Have any verses of the Quran been changed since Muhammad's death?
Executive summary
Scholarly and religious sources diverge: mainstream Muslim accounts say the Quran’s text has remained unchanged since a standardized codex was produced under Caliph ʿUthmān and that memorization and early compilation prevented alterations [1] [2] [3]. Critics and some academics point to early variant codices, differing recitations, and reports in Islamic tradition about lines or verses known to some companions but not preserved in the canonical muṣḥaf as evidence that the textual history is more complex [4] [5] [6].
1. What the traditional Muslim narrative asserts — preservation by compilation and memory
Sunni traditional accounts say the Quran was collected into a single book soon after Muhammad’s death, first under Abu Bakr and later standardized under Caliph ʿUthmān; believers argue that both the written codex and mass memorization (hifz) safeguarded the wording so “its transcription and its letters never changed since then” [1] [2] [3].
2. The canonical standardization under Uthmān — one decision, wide effect
Historical summaries note that about twenty years after Muhammad’s death a standard edition—the Uthmānic codex—was prepared and copies were sent to major centers while other incomplete or variant versions were reportedly ordered destroyed; this act is the decisive moment cited for why the extant muṣḥaf became normative [6] [7].
3. Evidence cited by critics — variant codices and recitations
Non‑orthodox critics and some scholars emphasize that several early codices and spoken readings (qirāʾāt) existed — codices attributed to figures such as Ibn Masʿūd or Ubay ibn Kaʿb — and that surviving manuscript evidence and reports point to “differences” in readings and textual forms that complicate claims of a single, unchanged text from day one [5] [6] [4].
4. Reported instances in Islamic tradition that raise questions
Classical hadith reports cited by critics recount episodes—such as companions remembering a verse about stoning or reports that certain lines were lost or even eaten by an animal—that commentators interpret as indicating that some recited material did not survive into the canonical muṣḥaf, a point raised in both critical treatments and in some summaries that acknowledge these traditions [5] [8] [4].
5. How proponents explain the variants — orthography, dialects, and recitation systems
Apologists and many Muslim scholars accept that early fragments and differences are primarily orthographic (spelling), diacritical, or dialectal variants of authorized recitations (qirāʾāt) that do not alter doctrinal meaning; they argue those are not “changes” in the sense of doctrinal corruption but expected features of an oral‑written emergence [1] [3] [9].
6. What the manuscript record and modern scholarship actually show
Contemporary overviews and encyclopedic summaries note that while the Uthmānic text came to dominate and has been scrupulously preserved in the transmitted muṣḥaf, the early history includes competing codices and recensional diversity; many surviving manuscripts align closely with the later canonical text, but the existence of early non‑Uthmānic codices (now largely lost) is part of the historical record [6] [7] [4].
7. Where the debate centers — “changed” versus “standardized”
The dispute is often semantic and epistemic: defenders insist nothing essential was “changed” after the Prophet because the Uthmānic standard preserved the revelation and oral chains reinforced it [1] [3]. Critics counter that the process of compilation, the destruction of variant codices, and reports of differing readings demonstrate that the text’s transmission involved editorial choices and variations that merit scholarly attention [4] [5] [6].
8. Limitations of the available reporting and what is not said
Available sources in this dossier do not provide exhaustive manuscript paleography, radiocarbon dates, or a tally of surviving early fragments; they present traditional narratives, apologetic defenses, and critical summaries rather than a single comprehensive textual‑critical study [6] [4] [7]. Detailed answers about exact textual variants and their significance require targeted manuscript and philological research not contained in these excerpts.
9. Bottom line for readers
If your question is whether mainstream Muslim belief and many institutions teach that no verse has been changed since Muhammad’s time, the answer is yes — that is the orthodox claim, backed by the narrative of compilation and memorization [1] [2] [3]. If your question is whether the historical record shows a simple, uncontested path from oral revelation to an unaltered, unanimous written text, the record is more contested: scholars and critics point to multiple early codices, variant readings, and traditional reports that complicate the narrative and merit further historical study [4] [5] [6].