# Does the Sana'a manuscript prove the Quran evolved over time? *Why the 'evolving Quran' claim fails: the discrepancies change nothing and would not be worth the risk* - URL: https://muftiabulayth.org/r/k6faz7xw53y/s/10/ - Date: 2019-03-01 · Kind: lesson · Transcript tier: machine · Recording: In Depth: The Sanaʽa Manuscript -Mufti Abu Layth (28:39–32:35) - Status: general teaching - Watch from the start of the segment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6fAZ7xW53Y&t=1719s - Recording page: https://muftiabulayth.org/r/k6faz7xw53y/ **Topics:** Preservation and variant readings; Atheists and polemicists **Summary (not a quotation; machine-made, unchecked):** The discrepancies in the Sana'a text are petty changes of pronouns and dropped words that serve no purpose, so they cannot be a deliberate evolution of the Quran, which nobody would have risked his life for. They are most likely a writer's mistaken notes. **Checked position (checked by two independent reviews, not by the channel):** Mufti Abu Layth holds that the Sana'a discrepancies cannot be a deliberate evolution of the Quran, because they change nothing of substance and no one would have risked his life for such petty alterations. **Evidence, his words at 31:16:** “to change it with these like petty little differences is meaningless so to me that doesn't hold up at all” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6fAZ7xW53Y&t=1876s) ## Longer summary Mufti Abu Layth turns to the claim, made by Dr Puin [?] and by some ex-Muslims and Christian preachers, that the manuscript shows an evolution of the Quran, with companions deliberately changing it, and says why he finds it absolutely wrong, acknowledging his bias as a Muslim. Looking at the discrepancies, he says they bring no fundamental change: whether a verse says Allah is aware of what you do or what they do, or whether 'a severe punishment' is dropped when other verses still say it, no purpose is served. Someone trying to corrupt the Quran would insert a powerful message, not change little pronouns, and since altering the Quran would have been a life-threatening risk, nobody would take that risk for petty and meaningless differences. He summarises: the manuscripts show that these texts are from first-century Islam, that there is an under-text and an over-text, that there are discrepancies, that the discrepancies are not substantial and do not derail the message, that they were most likely the mistaken notes of whoever wrote them, given personal notes such as 'do not say that', and that there is some potential that they preserve a reading that was not locked in, though he does not believe that is the stronger interpretation. ## Sources and names cited - Elisabeth Puin [?] - palimpsest (the Sana'a palimpsest) ## Transcript (machine tier, 28:39–32:35) [28:06] fine and we have Hadith telling us that the sahaba Sometimes some sahabah did misread certain verses it's you know like we all misread verses today you know it's not it's nothing so huge and remember they were memorizing and they weren't just sitting down students of knowledge all day there were people that were in campaigns military campaigns fighting for here traveling the world they weren't people just sitting with a library behind them and saying well oh you know let me pull this out I mean I've memorized the Quran and if I've read the Quran today I from my memory I'll make tons and tons of mistakes you know I'll need to revise and revise and [28:44] revise and and make sure and that that's natural you know it's not but so I'm just saying I think that's the most the second thing it is true it may have been that the it was another reading that was locked off and it wasn't locked into when Osman locked in the recitation as to this being an evolution of the Quran as mentioned by Dr Quinn and mentioned by some uh ex-muslims and Christian uh Evangel you know some preachers and other people as well and why do I feel that that is absolutely wrong apart from obviously this is going to be biased because I'm Muslim but why [29:22] do I feel that if we look at the discrepancies let's just look at them if this was an evolution in progress like somebody decided because Dr Elizabeth and other people suggest that somebody decided to change it right so and especially some of the ex-muslims have suggested this and some uh islamophobes to have have have mentioned things like the some of the companions purposely decided to change the Quran why do I feel that that's absolutely false is let's look at the discrepancies the discrepancies have no fundamental they they bring nothing they they don't [30:00] do any change you know oh Allah is aware of what you are doing Allah is aware of what they are doing it makes no that I mean if I was trying to corrupt the Quran I would try to corrupt it with a powerful message if that's what they were trying to do just changing it by dropping a word that still Allah is going to punish them and let's us say they dropped the word a severe punishment it doesn't like that doesn't change anything because in the other verses they're still saying that so it doesn't really it doesn't really show any purpose like any purposive purpose [30:39] serving kind of alteration like if somebody was trying to manipulate the Quran then surely they would put in a good message to manipulate that they're trying to get across by changing it with these little pronouns like I changed the oh here Allah I said Allah knows what uh you know Allah is seeing what uh they are saying and here I said what you are saying haahahaha I changed the Quran I mean that's that's a futile kind of effort because think about it people who were trying to let's say they were purposely trying to change the Quran that was a life-threatening risk that let's us say Let's us be real if this [31:16] was what they were trying to do why if they are going to risk it they're going to risk it for something so meaningful like to get a message in there praise their gods or or do something or to change it with these like petty little differences is meaningless so to me that doesn't hold up at all okay so with that just to summarize that then I'm going to give a little conclusion in summary yes we acknowledge that the manuscripts do demonstrate that these were from first century Islam they do demonstrate that there was an under text and an overtext they do demonstrate there are discrepancies they also demonstrate that [31:56] the discrepancies are not so huge as in they're not actually they don't derail the message in any way right they're not that substantial right they also demonstrate that most likely these were a mistake that the that whoever wrote them he wrote and these were part of his notes why because they use words like like I said notes like don't say that sounds like a very personal note the other thing is this may have been it it has some potential that this was one of the writings that was then not locked in sorry one of the readings that was not locked in it's possible [32:34] although I don't believe that to be the stronger interpretation so that and in conclusion I want to add here this also you know in a positive spin to this I want to show a positive spin to this which people haven't really highlighted this actually reaffirms for us that the message that we've been passing generally down the generations has been accurate because you know there's many mus there's many people who've said for example the Quran was actually invented after the 2 Century of Islam it ## Cite Mufti Abu Layth Archive, segment K6fAZ7xW53Y/s/10. https://muftiabulayth.org/r/k6faz7xw53y/s/10/ Not a fatwa: these answers were given to specific people at specific times. Ask a qualified scholar about your own situation.