Praise be to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of Allah.
The Noble Qur’an is preserved by the protection of Allah Almighty. The objections raised concerning its preservation generally result from misunderstanding the reports, or from failing to distinguish between the Qur’an transmitted by mass transmission and established in the standard manuscripts, interpretive readings, passages whose recitation was abrogated, and material that some Companions wrote in their personal manuscripts as supplications or explanations.
Allah Almighty says:
﴿إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ﴾ [Al-Hijr: 9]
“Indeed, We have sent down the Reminder, and indeed We will preserve it.”
It is authentically reported that Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, recited in Surat Al-Jumu‘ah:
“فامضوا إلى ذكر الله”
“Proceed to the remembrance of Allah”
instead of:
“فاسعوا إلى ذكر الله”
“Then hasten to the remembrance of Allah.”
This reading is authentically attributed to Umar, but it is not one of the canonical readings and does not contradict the Qur’an established in the Uthmanic manuscripts through mass transmission.
Scholars have mentioned two possibilities: either it was a personal reading of Umar, or it was an interpretive reading through which some Companions explained certain Qur’anic words.
In either case, its attribution to Umar does not mean that it was an alternative to the verse that the Companions unanimously preserved in the Uthmanic manuscript. The Qur’an that was established in the manuscripts and transmitted by mass transmission is the definitive and authoritative Qur’an.
As for the report attributed to Umar concerning the number of letters in the Qur’an, it is false. Scholars criticized its chain of transmission, and Al-Suyuti transmitted Al-Dhahabi’s criticism of it.
Al-Dhahabi described the report as “a false report,” and Ibn Hajar Al-‘Asqalani agreed with this assessment. Al-Albani also explained that signs of fabrication are apparent in it.
Moreover, counting the letters of the Qur’an does not establish whether the Qur’an has been increased or diminished. Al-Suyuti quoted Al-Sakhawi as explaining that determining the number of words and letters of the Qur’an has no relevance to proving addition or omission, because the Qur’an cannot be altered in this way.
This statement does not mean that any part of the recited and preserved Qur’an was lost. Rather, it refers to what had been abrogated in recitation.
Some verses were revealed and then Allah Almighty abrogated their recitation. They therefore ceased to be part of the Qur’an that Muslims are commanded to recite, even if some of their legal rulings remained.
For this reason, Ibn Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, disliked that a person say that he had recited the entire Qur’an, because some passages of the Qur’an had had their recitation abrogated.
This is a matter of abrogation of recitation, and it has nothing to do with distortion or the loss of any part of the Qur’an.
Reports state that Ubayy ibn Ka‘b, may Allah be pleased with him, wrote in his personal manuscript what became known as the two chapters of Al-Khal‘ and Al-Hafd. These were in fact well-known supplications used in Qunut.
Scholars have answered this in several ways:
The report that Ubayy considered them two Qur’anic chapters is not established through an authentic chain.
Even if the report were authentic, they may have belonged to material whose recitation was later abrogated.
The personal manuscripts of some Companions were not necessarily restricted to Qur’anic text. Some Companions wrote explanations or supplications alongside Qur’anic verses, while knowing that these were not part of the Qur’an.
The Qur’an established through the final presentation, subsequently collected by Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with him, and then standardized by Uthman, may Allah be pleased with him, is the preserved Qur’an. These two supplications are not part of it.
As for what has been attributed to Sayyid Anwar Shah Kashmiri, claiming that some words of the Qur’an were altered, the source in question judged this attribution to have no basis.
Likewise, what has been attributed to Uthman, may Allah be pleased with him, alleging that there were errors in the Qur’anic manuscript, is not authentically established in that sense.
Similarly, the report attributed to A’ishah, may Allah be pleased with her, claiming that certain Qur’anic words resulted from scribal errors is not established from her in the form sometimes presented.
Therefore, it is not permissible to build a belief in Qur’anic distortion upon reports that are unauthentic or upon statements whose meaning has been distorted through selective quotation.
It is reported from Ubayy ibn Ka‘b, may Allah be pleased with him, that Surat Al-Ahzab was once comparable in length to Surat Al-Baqarah, and some reports mention the verse of stoning.
This does not prove that anything from the Qur’an was lost. Rather, for those who authenticate these reports, they belong to the subject of abrogation of recitation.
What had its recitation abrogated is no longer part of the Qur’an that Muslims are commanded to recite after the abrogation. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Qur’an was diminished or distorted because the recitation of certain passages was lifted.
It is authentically reported in Sahih Muslim from A’ishah, may Allah be pleased with her, that the ruling and recitation of the ten breastfeedings were abrogated, followed by the abrogation of the recitation of the five breastfeedings, while the ruling remained according to those scholars who held this position.
This too is a matter of abrogation, not distortion.
Scholars have mentioned three types of abrogation:
Abrogation of both the ruling and the recitation.
Abrogation of the recitation while the ruling remains.
Abrogation of the ruling while the recitation remains, which is the most common form.
The removal of a verse’s recitation by Allah’s command is therefore not a deficiency in the Qur’an and is not distortion. Rather, it was a legal matter that occurred during the period of revelation, after which the Qur’an was established according to what remained in the final presentation.
It is essential to distinguish between the Qur’an established in the final presentation and transmitted by mass transmission, and reports found in some traditions concerning personal readings, explanatory material, or passages whose recitation was abrogated.
The manuscript compiled by the Companions and subsequently agreed upon by the Muslim community contains the Qur’an transmitted by mass transmission. There is no established evidence that any part of it was lost or distorted.
The Noble Qur’an is preserved by the protection of Allah Almighty, and the reports mentioned above do not establish that it underwent distortion.
The reading attributed to Umar does not contradict the Qur’an transmitted by mass transmission. The report concerning the number of letters is false. Ibn Umar’s statement about something having “gone” from the Qur’an refers to abrogation of recitation. The reports concerning Al-Khal‘ and Al-Hafd either are not authentically established or can be understood as referring to abrogated recitation or supplications written in Ubayy’s personal manuscript.
Likewise, the reports concerning Surat Al-Ahzab and the breastfeeding verse fall under abrogation of recitation, not distortion or loss of the Qur’an.
Accordingly, the Qur’an in the hands of Muslims today is the preserved Qur’an upon which the matter was ultimately established. It was transmitted by mass transmission, Muslims worship Allah through its recitation, and it is not permissible to claim that it was distorted or that any portion of the recited Qur’an was lost.
And Allah knows best.