The Silence of Archaeology — Lack of Early Qur’anic Manuscripts

Part 9 of the series: “Ten Evidence-Based Reasons to Doubt the Divine Origin of the Qur’an”

Introduction: The importance of manuscript evidence

For any sacred text claimed to be divinely preserved and revealed, early manuscript evidence is crucial to verify its authenticity, transmission, and historical reliability.

The Qur’an is traditionally claimed to have been perfectly preserved from Muhammad’s lifetime onward. Yet archaeological and manuscript evidence reveals a more complex and problematic picture.

This post examines the physical evidence for the early Qur’an and its implications for claims of divine preservation.

1. Early manuscripts and their dating

The oldest Qur’anic manuscripts date from the late 7th to early 8th centuries (50–120 years after Muhammad’s death).
Examples:
- The Sana’a palimpsest (discovered in Yemen, 1970s): contains Quranic text under a later script, showing textual variations.
- The Birmingham fragments (University of Birmingham): carbon dated to 568–645 CE, but margins of error include dates before Muhammad’s prophetic career.
- The Topkapi manuscript and Tashkent manuscript: 8th century, differ in minor textual details.

2. Variants and textual inconsistencies

Early manuscripts show orthographic, wording, and order variants.
No single uniform text in the first century after Muhammad.
Some differences affect legal or doctrinal meaning.

3. The role of Uthmanic recension

Islamic tradition holds Caliph Uthman (r. 644–656 CE) standardised the Qur’an text.
Manuscript evidence shows:
- The “Uthmanic codex” likely was one recension among several.
- Early Quranic manuscripts show non-Uthmanic variants.
- Evidence suggests a process of canonisation over decades, not instant preservation.

4. The Sana’a palimpsest: a case study

Overwritten parchment discovered with an earlier Qur’anic text erased beneath.
Text shows different order and wording.
Implies that early Qur’anic texts were fluid and evolving.

5. Lack of early archaeological evidence outside Islamic tradition

No contemporaneous inscriptions, papyri, or artefacts from Muhammad’s time confirm the Qur’an’s content or its early distribution.
Early Islamic inscriptions mention Allah, but not the Qur’an specifically.

6. Why the silence matters

Divine claims require extraordinary evidence.
Absence of uniform early manuscripts weakens the claim of perfect preservation.
Suggests a human process of compilation and standardisation.

7. Scholarly consensus

Patricia Crone and Michael Cook highlight textual fluidity.
John Wansbrough argued the Qur’an emerged from a process of gradual composition and redaction.
Harald Motzki’s isnad studies show late crystallisation of the text.

8. Apologetic responses

Manuscript variations are minor and do not affect doctrine.
Carbon dating margins cause uncertainty.
Oral tradition preserves Qur’an more reliably than manuscripts.

Logical critique:

Oral preservation is fallible.
Manuscript evidence should support divine preservation claims decisively.

9. Implications for divine origin claims

The Qur’an as it exists today reflects:
- A compilation process over decades.
- Multiple versions and recensions.
This challenges the orthodox claim of perfect and immediate divine preservation.

10. Conclusion: The archaeological silence undermines divine preservation

Archaeological and manuscript evidence contradicts the traditional narrative.
The Qur’an’s text was not fixed immediately after Muhammad.
This points to a human-authored, evolving text rather than a perfect divine transcript.

📚 References & further reading

Patricia Crone, Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam (1987)
Michael Cook, Hagarism (1977)
John Wansbrough, Quranic Studies (1977)
Harald Motzki, “The Collection of the Qur'an” (2001)
Nicolai Sinai, “The Qur’an in Its Historical Context” (2017)

💡 Next in the series:

Part 10 — The Final Verdict: Following the Evidence, Not Tradition

Spotlight On Islam

Saturday, August 2, 2025