Have any verses of the Quran been changed or altered over time?
Executive summary
Scholarly and popular sources in the provided set converge on one central fact: mainstream Muslim belief and many Islamic institutions maintain that the Qur’an’s text has been preserved without substantive alteration, citing early standardization under Uthman and the oral memorization tradition [1] [2]. Critics and some historical studies point to variant readings, early manuscript differences (e.g., Sanaa), and reports in medieval sources about omitted or disputed passages — issues scholars treat as minor orthographic, recitational, or historiographical disputes rather than wholesale corruption [3] [4] [5].
1. What believers and traditional histories say: canonical preservation
Islamic apologetic and mainstream sites argue the Qur’an was compiled and fixed early: companions collected written fragments and memorizers preserved recitation; Uthman’s recension produced a standardized mushaf and allegedly removed divergent written copies to prevent factional splits — evidence cited as proof of preservation [1] [2]. Organizations like Islamicity and About Islam emphasize meticulous compilation practices (Zaid ibn Thabit’s work, isnads, and mass memorization) as preventing textual change [1] [6].
2. What critics and some historians point to: variants, manuscripts and contested reports
External critics and critical-historical scholars note disagreements among early companions, variant readings (qirāʾāt), and manuscript evidence that does not perfectly match the later Uthmanic orthography. Works cited in the searchable set reference debates about change in recitation, uneven stylistic features that some interpret as signs of editorial activity, and the Sanaa manuscript differences used by commentators to argue for at least word‑level modifications [4] [3] [7].
3. The scale of differences: orthography and readings vs. “lost” or “removed” verses
Sources in the set distinguish between types of variation. Most academic overviews and defenders argue surviving differences are largely orthographic (vowel markings, spelling) or represent multiple authorized recitational systems rather than added/removed theology-bearing verses [5] [2]. Claims that large portions (e.g., “25% omitted”) were deliberately excised appear in polemical accounts or older secondary sources but lack consensus support in the modern scholarship referenced here [8] [5].
4. The contested anecdotes: “Satanic verses,” Ibn Mas‘ud, and Ali’s codex
Several early narratives — the so‑called “Satanic verses” episode, reports attributed to Ibn Masʿud, and claims about Ali’s codex containing different material — show that disagreements existed about transmission details. Scholarly summaries in the set treat these stories as debated, often speculative, and not proof of systematic corruption; defenders call such reports disputed or rejected by early authorities [2] [5] [8].
5. Manuscript evidence: what the Sanaa and other early codices show
The provided sources note that some early manuscripts (for example, Sanaa) exhibit textual readings diverging from the later canonical Uthmanic text, which has led to scholarly discussion about the existence of variants and “abrogated recitations.” Critics cite those divergences as evidence of textual change; defenders argue variants reflect qirāʾāt or scribal differences that do not alter the Qur’an’s core message [3] [5].
6. How scholars frame the core question: “changed” depends on definition
A key fault line in the sources is definitional: “changed” to believers means any corruption of meaning or removal of verses; many defenders deny this and insist only minor orthographic or recitational variance exists [1] [2]. Critics use broader criteria — stylistic inconsistencies, variant codices, and disputed reports — to argue for historical alteration [7] [4]. Both sides appear in the available reporting.
7. Limitations, open questions and what the provided sources do not settle
Available sources do not present a single definitive manuscript study that settles every variant issue; detailed paleographic and critical editions (beyond summaries cited) are not in this set. The sources do not uniformly quantify how many words or verses differ between specific early codices and the standard Uthmanic text; for that level of granularity, specialized manuscript publications would be necessary (not found in current reporting) [3] [5].
8. Bottom line for readers
If your working definition of “changed” requires deliberate, large‑scale removal or theological corruption of the Qur’an, the sources collected here show no consensus proof of that; mainstream accounts argue preservation through early compilation and memorization [2] [1]. If “changed” includes scribal spellings, alternate early recitational systems, and debated medieval reports, the historical record includes such variants and disputes that scholars continue to examine [3] [4] [5].