Preservation or Standardization?

A Critical Response to “Method of Compiling and Drawing the Qur’an”**

The claim that the Qur’an has been divinely preserved rests heavily on one verse:

“Indeed, We have sent down the Reminder, and indeed, We will be its Guardian.” (15:9)

From this verse, a sweeping theological conclusion is drawn: not only was the Qur’an preserved in meaning, but in every letter, reading, spelling form, and orthographic nuance — through divine orchestration of early Muslim history.

Hussein Al-Baidhani’s recent article attempts to demonstrate exactly that: that the compilation under Abu Bakr, the standardization under Uthman, the burning of variant codices, the development of reading traditions, and even peculiar spellings were all manifestations of God’s direct protective will.

But when examined critically, the argument does not demonstrate preservation. It demonstrates standardization.

And those are not the same thing.

1. What Does 15:9 Actually Guarantee?

The verse promises that God will guard “the Reminder.”

It does not define:

  • The mechanism of preservation

  • The scope of preservation

  • Whether preservation refers to message or manuscript

  • Whether multiple dialectal forms are equally preserved

  • Whether preservation includes orthographic conventions

The article assumes all of this.

But assumption is not exegesis.

If preservation includes all variant readings, then textual plurality is the preserved state.
If preservation refers to a single standardized text, then other readings were excluded.

The article attempts to affirm both at once.

That is a logical tension.

2. Divine Preservation vs Human Intervention

The historical sequence described in the article includes:

  • Compilation under Abu Bakr

  • Disputes over wording

  • Preference for Quraysh dialect

  • Uthman forming a committee

  • Distribution of standardized codices

  • Destruction of other manuscripts

If God guarantees preservation, why is burning alternative copies necessary?

Burning manuscripts proves disagreement existed.

It proves variation existed.

It proves standardization required intervention.

Preservation would imply protection from loss.
Standardization implies management of plurality.

These are fundamentally different processes.

3. The Variant Reading Problem

The article openly admits:

  • Different words were revealed for the same phrase

  • Different dialects were permitted

  • Some codices contained additional words (e.g., inclusion or omission of “He” in 57:24)

This means multiple textual forms coexisted.

That reality forces a question:

What exactly is preserved?

If both variants are equally revealed, preservation includes plurality.

If only the Uthmanic form is authoritative, then other revealed forms were eliminated.

Either way, the concept of a single perfectly uniform text becomes historically complicated.

4. Orthography Is Not Evidence of Miraculous Design

The article shifts into a discussion of early Arabic script:

  • No diacritical dots

  • No vowel marks

  • Shared letter shapes

  • Omitted alifs

  • Alternative spellings

All of this is historically accurate.

But historical description is then transformed into theological proof:

“God guided the Companions to write it this way.”

That is a faith statement.

Early Arabic script was ambiguous by nature.
That ambiguity allowed multiple readings to coexist.

It does not demonstrate divine encoding.

It demonstrates the flexibility of early Semitic orthography.

5. Numerological Speculation Is Not Textual Evidence

The article further suggests:

  • The word “heavens” contains six letters

  • Creation occurred in six days

  • Omitted letters prevent misunderstanding

  • Specific spellings correspond to cosmological structure

These claims are not found in the Qur’an.

The Qur’an never states that its spelling encodes mathematical symbolism.
It never says orthographic variation prevents chronological misreading.

These are post-hoc symbolic interpretations.

They assume intentional design and then search for patterns.

Pattern recognition is not proof of divine orchestration.

6. Preservation of Message vs Preservation of Manuscript

One possible resolution is to argue that 15:9 refers to preservation of message rather than material form.

But the article explicitly goes further:

It argues preservation of:

  • Script style

  • Letter form

  • Orthographic anomalies

  • Dialect selection

  • Even scribal conventions

That is a far stronger claim than the verse itself makes.

The verse promises guarding.

It does not describe committee formation.
It does not describe manuscript burning.
It does not describe dialect preference.
It does not describe orthographic strategy.

Those come from later historical tradition.

7. Standardization Is Not Corruption — But It Is Editing

It is important to be clear:

Standardization does not automatically mean corruption.

But it does mean selection.

And selection means:

  • Some forms were retained

  • Some were excluded

  • Some were prioritized

  • Some were suppressed

That is an editorial process.

Calling it divine does not remove its historical nature.

8. The Central Question Remains

The article never clearly defines:

What exactly was preserved?

  • Every revealed variant?

  • Only those matching the Uthmanic rasm?

  • The consonantal skeleton?

  • The recited tradition?

  • The theological message?

Without defining the object of preservation, the claim remains vague.

Preservation cannot be evaluated if the preserved entity is undefined.

Conclusion: A Faith Narrative, Not a Textual Demonstration

The article is sincere.
It reflects devotional confidence.

But analytically, it does not demonstrate that divine preservation occurred.

It assumes preservation, then interprets historical developments as fulfillment of that assumption.

That is circular reasoning:

God promised preservation →
History unfolded →
Therefore history proves divine preservation.

Inside faith, that is coherent.

Outside faith, it is interpretive framing.

If preservation is to be defended as a historical claim, it must be demonstrated without assuming the conclusion at the outset.

Until then, what we see is not proof of miraculous preservation.

We see a complex and fascinating process of early textual management — one that looks far more like standardization than supernatural intervention.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Problematic Elevation of Hadith Over the Qur’an: A Critical Polemic Response to “Why Do Islamic Scholars Sometimes Prioritize Hadith Over Qur’anic Verses?” Introduction: The Qur’an or the Hadith — Which Truly Commands Authority? Islamic scholarship claims the Qur’an is the ultimate, unaltered word of God. Yet, the very same scholars often insist that hadith—the human-recorded sayings and actions of Muhammad—sometimes override or clarify the Qur’an itself. This contradictory stance raises serious questions about textual integrity, theological consistency, and the real source of Islamic law and morality. If the Qur’an is “the Book about which there is no doubt” (Qur’an 2:2), why do we find thousands of rulings and laws being sourced primarily from hadith, often at the expense of clear Qur’anic principles? This post critically examines the logic, consequences, and hidden assumptions behind this practice. 1. The Qur’an’s Primacy Is Undermined by Overreliance on Hadith While t...
Read more
The Line of Prophets – A Continuation of the Message Isa (Jesus) – The Honored Messiah and Servant of Allah In the Islamic tradition, few prophets occupy as revered and central a place as ʿĪsā ibn Maryam (Jesus, son of Mary) . He is one of the five Ulū al-ʿAzm — the elite messengers distinguished for their endurance and unwavering resolve — along with Nūḥ, Ibrāhīm, Mūsā, and Muḥammad (peace be upon them all). His life, miracles, and eschatological role are discussed across over ninety verses in fifteen different surahs of the Qur’an, and he is referred to by name twenty-five times. Islam presents ʿĪsā not as divine, nor as the Son of God, but as a messenger of Allah , a spirit from Him (rūḥ minhu) , and His word cast upon Mary (kalimatuhu alqāhā ilā Maryam) . He was sent specifically to Banī Isrāʾīl (the Children of Israel) to revive the message of pure tawḥīd (monotheism), to confirm the Torah, and to deliver the Injīl , a scripture filled with light and guidance. A Miraculo...
Read more
  Before Islam: Decoding the Earliest Sources on Muhammad’s Movement Islamic tradition paints a vivid picture: in 610 CE, Muhammad received divine revelations in a Meccan cave, birthing Islam—a fully formed monotheistic faith with scripture, rituals, and law. Yet, the earliest non-Muslim records—Syriac, Greek, and Armenian chronicles from the 7th century—tell a starkly different story. They mention no “Islam,” no “Qur’an,” and no prophet preaching a new creed. Instead, Muhammad’s followers appear as “Hagarenes,” “Ishmaelites,” or “Saracens”—vague monotheists or tribal raiders acting under divine sanction. This evidence challenges the claim of a coherent religion descending from heaven, suggesting a fluid insurgency later mythologized into divine revelation by Abbasid scholars. This post dives into these sources, their context, and their implications, testing Islam’s narrative against the Qur’an’s own standards—proof ( Surah 2:111 ) and consistency ( Surah 4:82 ). The Islamic Narrat...
Read more