Differences in Qur'anic manuscripts
God willing, I will provide conclusive evidence that all the differences that may exist between any Qur’anic manuscript and the current text are nothing but spontaneous, unintended errors resulting from (auditory confusion), (visual confusion), or (mental confusion).
Auditory confusion: When a copyist writes a manuscript by dictation and the person who reads it dictates a certain word to him, the copyist makes a mistake and hears it in a different way due to the similarity of the two words, such as (ya'maloon) (ya'mahoon).
Visual confusion:
for example:
Zaid went to the library, bought books from the library, and returned home.
The copyist writes the first sentence, and when he returns to write the second sentence, his eye falls by mistake on the second word (library) instead of the first, so he drops the phrase (and bought books from the library) because of the similarity of the endings. This mistake is called (Homeoteleuton).
Its counterpart is the error of similar beginnings, which is the error that leads to the omission of one of the two sentences because they both begin with the same word, and it is called (Homeoarchton) .
Mental confusion:
The copyist's mind may be occupied while copying with another phrase similar to the one he is copying, so he mixes them up without realizing it. Or a word he wrote a few minutes ago may come to mind and is still stuck in his mind, so he writes it again while copying when he hears or reads a similar word.
This type is the most famous in the Holy Quran. Because the copyists are memorizers of the Qur’an, they may mix up some words of the verse they are copying with another similar verse that they have memorized in their minds, such as:
To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and the earth.
To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth.
-To Him belongs whoever is in the heavens and the earth.
To Him belongs whoever is in the heavens and whoever is on the earth.
These four forms are mentioned in the Holy Quran, and the copyist may have mixed up two of them without realizing it while copying.
Anyone who wants to learn more about copyists' mistakes and copying habits can read James Royce's famous book:
[ Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri ]
I would like to present a joke that might bring the reader's mind closer to confusion, and it actually happened. I was sitting with my uncle and his little son, and my uncle was having the child memorize Surah Al-Masad by reciting it himself, and then the boy would repeat the verse after him. The father would say, “Perish the hands of Abu Lahab, and perish him!” And the boy would repeat it after him. Then the child’s mother suddenly entered, holding a plate of grapes, and the little boy’s eyes were fixed on the plate, while my uncle was reciting, “He will burn in a Fire of blazing flames.” The boy read after him and said, “He will burn in grapes!”!! This was because his mind was focused on something else.
There are many similarities in the Holy Quran, and they are the main reason that sometimes - and they are very few - led copyists to commit some violations of the current text.
How do we distinguish between a spontaneous error and a deliberate change?
1-] Similarities:
When we find that a difference has occurred in the ambiguous verses, we can explain the difference as a spontaneous error resulting from mental confusion between the ambiguous verses. For example, instead of the copyist writing (And God is All-Knowing of what you do), he wrote (And God is All-Knowing of what you do), since the ambiguous verses, especially the endings of the verses, are among the most common places where confusion and error occur.
Then when it happens again, you can be sure that it is nothing but spontaneous mistakes resulting from mental confusion.
2-] Repetition, singular readings:
If the differences are the result of deliberate change, then many of them must be repeated in more than one manuscript. If they do not occur, then the change is unintentional. Here is the explanation:
If the differences were caused by deliberate change, what does this mean? It must mean that the Quranic text is fluid, amorphous, and unregulated, as evidenced by the fact that those who deliberately sought to change it succeeded. In such an environment, what do you expect when change occurs? The answer is that many will be received by the change and will re-copy it again, because the text is vague, weak, and clear, and the environment is fluid. Is this what happened?
No, there is not a single difference supported by two manuscripts, ever . I mean there is no reading in any manuscript that contradicts the current text and is supported by more than one manuscript. I mean it is present in more than one manuscript. This is absolutely not the case. The difference is always supported by only one manuscript and no other, and the reason is that it is a spontaneous, unintentional error.
Spontaneous errors die where they are born because the Quranic environment is strong and the text is controlled, disciplined and specific. Errors never spread, but are born in a single manuscript and buried there.
In textual criticism, these are called individual readings. Individual readings are non-viable readings, meaning they cannot compete with the Ottoman readings, so the question arises: “Which is the Qur’an, the Ottoman or the non-Ottoman reading?” Because the non-Ottoman reading is always supported by only one manuscript from among the entire Qur’anic manuscript tradition before and after it.
3-]Size of the difference unit:-
Readings that deviate from the Ottoman text are always small in size, i.e., one or two words, and rarely more. For example, there are no entire surahs, paragraphs, long sections, verses, or even a single verse present in one manuscript that is omitted in another. Rather, the difference is always limited to one or two words.
This raises a question: If these differences were the result of deliberate alterations, why haven't we seen any long-form examples? Do the scribes specialize only in altering letters and words, but not verses, sentences, and paragraphs?
There is no logical answer other than that it is the result of spontaneous, unintentional mistakes, most of which are errors of memorization (mental confusion), and if the memorizers who are good at memorization make a mistake, they usually do not make a mistake by omitting a verse or paragraph, but only by omitting some words from the verse that are similar to another verse elsewhere, so the differences appear short.
4-]The goal:-
All the differences found in the Qur’anic manuscripts do not have serious objectives. By serious objectives, I mean that the copyist changed the text to serve a bloody doctrine. By this term, I mean any doctrine that has caused bloodshed among Muslims. Here is the explanation:
The distorting copyist is either Sunni, Shiite, Ash'ari, Khawarij, Mu'tazilite, Zaidi, etc. So who is that Shiite copyist who would deliberately try to distort (what is in the heavens and the earth) to (who is in the heavens and the earth) and then be lazy about distorting the verses that the Sunnis use as evidence against the Shiites in topics such as (the justice of the Companions) and (who are the people of the house) and other beliefs that caused fierce battles to break out among the Muslims and caused blood to be shed among them?!!
Who is that Ash'ari who would distort (strive with their wealth and their lives in the way of God) to (strive with their wealth and their lives) and would not be keen to distort the verses that the Sunnis use as evidence to prove the attribute of the hand and the face of God, for example, which are the beliefs that caused many problems and conflicts between the Sunnis, the Mu'tazila, and the Ash'aris?!!
Therefore, it is self-evident that we find distortions in the bloody doctrines first, so that we can then accept from anyone to interpret the Pentecostal differences as a deliberate distortion. By this term, I mean (the Pentecostal difference) those differences that you can interpret as a spontaneous error and at the same time you can interpret them as a deliberate change, at a ratio of 50%: 50%. Of course, the doubt is interpreted in favor of the accused, as we are not obligated to interpret them as distortions as long as we can interpret them as a spontaneous error. But also, you do not have the right to interpret any difference as a deliberate distortion unless you first present to us examples of changes in the bloody doctrines, for the reason I mentioned and for another reason, which is:
Psychology tells us that "loving something blinds and deafens." If you love the doctrine of the Trinity, your heart will convince your mind that anything indicates it! A priest once said that the Egyptians' oath (By God Almighty, there are three) - which is a colloquial Egyptian oath - indicates the Trinity!! One commentator even interpreted the scene of Abraham's barbecue at Beersheba as a symbol of the crucifixion and baptism. The barbecue is done on two crossed sticks, and the water behind it with the lamb symbolizes redemption and baptism!!
I was once discussing with a Christian admin on Paltalk when he said to me, “One of the proofs of the divinity of Christ in the Qur’an is the verse in which Christ says: ‘He said, ‘I am the servant of God’”!!!
You can see evidence in anything that it is a deliberate change if you want to see it. Psychology confirms and explains this behavior. In order to avoid this psychological problem, which is “obstinacy, affectation, and exaggeration in interpreting problems to make them deliberate,” the door must first be opened . And by opening the door, I mean opening the door to “interpreting the fifty-year differences as deliberate.” I mean that a condition must be met before that, which is:
We want a significant number of changes to have occurred in the dangerous beliefs about which there have been debates and even bloody wars among Muslims, so that we may accept the occurrence of distortions in what is less dangerous than them.
Conclusion:-
The readings that contradict the Ottoman text are [ individual readings , unable to compete , falling into the ambiguous , short , and not in the bloody doctrines ]
Method of proof:-
I will prove that it is spontaneous and unintentional by presenting the examples that the enemies of Islam put forward to cast doubt on it, and she herself will be the best example to prove that!!
[1] Differences in Sana'a Manuscript No. 1
I have devoted an entire section in the book “Manuscripts of the Holy Qur’an and the New Testament, a Comparative Study” to prove that all the differences in the manuscript are nothing but spontaneous, unintended errors, in addition to a section that is anomalous readings that prove the reliability of the Qur’an and not the opposite. To view the study in detail, please read the book here.
[2] The differences presented by
Daniel Brubaker
Brubaker describes himself on his page as a "scholar" of early Quranic manuscripts. Brubaker provides YouTube videos of some of the discrepancies, which he wants to make viewers believe are deliberate, dangerous, and indicate that the Quranic text is unreliable. Many have taken to these discrepancies and have begun to repeat them. It is therefore necessary to present these discrepancies, which themselves prove what we have said: that all discrepancies are merely spontaneous.
]1Differences in the first episode :
A Sana'a manuscript from the late first century
Surah At-Tawbah: If you ask forgiveness for them seventy times , Allah will not forgive them (80)
Text of the manuscript: If you ask forgiveness for them, Allah will not forgive them .
Comment: The phrase (seventy times) is not found in the manuscript. The reason is that there was a mental confusion with the verse of the hypocrites number 6, which is similar to the verse of repentance 80, which led the copyist's mind to put the words of the verse of the hypocrites instead of repentance. Let us first put the verse of the Hypocrites with the verse in the manuscript:
The Hypocrites 6: Or do you not ask forgiveness for them? Allah will never forgive them.
Manuscript: If you ask forgiveness for them , Allah will not forgive them .
As you can see the similarity, there was confusion in the mind of the copyist between the verse of repentance and the verse of the hypocrites because there is a great similarity between them, which produced the text that we see. Now let us put the verse of repentance and the hypocrites:
At-Tawbah 80: Ask forgiveness for them or do not ask forgiveness for them. Even if you ask forgiveness for them seventy times, Allah will not forgive them. That is because they disbelieved in Allah and His Messenger. And Allah does not guide the wicked people.
The Hypocrites 6 : It is the same for them whether you ask forgiveness for them or do not ask forgiveness for them - Allah will not forgive them. Indeed, Allah does not guide the defiantly disobedient people.
As you can see, the wording is identical, and the underlined phrase in the two verses has the same meaning. What confirms that the reason for the deletion is mental confusion resulting from the similarity to the verse of the hypocrites is that the copyist of the manuscript even deleted the letter fa and did not stop at deleting (seventy times), as the word (lan) in the verse of repentance is preceded by the letter fa (falan): If you ask forgiveness for them seventy times , Allah will not forgive them. If he had any problem with the word (seventy times), why did he not just delete it and write the text like this: (If you ask forgiveness for them, Allah will not forgive them ), while keeping the letter fa in (falan)? Why was the letter Fa also deleted so that the phrase becomes ( If you ask forgiveness for them, Allah will not forgive them ) if the deletion was intentional?
There is no answer, but if the deletion was spontaneous and not intentional, then the answer is easy and clear, which is that the verse in Surat Al-Munafiqun does not contain the letter “fa” but rather it is “ La yaghfir Allah lahum ” not “falan.” So when the confusion occurred with the verse of Al-Munafiqun, his mind brought up the latter, so the text appeared without the letter “fa.”
]2[Differences in the second episode : -
MS.474.2003 Manuscript
(Q1/ Q2)
The copyist of this manuscript made some unintentional mistakes due to mental confusion, as he sometimes relied on his memory, especially at the end of verses, which are the places where memorizers make mistakes if they make any.
There are six lines of evidence that together indicate that the following differences are due to spontaneous mental confusion:
1- In verse 100 of Surat Al-An’am] Glory be to Him, and He is far above what they describe.[Written by the copyist as follows:They describe[As in the picture:
This is a clear indication of his reliance on his memory and mental confusion, as the word (yashir) indicates that he wanted to write (from what they associate), then he remembered the correct reading so he wrote (from what they describe) and the beginning of the word (yashir) remained next to it, as the expressions (Glory be to Him, and He is Most High, from what they describe) with its derivatives and (Glory be to Him, and He is Most High, from what they associate) have been mentioned many times in the Qur’an, and due to the similarity between them, the mind of the copyist confused them.
2- In the verses of Al-An’am 106:107
Follow what has been revealed to you from your Lord. There is no debt except Him. And turn away from the polytheists. And if Allah had willed, they would not have associated. And We have not made you over them a guardian, nor are you over them a disposer of affairs.
The copyist wrote ( And if Allah had willed, we would not have associated others with Him ) and this is a clear error that does not make the meaning correct, since the speech about the polytheists came in the third person form before the passage in question (And turn away from the polytheists) and after it ( And We have not made you a guardian over them, nor are you a disposer of affairs over them).
), it is not right for the verse to come in the first person on behalf of the polytheists (“ And if God had willed, we would not have associated ” ) , while what precedes and follows it is in the third person.
The reason for the error is a clear mental confusion with a verse that appears in the same Surah (Al-An'am 148): “ Those who associate others with God will say, ‘If God had willed, we would not have associated others with Him.’ “The similarity between “ If God had willed, we would not have associated others with Him ” and “ If God had willed, we would not have associated others with Him ” caused the copyist’s mind to confuse them.
This error could only have occurred as a result of a spontaneous mistake, because the result was an expression with an incomprehensible meaning, so it could not have been deliberate.
3- In verse 100 ( And they have attributed to Allah partners among the jinn ), the copyist wrote (And they have attributed to Allah partners among the jinn), then he erased the letter alif as in the picture:
Of course, reading before erasing the alif is meaningless, and this proves that the copyist was making unintentional mistakes in this paragraph.
4- All the differences were in the similarities, as the reader will see in detail.
5- All the differences are not supported by any other manuscript, which means that the difference dies where it is born and does not spread, because it is simply wrong.
6- All differences have no theological or doctrinal meaning or motive, so that it can be said that they are a deliberate distortion for a specific purpose.
Current reading | Reading the manuscript | Comment |
Al-An'am 99 Indeed, those are signs for people who believe. | There are indeed signs in that for you, if you should believe.  | The phrase (There is certainly a sign in that for you , if you are believers ) was mentioned 4 times. The phrase (signs for peoplewho believes ) was mentioned 5 times. ] Mind confusion[ |
Al-An'am 99 Then We brought forth from it greenery. | So we brought it out green  | The phrase (We brought it out) was mentioned with its derivatives 6 times. It was confused with (We brought him out of it). ] Mind confusion[ |
Al-An'am 106 Follow what has been revealed to you from your Lord. | Follow what is revealed to you from your Lord.  | The phrase (Follow what was revealed to you from your Lord) was mentioned twice, so it was confused with the phrase ( Follow what was revealed to you from your Lord)] Mind confusion[ |
Al-An'am 107 And if God had willed, he would not have anything associated with Him. | And if God had willed, we would not have anything associated with Him.  | (Al-An'am 107) ( If Allah had willed, I would not have associated anything with Him.) (Al-An'am 148) (If God had willed, we would not have associated Him with Him .)] Mind confusion[ |
Al-An'am 108 We have made fair-seeming to every nation their deeds. | We have made fair-seeming to every nation their deeds .  | (We made their deeds pleasing to them) was mentioned once (Satan made their deeds seem good to them) It was mentioned 4 times (The evil of what they have done has been made attractiveto them ) It was mentioned once So there was confusion between them and the verse. ] Mind confusion[ |
Al-An'am 110 And We leave them in their transition , wandering blindly. | And We leave them in their immersion , wandering blindly.  | ( Leave them in their confusion to play ) is mentioned in verse 91 of the same surah, so the confusion occurred due to the similarity.] Mind confusion[ |
]3Differences in the third episode :
MS.474.2003 Manuscript
(Q1/ Q2)
This episode is a continuation of Brubaker's talk about the same manuscript he talked about in the second episode, which is manuscript number MS.474.2003..
I had presented six pieces of evidence in response to the second part proving that the copyist of this manuscript made unintentional, spontaneous errors caused by mental confusion. Now I will present a seventh piece of evidence to support this:
Al-An'am 112} And thus We have made for every prophet an enemy - devils from mankind and jinn, inspiring one another with adorned speech to deceive. And if your Lord had willed, they would not have done it. So leave them and that which they invent.{As is clear from the picture, the copyist forgot to write the wordArrogance{ So he went back and wrote it again, and the reason he had forgotten it at first was the similarity between this passage and another passage in An-Nisa' 31:
Al-An'am: Some of them inspire others with adorned speech to deceive them.
Women: And if you could but see when the wrongdoers are made to stand before their Lord , returning the word to one another. Those who were oppressed will say,
The similarity between (some of them inspire others with adorned speech in delusion) and (some of them return to others with speech, saying) made him confuse them. And since the women's section does not contain the word (delusion) but ends with the word (speech), the copyist's mind omitted the word (speech), then he returned and remembered it and wrote it as it is clear in the picture.
The eighth proof:
There is evidence that the copyist was not spelling accurately, which lowers the index of the copyist's skill, competence and control and makes the possibility of accusing him of spontaneous error generally acceptable and high.
- exampleAl- An'am 116{ } They are only guessing.{The copyist wrote: ( They do nothing but lie). This is an indisputable mistake.
- exampleAl- An'am 121{ } And do not eat of that upon which the name of Allah has not been mentioned, for indeed, it is grave disobedience.{The copyist omitted the word (Allah) and wrote (what no name was mentioned on), then he realized and made a failed attempt to erase and rewrite what was omitted. See the picture:
Ninth evidence:
It is one of the clearest evidences of mental confusion, Al-An'am 115:
And the word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and justice. None can change His words, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing.{
This verse is similar to the verse in the same Surah Al-An'am 34:
} And there is no changing the words of Allah.{
The copyist's mind mixed them up and wrote the verse of Al-An'am in the following form (and there is no changing the words of Allah), where he replaced the word (his words) with the word (the words of Allah), then he noticed the mistake so he erased the open taa' (t) and replaced it with a closed taa' (h ) to change it to (his words), which is the correct pronunciation. See the picture:
You will notice the open taa with two dots in the background and then the closed taa above it.
Now we come to the points of difference:
]1[
- Al-An'am 112: ] And thus We have made for every prophet an enemy - devils from mankind and jinn, inspiring one another with adorned speech to receive. And if your Lord had willed, they would not have done it. So leave them and that which they invent. [
- Manuscript: An enemy from the devils of jinn and mankind
- Comment:
There is a similarity in the Qur'an between:
Al-An'am 112: And thus We have made for every prophet an enemy - devils from mankind and jinn.
Al-Furqan 31: And thus We have made for every prophet an enemy from among the criminals.
The copyist's mind confused them and his memory recalled the preposition (min) from the verse of Al-Furqan without intending to, so he added it to the verse of Al-An'am by mistake.
The expression (jinn and mankind) was mentioned in the Qur’an 9 times, and the expression (humans and jinn) was mentioned 3 times, and because of the similarity between them, the copyist’s mind confused them.
]2[ Al-An'am 114 } Should I seek other than God as a judge, while it is He who has sent down to you the Book in detail? {
- Manuscript:} Should I then seek a judge other than the religion of God?{
- Comment: There is a similarity between:-
Al-An'am 114: Should I then seek a judge other than God while He is the One Who
Al Imran 83: Do they then seek other than the religion of Allah, while to Him they have submitted [to Him]?
The similarity is clear in the words (afghair) (Allah) (yabghu-abtaghy), and there is another similarity in that both verses spoke about Allah in the third person immediately after mentioning the words (yabghu, abtaghy), so the verse of Al-An’am said (and He is the one) and the verse of Al-Imran said (and to Him), and this led the copyist to mix them up unintentionally, so he added the word (religion) from the verse of Al-Imran.
]3[ Al-An'am 115] } And those to whom We gave the Scripture know that it is sent down from your Lord in truth, so never be among the doubters.{
- Manuscript : The word ( in truth ) was deleted.
- Comment:
First: The method of expression] The revelation or coming of the book from God[It came often in the Qur'an, but it was sufficient in the form] Came or descended or came + from + your Lord or God[Without any comment or description of this revelation as having been revealed with truth, for example:
1- Al Imran 49 (I have come to you with a sign from your Lord, that I created)
2- Al Imran 50 (And I have come to you with a sign from your Lord, so fear Me.)
3- Al-Ma’idah 64 ( And what has been revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase many of them in transgression and disbelief .)
4- Al-Ma’idah 67 ( Convey what has been revealed to you from your Lord, even if you do not. )
5- Al-Ma’idah 68 ( Say, “O People of the Scripture, you are not upon anything until you uphold the Torah and the Gospel and what has been revealed to you from your Lord. And whathas been revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase many of them in transgression and disbelief .”)
6- Al-A’raf 3 ( Follow what has been revealed to you from your Lord and do not follow other protectors besides Him .)
7- Al-Ahzab 2 ( And follow what is revealed to you from your Lord. Indeed, God is ever, with what you do, Acquainted .)
A confusion occurred in the mind of the copyist, so he omitted the word (truth).
secondly:
There is a similarity between the verse of Al-An'am and the verse of Ar-Ra'd 36 in terms of wording and subject matter:
Al-An'am 115: And those to whom We gave the Scripture know that it is sent down from your Lord in truth.
Ar-Ra`d 36: And those to whom We gave the Scripture rejoice in what has been revealed to you.
As you can see, the verbal similarity is (and those to whom We gave the Scripture, you…), and (revealed, sent down), then the mention of an address to the Messenger of God immediately after that in both verses with the second person pronoun (your Lord, to you), and the only difference between the two verses is that the verse of Al-An’am contains the word (in truth), so the copyist’s mind brought to mind the verse of Al-Ra’d, which is devoid of this word, so the unintended confusion occurred and he omitted the word.
]4[ Al- An'am 113{ } And that the hearts of those who do not believe in the Hereafter may listen to it and be satisfied with it and commit what they are committing.{.
Written by the manuscript: (And let them invent what they invent)
- Al- An'am 120{ } They will be recompensed for what they used to do.{.
Written by the manuscript (They will be rewarded for what they fabricated)
Comment:
The expression (they fabricate) is mentioned in Surat Al-An'am alone 4 times:
1- See how they lied to themselves and what they used to invent was lost to them (24)
2- And thus We have made for every prophet an enemy - devils from mankind and jinn, inspiring one another with decorative speech in delusion. And if your Lord had willed, they would not have done it. So leave them and that which they invent . (112)
3- And thus their partners have made the killing of their children seem attractive to many of the polytheists, in order to destroy them and confuse them with their religion. And if God had willed, they would not have done it. So leave them and that which they invent. (137)
4- And they said, “These are livestock and crops forbidden to eat except whomever we please,” according to their claim. “And livestock whose backs are forbidden, and livestock over which they do not mention the name of God,” falsely accusing Him. He will recompense them for what they used to invent. (138)
This is not repeated 19 times in other surahs of the Qur'an. Let us place the two texts as they appear in the manuscript next to the four verses:
- The manuscript (They will be rewarded for what they fabricated)/(And let them invent what they invent)
- Al-An'am (what they used to invent)/(So leave them and what they invent)/(So leave them and what they invent)/(He will recompense them for what they used to invent.)
The similarity between (and let them commit what they commit) and (and let them invent what they invent) and the frequency of the occurrence of the word (invention) in Surat Al-An'am itself (4 times) led to the copyist's mind retaining the word (invention) and the style (because of what they invent) and recalling it in similar forms here in these two verses.
]5[ Al- An'am 121{ } And do not eat of that upon which the name of Allah has not been mentioned, for indeed, it is grave disobedience. And indeed, the devils inspire their allies to dispute with you. And if you obey them, indeed, you would be polytheists.{.
- Manuscript: It is written (then you are indeed wicked) instead of (then you are indeed polytheists)
- Comment:
The phrase (you) + (to argue with you) led containing the copyist to recall another verse (argument) + (you), which is Surat An-Nisa' 140:
(And He has already revealed to you in the Book that when you hear the verses of Allah being deniedand ridiculed, then do not sit with them until they engage in another conversation. Indeed , you would like them. Indeed, Allah will gather the hypocrites and the disbelievers into Hell, all together .)
So speaking of disbelief, mockery, and delving into the verses of God = a false argument, with the presence of (you) leading to the copyist's mind being brought up and confused with (your permission then) from the verse of An-Nisa instead of (you) in the verse of Al-An'am by mistake.
Then, the verse of Al-An'am that is under discussion itself (121) contains the word (fasq) and in view of the fact that many verses in the Qur'an end with the word (fasqoon), these two reasons made the mind of the copyist bring to mind the word (fasqoon) instead of (mushrikoon).
[4] Episode 4 Differences
The summary of Brubaker's problem in this episode is that he saw that there were many corrections made to the words derived from the root (Rizq) in many manuscripts in different verses of different surahs. Brubaker did not explain the meaning of that nor the conclusion that we should draw from it, and the reason, in my opinion, is that he knows that the conclusion he wants to reach will be unable to answer the problems that will be faced.
He wants to convey to the recipient that there is a systematic distortion of words that have the root (rizq), but he knows that he will face the following questions:
1- Why would someone decide to distort the word (Rizq) in the first place?
2- Why did the author change the word (Rizq) in verse such and such of Surah such and such specifically, and leave out the word (Rizq) and its derivatives that were mentioned in the rest of the Surahs in the same manuscript?
Brubaker provided 10 examples of this, in addition to 6 other examples of what he described as words close in meaning to the root (rizq) and also in which there are corrections.
The kind reader will see that what Brubaker presented was not divided into two parts:
(1) A section that is not corrections and does not show signs of erasure and rewriting, but for some reason Brubaker considered them corrections!
(2) This section is actually corrections, but its cause is clear, which is natural spontaneous copying errors, as I will explain in detail.
Before I start listing the examples Brubaker gave, I want to say that the number Brubaker gave (10 examples) does not indicate anything systematic, as there are many examples of specific words in which the error was repeated in the manuscripts, and even in the same manuscript. I am not saying here that the same error was repeated, as this has never occurred and will never occur in the manuscripts of the Qur’an. The Qur'an has a precise text, and its text is not so fragile that the same error is repeated in it twice or more. Rather, I am saying that there are specific words in various places in the Qur’an in which the error was repeated by the copyists, which means that there was no deliberate intention. Let us take the following examples:
[1] Creation:
In manuscript No. BnF Arabic 340, in the same Surah (Ar-Rum), the copyist made two mistakes in two words from the root (Kh-LQ), and a third time in Surah Luqman:
Ar-Rum 40 ( It is Allah who created you , then provided for you, then will cause you to die, then will bring you to life. Is there any of your associates who does any of that? Glory be to Him, and He is far above what they associate with Him.)
Ar-Rum 30 ( So direct your face toward the religion, inclining to truth. [Adhere to] the nature of Allah upon which He has created mankind. No change should be there in the creation of Allah. That is the right religion, but most of the people do not know.)
Luqman 10 ( He created the heavens without pillars that you can see, and He placed firm mountains on the earth, only they should shake with you.)
[2] The word (Allah):
There were several errors in writing the word (Allah) in different surahs. Here are 6 examples:
[3] The words Moses and Pharaoh:
These two words were written incorrectly several times in different surahs. Here are some examples:
These examples are from only 3 manuscripts, while the examples Brubaker cited are from many manuscripts. I mean that it is not difficult to find a certain word in which several errors occurred in different places in different manuscripts. Therefore, the number (10) should not be interpreted as indicating the presence of a premeditated intention for systematic change.
The most important point I want to point out is:
When these people felt it was important to find a reading that differed from the current text, supported by more than one manuscript, and they felt that citing individual readings - which I mentioned in the introduction - does not prove distortion, and they searched but did not find any, they had no choice but to use examples of spontaneous copying errors that the copyists corrected!! Even this would not help them, because a single spontaneous error that occurs in a specific word in a specific verse in a specific surah is never repeated. For example, Brubaker believes that there was a correction process that occurred to the word (Rizq) in manuscript number 341 in Surah Al-Baqarah, verse number 60. This correction is not found in any other manuscript, so it is also an individual correction !
So what did Brubaker do? He came up with another example of another correction of the word (Rizq) in another place in another verse in another Surah in another manuscript, forgetting that this (otherness) opens the door to coincidence, as by possible coincidence more than one copyist could have made a mistake in the word (Allah) in different places in different Surahs, since it is:
1- A common word
2-Manuscripts are many, in other words (production processes are many)
3- There are many copyists.
The possibility of an error occurring and being repeated in something common during several production processes (several manuscripts) by many people is very likely, and I have demonstrated this with the previous models, which are preliminary models. Anyone who wants to make the issue his goal and purpose can make a comparison between dozens of manuscripts, as Brubaker did, and not three manuscripts, as I did, and he will come out with great results that prove the possibility of this happening by chance.
So the most the man did to respond to the problem of (individual readings unable to compete) was to use (different individual corrections of the same word).
So, it must be noted that the response to the challenge of (individual readings) is not by finding corrections, but by finding distortions, and it is not by finding examples of changes to the same word in different texts, but rather to the same word in the same text, that is, in the same textual problem (the same unit of variation), so that we do not give an opportunity to interpret the matter as a coincidence.
Now let's come to the examples the man gave:
* The first example:
Manuscript No. BnF arabe 341 from the 2nd century AD (according to Brubaker).
Al-Baqarah 60:
(Eat and drink from the provision of Allah and do not commit abuse on the earth, spreading corruption.)
Daniel Brubaker puts forward:
Brubaker believes that the letter Qāf in the word (rizq) was erased and rewritten by the original copyist:
His evidence is the remains of ink found on the right side of the letter Qaf from above.
And I say:
1- What was the letter that was written before that letter and that he deliberately erased and wrote the letter Qāf instead? Provided that this letter is also its lower part, its written in the same way as the letter Qāf 
, because the lower part of this letter in the manuscript was not erased. Rather, what was erased only, according to Brubaker and according to the remains of the ink, is the upper part of the letter (the Qāf circle).
, because the lower part of this letter in the manuscript was not erased. Rather, what was erased only, according to Brubaker and according to the remains of the ink, is the upper part of the letter (the Qāf circle).It is impossible to guess which other letter was written first before the letter Qāf and it is written in the same way as Qāf from the bottom except for the letter Fā, and then the word will have no meaning, so what is the meaning of (Razf)?! If it was (Razf) then he would not have had to erase it at all because Qāf and Fā are written in the same way, and thus there is no intention to erase a letter for some purpose in this matter if we say that there is a process of erasing and rewriting.
2- The matter is simply that this ink is nothing but remnants of the writing on the back of the page. The word on the back of the word (Rizq) on the previous page is the word (Binma) from the Almighty's saying (Because they were wicked):
As you can see, the amount of ink used in the letter m and the size of the letter m in the word (bima) which is located directly on the back of the word (rizq) is large enough to allow for the occurrence of sedimentation and protrusion. I do not think it is a coincidence that the letter located on the back of the letter qaf specifically is a round letter like qaf such that nothing of its sedimentation appears on the back of the paper except what is more than the circle of qaf opposite the circle of m.
The deposits of writing on the back of the paper appear frequently in many places in manuscripts, such as:
* The second example:
The famous Topkapi Saray manuscript from the middle of the second century AH:
Al-Baqarah 25:
(Whenever they are provided with a fruit therefrom as provision, they say, “This is what we were provided with before.”)
The copyist wrote the word (rizqā) by writing (riz) on the line and writing (qā) above the line like this:
It is not difficult to imagine the reason for this behavior. It was simply an accidental mistake. The man forgot to write the letters (qa) and did not find room for them on the line, so he wrote them a little above the word. Simply like that, because the word (raz) has no meaning in classical Arabic. Brubaker himself knows this very well, and he said that it was indeed an accidental, unintentional copying error. He stated this in an interrogative form, saying:
[Is this a simple typo due to the repetition of the drawing of (fa)?]
[Was this a simple scribal mistake due to the repeat of the rasm form FA?]
Corrections involving the word rizq (provision) in early Qurʾans Daniel A. Brubaker / IQSA, November 2016, p.4.
In turn, I asked him, "If it wasn't a simple copying error, then what could it be? And why didn't you provide the other explanation that you see as possible?"
* The third example:
Manuscript NLR Marcel 8 from the late first century
Al-A'raf 160:
And We divided them into twelve tribes, nations. And We inspired Moses when his people asked him for water, “Strike the stone with your staff.” Then twelve springs gushed forth from it. Each people knew their drinking place. And We shaded them with clouds and sent down upon them manna and quails, saying, “Eat from the good things We have provided for you.” And they did not wrong Us, but they were wronging themselves. They are unjust
In the space between (their drink...and they did not wrong us) there are traces of erasure, and above it the copyist wrote the passage ( And We shaded them with clouds and sent down upon them manna and quails, [saying], “Eat from the good things We have provided for you .” It is noticeable that the area of the erasure is exactly the same as the area of the passage written above it, without the slightest increase or decrease.
Brubaker's proposal:
He didn't make a proposal!! He just mentioned that there was a process of deleting and rewriting!!
And I say:
How can the process of erasing and rewriting a passage consisting of (12 words + 3 conjunctions) mean only one word (Rizqnakum)?
For example, if we imagine the reason is that the word (Razqnakum) was not written before the erasure, meaning that the text before the erasure was 11 words + 3 conjunctions, so it was erased and rewritten in order to add it, we say that:
1- The scanning area is exactly the same as the size of the text consisting of 12 words, not 11. Also, the space between the words is normal and does not show any attempts to narrow or reduce the space to accommodate an extra word. This means that we do not notice any attempt to reduce the size of the letters. Therefore, the text before and after scanning must be 12 words.
2- If the word (Razqnakum) was not written before the erasure, and we will assume that it was intentional, then the meaning at that time would not be linguistically correct, as it is not linguistically correct to say (Eat from the good things), and even if we accept its correctness, it is not from the style of the Qur’an, and the author’s style is an indication of the indications of preference for scholars of textual recovery criticism, and they call it intrinsic stylistic probability.
3- The logical explanation for what happened is that the copyist had a mental confusion caused by the errors of the memorizers. Because of the similarity between this passage and verse 57 of Surat Al-Baqarah, the copyist's mind mistakenly recalled a passage from the verse of Al-Baqarah, and when he realized it, he was forced to rewrite the entire passage.
Let's write the two syllables:
Al-Baqarah 57: And We shaded you with clouds and sent down to you manna and quails, [saying], “Eat from the good things We have provided for you.” And they did not wrong Us, but it was they who wronged themselves.
Al-A'raf 160 : And We shaded them with clouds and sent down upon them manna and quails, [saying], “Eat from the good things We have provided for you .” And they did not wrong Us, but it was they who wronged themselves.
What happened is that the copyist replaced the letter ha' in (alayhim al-ghamām) and (alayhim al-manna) in Al-A'raf with the letter kaf in (alaykum al-ghamām) and (alaykum al-manna) in Al-Baqarah. Then he had no choice but to erase the entire paragraph and rewrite it again. This explains why the written text after erasing matches the erased space and the space between (mashrabhim...and ma dhalamuna), since replacing the letter kaf with the letter ha' will not change the length of the word.
* Fourth example:
Manuscript No. MIA.2014.491 , Brubaker says he photographed it from the Museum of Islamic Art in Doha.
Al-Anfal 3 (Those who establish prayer and spend from what We have provided them )
We see from the picture that the phrase ( and from what We have provided them they spend ) is written on an erased area, and we notice that the erased area is larger than the area of the phrase ( and from what We have provided them they spend ), which means that the erased text was longer than this phrase.
Brubaker's proposal:
He did not provide anything to prove that there was a deliberate change in the wording ( We provided them ), he was only interested in proving that the one who wrote the phrase ( and from what We provided them they spent ) was someone other than the original copyist. Brubaker says:
[I see this writing - not in the original scribe's handwriting. Because of the style of the script (note the angle, note the angle at the base of the alif in writing “mma”), the darker ink, and the narrower nib .]
[I judge this not to be the work of the original scribe, because of the script style (note in particular the angle at the base of the ʾālif of mi-mā), and the darker ink and slightly narrower nib.]
Corrections involving the word rizq (provision) in early Qurʾans Daniel A. Brubaker / IQSA, November 2016, p.6.
And I say:
1- Why doesn't Parker photograph the entire page or several pages for us so we can see the original copyist's writing style and compare it to the writing style of this phrase? This image of the manuscript from the Doha Library is not available to everyone.
Why did he not provide us with a table showing the images of the letter Alif in the rest of the manuscript compared to that Alif in that paragraph?
2- This slight difference does not necessarily mean that there is a difference in the copyists, as such a simple deviation from the usual pattern is possible for any copyist. A sudden slight tremor in the hand is sufficient to cause a small, unintended protrusion in the letter.
If we follow this exaggerated and contrived approach that Parker followed, we can extract from the same phrase differences in the writing style. Note, for example, the difference in the size of the circles of the letters fa and qaf in (yanfaqoon):
Note the difference between the size of the second meem circle in ( w-ma-ma ) and the meem in ( r-zaqnahum ):
As for the darker ink, Brubaker should show us the rest of the page so we can judge. I think he deliberately photographed just that line and not the rest of the page to prevent us from doing so.
3- Brubaker did not provide any evidence of any action that suggests the intentional concealment of the word (Rizqnahum ), only a process of erasure and rewriting. How does he know that the text before erasure did not contain, for example, the word ( Rizqnahum )?
4- The explanation that explains everything simply is that the copyist had a mental confusion, and he confused this verse ( those who establish prayer and spend from what We have provided them ) with the many other verses in the Quran that say ( those who establish prayer and give zakat) because of the clear similarity between them, so he wrote the second text which has an extra phrase ( and give zakat ), a well-known memorization error, then later he noticed the mistake and was forced to erase the paragraph and rewrite the correct paragraph which is shorter than the old paragraph by the amount of the phrase ( and give zakat ).
The reader will notice that the number of words in the first line = 6
(On their Lord rely those who establish prayer)
The number of words in the third line also = 6
(Those are the true believers. They will have degrees.)
Therefore, the average number of words in a line = 6, which is approximately the average we would find if the phrase before scanning in the second line was (and they give zakat and from what we have provided them they spend) with an average of “5 words + a conjunction”
*Example 5:
Manuscript No. ( Ṣanāʿā muṣḥaf sharīf, 81v)
Al-Anfal 26: (So He gave you shelter and supported you with His victory and provided you with good things.)
We notice from the image that the red section in the verse (So He sheltered you and supported you with His victory and provided for you from the good things) is written in a smaller font than what comes before and after it, which indicates that a process of erasing and rewriting has taken place.
Brubaker's proposal:
Brubaker did not provide any evidence that the text before the scanning was free of the word (Rizqkum) or anything that would indicate a problem with the text before the scanning.
And I say:
We are facing a visual error among the famous copyists' errors called (Homeoteluton), which means the error of similar endings that I mentioned at the beginning of the research. I will redraw the details of what happened to the honorable reader.
We notice that the first part of the word (Fawakum) (Faw) is written in capital letters, and the rest of the word is written in small letters:
The reader will also notice that the word (min) is written with a capital letter, unlike what precedes it:
Accordingly, the passage before the scan was located between (fa-aw...) and (min al-tayyibat), this is first.
Secondly, we also find from the picture that the average number of words in one line = 5:6 words, and based on that, the passage before scanning must consist of 3 words, because the number of words already present in the third line (the line being searched) is 3, so the total becomes 6. These words are (how many...of the good things), the word (how many) is the remainder of the word (fawa) written at the end of the line directly before it.
Accordingly, the line in question began with the word (kam), as the word (fa'awakum) was present before and after the erasure, as evidenced by the fact that half of it remained written in large print, meaning that it had been written before the erasure, and then its second half was modified after the erasure simply to reduce its size, not to create it after it had not been there.
What happened is that the copyist wrote the line in question like this:
He omitted the word (bansara) due to a visual error that caused the similarity between the endings of the words (ayd kam ) and (rizq kam ). After he wrote the word (aydkum) and looked back at the copy to write and read what came after it, his eye fell by mistake on (kam) in (rizq kam), so he omitted what came before it (bansara).
Thus, the number of words in the searched line = 5 words, which is the same as the average number of words in the lines available in the image. This is third.
Then, fourthly and finally, when he noticed that there was a missing word (bansara), he was forced to erase the phrase and rewrite it in a narrow line, while moving the two letters (kam) of the word (fa'awakum) to the line before the line being searched for by erasing them and rewriting them in a smaller line next to (fa'aw).
So the gist of what happened:
(Because of the similar endings, the copyist made a mistake and omitted the word “bansarah,” so he rewrote it after erasing the paragraph.) Nothing more, nothing less.
*Example 6:
Ibrahim 32 (And He brought forth thereby fruits as provision for you)
As usual, Brubaker presented the image without bothering to serve his idea. What is the manifestation of hostility towards the word (Rizqan)?!!
As usual, he presented a small image so as not to give the reader a chance - so it seems - to make a visual comparison between the words and letters on the page. The image presented above is my image, while the image he presented in his article is this:
Let's guess the problem for its author!! Is the problem that the letters (RZ) appear in darker ink than the rest of the words? Did this, for example, lead Brubaker to believe that the word is a genitive word? Why is the rest of the word (QA) written in regular, non-dark ink if the word is a genitive word? The word is written on two lines, and after merging them, the word will become like this:
The theory of (the word being added) fails to explain why the second syllable comes in a non-dark ink, in an ink similar to what comes before and after it. Why did the syllable (qa) come in a light ink if the dark color indicates that the word is added?
Second: If the darkness of the ink indicates an addition, then the only addition is the dark (rice) and not the light (qa), so tell me what is the meaning of (from the fruits qa for you)?!!!
Third: The issue is simply that the ink used settles at varying degrees of heaviness, and this explains the difference in the degree of color of the syllable (Qa) itself, so you find the upper part tending towards yellow and the lower part tending towards dark.
These are pictures of some pages and words from the manuscript so that you can see for yourself the ink camouflage and the variation in its settling between word and word and letter and letter:-
Notice here that there are full dark lines and full light lines.
Fourth: We can find another explanation for the darkness other than that the word is inserted. The issue of the word being inserted is completely negated due to the presence of a light-colored syllable (Qā). The other explanation is that someone has passed over the faded letters to reveal them in what is called inking.
No extra letters were written, only the old ones were inked. See the following picture. You will find that the inking process actually took place in the manuscript, and you will find traces of the old letters still present. The only thing there is that the proofreader ran over them with heavy ink to make them appear after they had become faded.
* The seventh example:-
Manuscript No. BnF Arabic 330
Cave 19:
(So let him see which food is best and bring you provision from it, and let him be gentle and not let anyone know about you.)
We'll, of course, guess what the problem is on the man's behalf! It seems he considered the small spaces between words in verse 19 to be a sign of deliberate cramming, and thus a sign of inserting words into the text that needed extra space, hence the cramming.
And I say:
The number of words in the searched line = 9 words, and the number of its letters = 35 letters.
These numbers are within the normal range for the average number of words and letters in a single line in this manuscript. To determine the average number of letters and words, I specifically chose the lines with a large red circle, such as this one in the line under study:
So that no one can claim that the presence of such a circle in the line led to a reduction in the space remaining for letters, I wanted to compare lines with the same transcription conditions. The result was that the number of words in the lines with large red circles ranged between [7:10] words per line, with an average of 8 words per line, and the number of letters ranged between [29:35] with an average of 33 letters per line.
The numbers of the line under study [35|9] are within the range of those numbers and that is average, so there is no accumulation.
Second, we see no traces of any erasure, meaning that the word is native to the text and was not inserted. Therefore, the text didn't need to be overwritten because it already knew of the word's presence and would have given it its natural space. Someone who overwrites and reduces the size of words to increase the number of words in a single text needs to make room for words that were not intended to be added to the text. This is not available in our case, as the word was included from the beginning, as evidenced by the absence of any erasures in the text.
*Example 8:-
Manuscript No. BnF Arabic 340
Surah Ar-Rum 40 (Allah is He who created you, then provided for you, then will cause you to die, then will bring you to life. Is there any of your associates who does any of that? Glory be to Him, and He is far above what they associate with Him.)
Brubaker, without stating, of course, that the passage before the anointing was hostile to (rizq) and did not contain the word (rizqkum), without providing any evidence for that.
And I say that there is no premeditated intention towards (your provision), all that there is is that a mistake occurred in the similar endings homeoteluton due to the presence of 4 consecutive words all ending with the same syllable in addition to two other separate words at the end of the verse, so we have in the verse 6 words ending with the syllable ( how much ) [He created how much , He provided how much , He causes how much to die, He gives how much to live, … your partners , how much ], this led to dropping one of them, then during the review the mistake became clear so he rewrote the dropped word.
Secondly, there are many words in the manuscript that contain the root (rzq), so why didn't the original copyist delete them if he had a position on the root (rizq)? Why this particular word in the Romans? What's even more strange is that only three verses before this verse (verse 37) the word (rizq) appears in the handwriting of the original copyist!! So where are the attempts at erasure that we should be convinced that the original copyist was making?!!
These are some examples of words from the root (Rizq) that appear in the manuscript:
Surah Hud 6: ( And there is no creature on earth but that upon Allah is its provision , and He knows its place of dwelling and place of storage. All is in a clear register.)
Surah Hud 88: ( He said, “O my people, have you considered: if I am upon clear evidence from my Lord and He has provided me from Him a good provision?”)
Surah Ar-Rum 37: ( Have they not seen that Allah extends provision to whom He wills and restricts it? Indeed in that are signs for a people who believe.)
Surah As-Sajdah 16: ( Their sides forsake their beds to invoke their Lord in fear and hope, and they spend from what We have provided them.)
Surah Saba - That He may reward those who believe and do righteous deeds. For them is forgiveness and noble provision . (4)
Surah Saba - There was a sign for Sheba in their dwelling place - two gardens on the right and on the left. Eat from the provision of your Lord and be grateful to Him. A good land and a Forgiving Lord. (15)
Surah Saba - Say: Who provides for you from the heavens and the earth? Say: God. And indeed, either we or you are upon right guidance or in manifest error. (24)
Surah Saba - Say: “Indeed, my Lord extends provision to whom He wills and restricts it, but most of the people do not know.” (36)
Surah Saba - Say: “Indeed, my Lord extends provision to whom He wills of His servants and restricts it for whomever He wills. And whatever you spend, He will replace it. And He is the best of providers. ” (39)
Surah Ghafir - It is He who shows you His signs and sends down to you provision from the sky. And none will remember except he who turns [to Allah] (13)
Surah Ghafir - Whoever does an evil deed will not be recompensed except with the like thereof. And whoever does righteousness, whether male or female, while he is a believer - those will enter Paradise and will be provided for therein without account (40)
Surah Ghafir - Allah is the one who made for you the earth a resting place and the sky a canopy and shaped you and perfected your shapes and provided for you the good things. That is Allah, your Lord, so blessed is Allah, Lord of the worlds. (64)
* Ninth example:-
Manuscript No. ( MS.225.2007) from the Museum of Islamic Art in Doha, and the photo was taken by Brubaker himself, as he says.
Surah Ash-Shura 38:
( And those who have responded to their Lord and established prayer and whose affair is [determined by] consultation among themselves and from what We have provided them, they spend.)
Image as provided by Brubaker:
Brubaker says:
[There is a correction in this word. It seems that there is a process of erasing ( FB ) and writing ( FBA) in order to add a long vowel in “Rizqnahum”]
[42:38. MS.225.2007. there is a correction of this word, but it in this case looks like an erasure of FB and overwriting of FBA in order to add the long vowel to razaqnāhum.]
Corrections involving the word rizq (provision) in early Qurʾans Daniel A. Brubaker / IQSA, November 2016, p.9.
As usual, although Brubaker knows that almost no one has pictures of this manuscript, and that he is almost the only one on the Internet who has talked about it, which means that everyone needs a large picture that includes a few pages and texts so that they can judge the problem, he insisted, as usual, on presenting a small picture of the word without photographing a few lines before or after it, and I believe that he does this when showing the lines before and after it is against his proposal and demolishes it.
The importance of showing an area of the paper is that it helps us compare the original handwriting to see if there is another handwriting and thus another copyist who made a correction or not. It also helps in revealing whether there have been erasures or not by comparing the color of the area being searched with the rest of the paper, and through the average number of words and letters as we explained in the previous examples.
From the part of the manuscript we have, or rather from the scrap that Brubaker cut out, we can see nothing! I don't see any erasure or rewriting of anything!
All letters are original and there is no problem with them.
If someone wanted to point out the dark color next to the letter Qaf, I would say that it is most likely due to dirt that usually sticks to the paper or color changes that occur in some places on the paper over time. We cannot be certain of this or its opposite except by seeing other pages of the manuscript to make a comparison.
Brubaker did not mention what the word was before the alleged modification so that we can decipher what he meant by the phrase ( an erasure of FB and overwriting of FBA). I don't know what he means by FB and FBA!
I think he meant that the word before the amendment was (and from what We have provided them they spend) and then it became (and from what We have provided them they spend), and he did not provide us with evidence for that.
Then he did not explain to us whether this was the work of the original copyist or a later change.
Then he did not provide any evidence that the matter happened for the purpose of distortion, in other words he did not provide the distortionary motive. What did the distorter see in the word (Rizqnahum) that made him afraid of it and decided to change it to the second, for example (Rizqnahum), or the opposite, that the writer of the erased text refused to write (Rizqnahum) deliberately because he was afraid of something.
Thus, if we accept the existence of a process of erasure and rewriting, the reason will not be (deliberate distortion for some purpose), as there is no justification for that. Rather, the justification will simply be a spontaneous error caused by mental confusion between the similarities (“and of what We have provided them”) which occurred 13 times in the Qur’an, and (“of what We have provided them”) which occurred 8 times. Then the man corrected his mistake when he became clear on the right path, and God is ever Appreciative and All-Knowing.
I ask Brubaker:
In Surat Ash-Shura, from which you cited verse 38, words derived from the root (rzq) were mentioned 3 other times, namely verses 12, 17, and 27. Did any tampering occur in them by erasing and rewriting?
Certainly not, otherwise Brubaker would not have hesitated to submit it, and how could he, when he is the one who wanders among the manuscripts, as we see, searching for any scratch next to a word from the root (rzq) to interpret it as an erasure and modification for a dishonorable purpose! Therefore, the logical question is:
Why did the copyist leave out those other examples if he had some position on the word (rzq)?
* The tenth example:-
Manuscript No. Sanāʿā muṣḥaf sharīf, 262
Surah Adh-Dhariyat 57 ( I do not want from them any provision, nor do I want them to feed Me.)
Brubaker's proposal:
(There is an insertion of a form of the letter Ra, the text says “I do not want from them any provision, nor do I want them to feed me,” indicating that God does not need anything from His creation, whether jinn or human.)
(On the Sanāʿā muṣḥaf sharīf, 262r, an insertion of one of the R letter forms Verse reads 'I do not desire provision from them, and I do not want them to feed me,' referring to the fact that Allah
has no need of anything from those whom he created, whether jinn or men.).
Corrections involving the word rizq (provision) in early Qurʾans Daniel A. Brubaker / IQSA, November 2016, p.9.
The image provided by Brubaker shows no additions or deletions. The word must be compared to the rest of the manuscript to determine whether it resembles the erased words that have been rewritten, or whether it resembles words that have partially worn away or have some of the ink in the letters naturally worn away due to time, friction between the papers, etc. Time, friction between the papers, repeated touching, and the thinness of the paper in some places can lead to natural abrasions, not caused by someone, and sometimes to the interaction of the ink with the paper.
I think he only showed a small part of the page image to prevent this comparison.
Conclusion:-
[1] Brubaker did not provide an explanation for this phenomenon.
[2] No one can interpret it as a systematic distortion for reasons:
1- There is no motive behind the distortion.
2- There is no single model for distorting one of them supported by more than one manuscript (they are all individual readings, as usual)
3- The copyist did not change all the examples of the word, but only changed (if it is correct to call it a change) one instance and left the rest. If he was afraid of this word, he would have removed it from all its examples.
[3] There is a difference between (deliberate variations) and (correcting unintentional transcriptional errors), and Brubaker's examples belong to the second category.
[4] A model of (various individual corrections of the same word and its derivatives in different places) is not sufficient to destroy the challenge of (individual readings), but rather it must be a model of (deliberate distortion of the same word in the same textual problem).
.png)
Comments
Post a Comment