Uthman burned the contradictory copies of the Quran

  The Quran has not been distorted and not a single letter of it has been changed. Uthman ibn Affan (may Allah be pleased with him) burned the copies of the Quran after collecting them for several reasons:

1 - They had some interpretive phrases, whether at the end of the verse or above it or below it, which might later be thought to be from the Quran, but in fact they are interpretations, and these interpretive phrases were not the same, but differed according to the book.
2 - These copies of the Quran were incorrect readings and verses that were abrogated in recitation and are still with them in these copies of the Quran.
3 - The way these copies of the Quran were written does not allow for the existence of seven languages, but rather most of them were considered to be from one language from one tribe.
4- The difference in spelling methods in these copies of the Qur’an, and this is what Uthman remedied in the line drawing by one man, Saeed bin Al-Aas, may God be pleased with him, so that all copies would be in one line as if they were photocopies.
The most important thing of all is that none of the owners of the copies of the Qur’an, such as Abu bin Kaab, Abdullah bin Masoud, and Ali bin Abi Talib, objected to them and agreed on the correctness of what Uthman did, and the burning process was carried out in front of the great companions of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, until when the sedition arose and some of the Rafidis said that he burned the copies of the Qur’an, Ali bin Abi Talib said to them: Fear God, O people, by God, Uthman did not do that except with our consultation, presence, and agreement, and none of us deviated from it.
As for how the Qur’an was collected during the reign of Uthman bin Affan, may God be pleased with him, he was one of the experts in the Qur’an, as reported in the authentic reports.
Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman, may God be pleased with him, was alarmed when he saw the people’s differences and their fanaticism for some readings to the point of boasting about one reading over another. Due to the conquests of non-Arab countries, many readings began to appear that were full of errors due to the introduction of non-Arabic tongues into the recitation of the Qur’an. Many mistakes appeared in his recitation, so he turned to the Commander of the Faithful, Uthman ibn Affan, to guide the nation before the language of the Qur’an was lost among the people and a sect like the People of the Book emerged over their book. So an elite group of the companions of the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, was chosen to collect the Qur’an in one Mushaf that the people would agree upon and that would at the same time carry the validity of the seven letters other than the seven readings. The elite group that he formed was eight of the skilled memorizers who attended the final presentation to the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, and recited it to him and he approved of it. Among these memorizers were Zayd ibn Thabit and Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Harith ibn Hisham, may God be pleased with them all. These were among the scribes of the revelation and they had memorized the Qur’an by hearing it directly from the Messenger, may God bless him and grant him peace.

Also, the Mushaf in the time of the Companions did not mean the Holy Quran... Rather, the Mushaf in the time of the Companions was used to refer to interpretations and books of poetry and even the Gospels ... Therefore, his saying Mushaf means a collection of manuscripts that were collected in one place, i.e. they were gathered in one place... Therefore, when we say that Uthman burned the Mushafs, we do not mean that he burned the Quran, as the Quran is one thing and the Mushaf is another thing...

The difference between the Mushaf and the Holy Quran

The Mushaf and the Holy Qur’an
( The change in the intended meaning of the Mushaf before and after the Uthmanic collection )

Importance and objective of the topic:

Dear brothers, the objective of this topic is to raise awareness of a very important difference that many of us do not know... which is the linguistic difference between the two terms Mushaf and the Holy Quran... to raise awareness of the malice and manipulation of the skeptics... because even if we use the term Mushaf today, the listener, regardless of his religion, will only think of one book, which is the Holy Quran. However, this was not the case before Uthman ibn Affan copied the entire Holy Quran into one Mushaf... this was not the case... so pay attention to this point and the fallacies of the skeptics.!


The Mushaf before the compilation of Uthman did not mean the Qur’an:
the word “Mushaf” before the Uthmanic compilation was used to refer to books of wisdom, the Torah, the Gospel, and others.

The Mushaf is any collection of pages that were collected together in one volume between two covers.

The Mushaf , with a triangular m, comes from uhshaf, with a damma: meaning the written pages [1] were placed in it between the two covers and collected in it. [2] In the language of Tamim, it is pronounced with a kasra “al-Mushaf”, with a kasra on the m, because pages were collected and they were taken out in a form that is carried by hand. [3] The people of Najd say: Al-Mushaf, with a damma on the meem, an Alawite dialect, as if they said: As-Sahifa, so it is Mus-haf, meaning some of it was collected together . [4]

Al-Mu'jam Al-Wasit states: Al-Mushaf: He collected the book and collected it as sahifa, and Al-Mushaf : a collection of pages, in a volume, and its use is mostly in the Holy Qur’an [5] .

Sheikh Abdullah bin Youssef Al-Judaie said [6] : “ Al-Mushaf: It is a name that appeared after the Qur’an was collected during the era of Abu Bakr, as will be explained; and no hadith attributed to the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, has been proven from his saying in applying this name to the Qur’an collected between the two covers, because during his era it was not between two covers in the form of a Mushaf; and the name Al-Mushaf came from the pages that were collected together so that they became in the form of a book.” [7] It was mentioned in Hilyat al-Awliya’ [8]

on the authority ofYazid ibn Maysarah that he said: “A wise man among the wise men wrote three hundred and sixty copies of the Qur’an, full of wisdom, and sent them to the people. Then God Almighty revealed to him: ‘You have filled the earth with filth, and God Almighty has not accepted any of your filth.’” [9]

Ibn Abd al-Barr said in al-Qasd wa’l-Umam: “Among the things found in Andalusia were twenty-two decorated copies of the Qur’an, all of them from the Torah, and another copy decorated with silver... and among the copies of the Qur’an was a copy that had the work of craftsmanship and the dyes of rubies.” [10]


The copies of the Qur’an attributed to the Companions are not called the Holy Qur’an:

It is stated in Sahih al-Bukhari.. “And Uthman said to the three Quraysh men: If you and Zaid bin Thabit differ about something in the Qur’an, then write it in the language of the Quraysh, for it was revealed in their language. So they did so, and when they had copied the pages into the copies of the Qur’an , Uthman returned the pages to Hafsah al-Bukhari.”... Here the term “copies of the Qur’an” was applied to the collected pages in which the Qur’an was to be copied from the early copies, meaning that their name was “copies of the Qur’an,” and there was no Qur’an in them that had been abrogated yet.

It was mentioned in the same hadith... "And he ordered that everything other than it of the Qur'an in every manuscript or copy be burned." So he differentiated between the Qur'an and the copy of the Qur'an... The Qur'an is written in the copy of the Qur'an or in the pages... The

word copy of the Qur'an was then used for any collection of pages placed between two covers... This is of great importance, because at this point the skeptics try to claim that words such as: the copy of Ubayy , the copy of Ibn Mas'ud , and the copy of Fatimah as the Shiites have ... etc., are nothing but the Holy Qur'an, and this is wrong and obscene... Then the missionary or skeptic plays with the words and claims that there were multiple readings... giving the impression that the meaning of copy of the Qur'an is two readings...!!

The truth is that there were many books in which interpretations, explanations, and Quranic texts were written, many or few. The Qur’ans were not limited to the Holy Qur’an alone, but there were Biblical Qur’ans, poetic Qur’ans, and Qur’ans belonging to specific individuals in which they would record what they heard or feared would be lost.

The Qur’ans, then, were not the Holy Qur’an , but rather some of the Holy Qur’an was written in them. Each companion wrote according to what he heard and according to the letter he heard from the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. However, none of their Qur’ans was ever called the Holy Qur’an. They

used to write down in their copies of the Qur’an whatever might help them memorize and recall… Some of them made mistakes in writing, some of them wrote what had been abrogated, and some of them wrote an interpretation or a hadith… All of them did not write the entire Qur’an, nor in its final presentation… Therefore, it is not possible to call these copies of the Qur’an the Qur’an, but rather they are simply the writings and books of the Companions and their private records.


Finally, we see that we should quickly clarify the difference between a book and a mushaf:

a book can be a single sheet or a collection of sheets, while a mushaf is nothing but a collection of sheets, i.e. they gathered some of them together. The people of Hijaz say mushaf with a kasra, they brought it out like what is handled by hand, and the people of Najd say mushaf, which is the better of the two languages, and the mushaf is most often said for the mushaf of the Qur’an [11]


. Finally, the summary of the distinction between the two words mushaf as we know it today and as it was known before the Ottoman collection is that:
a mushaf in the past is any book consisting of sheets containing the Qur’an or other, and no mushaf among them was the Holy Qur’an... As for today, after the Qur’an was collected into one mushaf... the name has been restricted to the Holy Qur’an, and the mushaf is only used for the Holy Qur’an only.


Now we conclude with a definition of the mushaf today, which is completely different from its linguistic reality in the past... We say:

the mushaf today:It is the book that contains between its two covers the Holy Qur’an, the revelation of God, collected in its entirety as it was revealed to His Messenger, may God bless him and grant him peace, transmitted as it is, word for word, in accordance with what was heard with the last presentation and approved by the Companions of the Messenger of God, and written in the script in which the scribes of the revelation wrote, absorbing what was possible of what the Prophet approved of from readings. In the presence of witnesses from the just Companions, it was copied into the Bakri manuscripts during the time of Abu Bakr from the lines and from the chests as it was revealed. In the presence of witnesses from the just Companions, copies were made from the Bakri manuscripts into the Uthmanic manuscripts during the time of Uthman, and from the manuscripts of Uthman to the provinces, it was copied into all the manuscripts of the world until today...


and the Qur’an will remain forever and ever, preserved in the chests and transmitted. By continuous transmission from one generation to the next, it is the judge of the integrity of the Qur’an from the errors of scribes and distorters. Therefore, we are not surprised at all if a seven-year-old child can extract any mistake written in a Qur’anic verse and point to it with his finger... This is the preservation and promise of Allah, and Allah the Almighty is true when He says: “ Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur’an and indeed, We will be its guardian. ”... And Allah the Almighty is true when He predicted to His Messenger what would be his precise collection, saying: “ Indeed, it is We who will collect it and recite it .”


_____
[1] Al-Qamoos Al-Muhit by Al-Fayruzabadi
[2] Taj Al-Arus
[3] Jamharat Al-Lughah: H S F.
[4] Ibid .
[5] Al-Mu’jam Al-Wasit, Academy of the Arabic Language, Dar Al-Ma’arif, 32nd ed., 1/527.
[6] Quoted from the tongue of the hadith scholars.
[7] Basic Introductions to the Sciences of the Qur’an, p. 12
[8] Hilyat al-Awliya’ 5/237
[9] Quoted from the tongue of the hadith scholars.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Linguistic Differences 1/447.

The companions would add meanings to some verses in their copies of the Qur’an (i.e. their papers) {because they were their own papers only} and they would not write some surahs for economic reasons such as the lack of copies and...etc. or methodological...etc. So
when the Qur’an was written as a whole (which is the Qur’an in the general sense now among us), they said do not write in it anything other than the Qur’an, by agreement of the companions, collectively or all together.
Therefore, nothing was written except the Qur’an in what is now called the Mushaf, and there was no disagreement about anything in all that was written during the days of the Companions.
As for the early scholars after the generation of the Companions and their followers, they differed about the phrase called the Basmalah , i.e. 
(except for the Basmalah of Al-Fatihah and the second Basmalah of An-Naml and At-Tawbah, there is no Basmalah in it at all).
Some scholars said that it is from the Qur’an and they provided evidence that it was written in the Qur’an since the Companions did not write anything except the Qur’an between the covers of the book - and this is a weak opinion - and
some scholars said that it is not from the Qur’an except for Al-Fatihah and the second Basmalah of An-Naml, based on the scholars’ disagreement about it since the Qur’an was preserved by Allah Himself, the Most High, so there is no disagreement about it.
They explained its presence in the book (i.e. the Mushaf) by saying that it is for seeking blessings in the name of Allah , the Most High - and this is the most correct opinion - and the evidence for this is very abundant, and Allah knows best .
This is evidence of the necessity of distinguishing between the two words Mushaf and Qur’an as a legal basis,
since the Qur’an is one and the Mushafs are multiple
, so it is preferable to call the book by its legal name, especially the one that Allah named His Book with it, so we say, for example:
The Book, because Allah the Most High said : “This is the Book about which there is no doubt, a guidance for those conscious of Allah.” And He the Most High said: “ It is He who has sent among the unlettered a Messenger from themselves, reciting to them His verses and purifying them and teaching them the Book and wisdom - although they were before in manifest error. ” And the verses are very many.
Or
the Qur’an : God Almighty said , “ Do they not then consider the Qur’an carefully? Had it been from other than God, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy .” And the verses are very many.
Or

The Glorious Quran : Allah the Almighty said : “ Qaf. By the Glorious Quran .”
The point is to call the first source by the legal name mentioned in the Quran and on the tongue of His Messenger in academic discussions, especially with non-Muslims, so that the matter is more emphatic. Allah is Most High and All-Knowing, and Allah is the One sought for help, and I ask Allah for forgiveness for me and you.
Any mistake is from me or from Satan, and Allah is innocent of it, and whatever is good is from Allah  @fezmustafaa

The Qur’an is preserved in the hearts, and oral transmission is a condition for its transmission. Written information has no value in transmitting the Qur’an, and the Qur’an is not taken from a reciter of the Qur’an... that is, from a reader of books ... Rather, what is taken is the recitation and reception from a memorizer of the Qur’an… As for the Mushafs, they are books specific to each companion… Perhaps he wrote in them some of the Qur’an or an interpretation or a supplication or what he feared he would forget, but all of them did not collect in it, under any circumstances, the entire Qur’an, because the first Mushaf to collect the Qur’an was the Mushaf of Uthman ibn Affan, which was copied from the early manuscripts…

It is also necessary to differentiate between saying the Mushaf of Ibn Mas’ud and the recitation of Ibn Mas’ud… What Ibn Mas’ud reads or recited may not have been recorded in his Mushaf, even if he acknowledged its being Qur’anic… such as Al-Fatihah, for example… Therefore, what is relied upon is the recitation of Ibn Mas’ud , because the Qur’an is transmitted by hearing, so we rely on his recitation and not on his Mushaf, nor… Mushaf of any of the companions, as all of them did not write down the entire Holy Quran in their Mushafs.. but rather they wrote down what they needed to memorize.

As for the narrations of burning:

This narration from Ali came in the Book of the Qur’an, and it is weak, because in its chain of transmission there is an unknown man between Alqamah and Suwaid.

It was narrated by Ibn Abi Dawud, who said: Abdullah told us, who said: Sahl bin Salih told us, who said: Abu Dawud and Ya’qub told us, who said: Shu’bah told us, on the authority of Alqamah bin Murthad, on the authority of Suwaid bin Ghafla, who said: Ali said regarding the Qur’an: “If Uthman had not done it, I would have done it .” [Abu Dawud said: On the authority of a man, on the authority of Suwaid], and he said: Abdullah told us, who said: Muhammad bin Bashar told us, who said: Muhammad bin Ja’far and Abd al-Rahman told us, who said: Shu’bah told us, on the authority of Alqamah bin Murthad, on the authority of a man, on the authority of Suwaid bin Ghafla, who said: Ali said when Uthman burned the Qur’an: “If he had not done it, I would have done it.”

Rather, what is authentic in this regard is what he narrated on the authority of Abdullah, who said: Ahmad bin Sinan told us, who said: Abdul Rahman told us, who said: Shu’bah told us, on the authority of Abu Ishaq, on the authority of Mus’ab bin Sa’d, who said: “I found the people in large numbers when Uthman burned the copies of the Qur’an, and they were amazed by that, and he said: None of them disapproved of that.” Al-Bukhari narrated it on the authority of Ibn Mahdi in his At-Tarikh Al-Kabir.

No one from the companions of the Messenger of Allah objected to the burning, and Uthman did not oblige anyone to burn, tear, or rip, nor did Ibn Mas’ud object. Ibn Mas’ud’s disagreement was that he was not appointed to write the copies of the Qur’an, but rather Zayd bin Thabit was appointed, and he thought that he was more deserving than him. The truth is that they did not appoint Zayd bin Thabit because of superiority and precedence, but because Ibn Mas’ud was in Kufa and Zayd was with them in Medina. Then, Zayd bin Thabit was the scribe of the revelation of the Messenger of Allah and he was considered the sheikh of the nation in script, and writing the copies of the Qur’an is related to script, while Abdullah bin Mas’ud is the sheikh of the nation in recitation and recitation, not script.

Fatwa No.: 113116
Fatwa Title: The copies of the Qur’an that Uthman burned after copying the Qur’an
Question

: What exactly did Uthman ibn Affan (may Allah be pleased with him) burn when he compiled the Qur’an? I hope for a comprehensive and satisfactory answer.

Fatwa


Praise be to Allah and may peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of Allah and his family and companions. As for what follows:
Al-Bukhari narrated in his Sahih that when the Companions wrote the copies of the Qur’an, Uthman sent to every region a copy of what they had copied and ordered that everything else from the Qur’an in every manuscript or copy be burned. In a narration by Al-Tabarani and Ibn Abi Dawud: And he ordered them to burn every copy of the Qur’an that differed from the copy that he had sent.
Ibn Hajar mentioned in Al-Fath that none of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) denounced that. He mentioned on the authority of Mus’ab ibn Sa’d that he said:
I found the people in large numbers when Uthman burned the copies of the Qur’an and they were amazed by that, or he said, none of them denounced that.
He narrated on the authority of Ibn Battaal who said:
In this hadith it is permissible to burn books that contain the name of Allah with fire and that this is to honor them and protect them from being trampled on by feet. End quote.

It has been proven that the pages that were with Hafsa were not burned by Uthman, but rather by Marwan after Hafsa’s death.
See the fatwas with the following numbers: 22912 , 26385 , 46796.

And God knows best.

Mufti: Fatwa Center """"""""" "

Fatwa No.: 22912
Fatwa Title: The dust raised about the authenticity of the Qur’an has no effect
Fatwa Date: 19 Rajab 1423 / 09-26-2002
Question:
What is the truth about the copy of the Qur’an found in Samarkand and does it prove that the Qur’an in our hands has been distorted? May God reward you with all good....

Fatwa

Praise be to Allah, and may blessings and peace be upon the Messenger of Allah, his family and his companions. As for what follows:
The copy of the Qur’an that Muslims have been reading since the days of the Rightly-Guided Caliph Uthman ibn Affan, may Allah be pleased with him, until today, is the copy that the Companions agreed upon. Therefore, they agreed with Uthman to burn all other copies of the Qur’an,
to the point that Ali ibn Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with him, said: If he had not made it, I would have made it. Narrated by Ibn Abi Dawud in Kitab al-Masahif.

Uthman left only one copy, which was with Hafsa, and yet Marwan burned it after her death. He said in Fath al-Bari: This is why Marwan took matters into his own hands after her death, and destroyed it as well, fearing that one of them might imagine that it contained something that contradicted the established Qur’an.
End quote.

Thus, it becomes clear that what is raised about this topic from time to time has no basis in truth, rather it is clearly false. For more information, see Fatwa No.
6484 and Fatwa No.
6453.
And God knows best.

Mufti: Fatwa Center

Re: Responding to the allegation that Uthman burned the opposing copies of the Qur’an. May

Allah reward the participants with the best reward. I would like to add an important and simple point at the same time that I use a lot in discussions. I find that it makes the issue unnecessary to explain in such depth (deepening is important for the Muslim defending his religion in the event that he is confronted by an opponent); and the point begins with this question: Who is our master Uthman? The answer is quite simple: He is the husband of the two daughters of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and he is one of the greatest disciples of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace!!! At the time he ordered the burning of the Qur’ans, he was the greatest disciple of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace (and I would like to use the term disciple instead of companion in this case so that they understand it with their culture and it hits the brain directly, so let it hit hard). So that you can see the magnitude of the impact of these words, let me make a simple comparison: Imagine that Peter, the greatest disciple of Christ, had a book of Christ with him (regardless of whether it was the Bible or any book). Imagine that Peter burned all the other copies and brought a copy and said, “This is what I took from Christ!” Imagine now that an objector came and said that the book of Christ was distorted under the pretext that Peter burned all the copies that differed from the copy he took from Christ! Would you agree with the objector??? Or is the objector unlucky in following logic, for logic in this incident proves that the book of Christ was preserved and not distorted! This is the crux of the matter in responding to the doubt, which is a question about the identity of our master Uthman bin Affan Dhul-Noorain, but this crux of the matter also leads us to another point, which is: If the Qur’an was distorted by our master Uthman, who was originally the greatest disciple of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, then how was the Qur’an preserved after him for one thousand and four hundred years? Praise be to God for the extraordinary miracle of our master Uthman, for even their Gospels were distorted in every era and every generation, while the Qur’an of our master Uthman was not distorted for one thousand and four hundred years. Of course, this is enough to clarify that the Qur’an of Uthman is nothing but what he preserved and took directly from the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace! And here lies that miracle.