in Ubayy b. Kabs codex. As Islamic scholar Yusuf Ali admits, In some Qiraats, like that of
Ubai Ibn Kab, occur also the words and he is a father to them, which imply his spiritual
relationship (Yusuf Ali, The Meaning of the Holy Quran, [Amana Publications, 2009], 1057 n.
3674).

Now, according to a multiply attested set of ahadith in Imam Maliks Muwatta, the modern edition of
the Koran has part of Koran 2:238 missing regarding the asr prayer. The modern edition Muslims
read today says, Be guardians of your prayers, and of the midmost prayer, and stand up with
devotion to Allah, but Maliks ahadith indicate this verse used to include mention of the asr prayer
as well, reading: Guard the prayers carefully and the middle prayer and the asr prayer and stand
obedient to Allah (Malik's Muwatta, Book 8, Number 8.8.26, 27). This proves the Koran is
corrupted.

The fact is many verses of the Koran were lost. Therefore, the Koran of today which Muslims claim
comes from Uthman is incomplete and corrupted, contrary to their claims.

Page 10 of 10