Dear Wanderer,
As-salamu alaykum
Please see my responses to your questions in
red italics1. What are the differences between ancient and modern copies of the Quran?First of all, the Quran was foremost a
'recitation / reading' (revealed as an inspiration). It was then transcribed by scribes. The Quran was not like the tablets revealed to Prophet Moses, inscribed by God on a piece of rock or a codex / book sent down by God on a mountain.
The written codices were secondary
and supported the mass reading and
not the other way around.
To answer your question simply, there are two main readings which are supported by respective codices / manuscripts. In the main, Hafs copies are consistent within themselves and Warsh copies consistent within themselves. This is arguably the same for ancient copies as it is for modern copies. I use the word
'main' lightly as one copy (Hafs) is actually the main reading, whilst the other, isolated.
To see in depth the differences between Hafs and Warsh so that you have some idea of the differences supported by a scholarly assessment, please kindly see a scholarly piece of work
[1] below which I find very cogent.
In summary, Hafs is recited by the majority of the Muslim world (95%) and Warsh about 3%. These are not
'different Qurans' in the sense that one Quran does not say for example, Prophet Joseph was thrown in a well, whilst the other says he was left on the ground to escape. To compare the differences, please refer to the works already cited / shared.
2. How did Hafs and Warsh originate and why, if it is deemed to be 'incorrect' by the vast majority of Muslims, does Warsh still exist?When we say incorrect, we must only speak about what some would argue are the minor aberrations. The rest of the Quran which is absolutely identical is obviously not
'incorrect'.With any large reading and it being spread en masse across the globe as it was before voice capture, printing presses or photographic capture, there is always a possibility that one isolated pronunciation may become peddled or a particular codex is transcribed in a particular way without diacritical marks and a small group misreads it. As I trust that you will appreciate, this does not now mean that in order to
'protect' the message, God is expected to wipe out the group that have misread something or a bolt of lightening strikes an isolated community that have a slightly aberrant codex with a view to annihilate them. What it arguably simply means is that the main recitation is still protected in numbers.
Similarly, this does not mean suddenly, that the main message / reading is compromised. It just means someone is reading it differently. For example, just because a group of people decide to remove two verses from the Quran (as they do today like the submitters), or a group of people misread certain passages of the Quran and spread a new codex / manuscript, does that now mean that the entire Muslim world where the main recitation is protected is compromised?
Kindly remember, we are not talking about 51% Hafs and 49% Warsh. We are talking about 95% Hafs and 3% Warsh (other 2% even more isolated). So yes, Warsh readings do exist today but only in certain communities / parts of the world. However, their Quran isn't fundamentally different from Hafs. Please kindly try to understand the differences first.
3. How do we know that the current, mass transmitted Quran is, word-by-word, the scripture that was sent down to the Prophet centuries ago?I have repeatedly argued, even with Bassam Zawadi why only the mass reading can be supported. I have spent pages and pages arguing this. Please kindly see
[2] below.
The prophet would have not revealed two recitations. The Quran also supports one reading. The Quran was also transmitted en masse. It was transcribed immediately by scribes and copies would have arguably been disseminated. Copies of copies would have resulted as would have learning through a strong oral tradition which even exists today (through hafiz / hafizas). This would have arguably, stabilised the dissemination of the content of the Quran as revealed to the Prophet.
Therefore, what reading are you likely to support even if one does not accept verse 15:9 and God's testimony to protect His message? A transmission which has had the support of the majority in this case or minority readings? Please think about this.
Finally, I feel it is always useful to remember, that one does / should not believe in the veracity of the Quran based on
'the authenticity' of the script or recitation. A perfect Quran only shows that an Arabian man who called himself a prophet shared these words in the name of a God somewhere in the Arabian peninsula. That means nothing. He could still be a false prophet. It is the cogency of the arguments contained in what he presents which should ultimately convince one of its origins, not the
'alleged authenticity' of the manuscript or recitation itself.
What I personally find more disconcerting is not the two different readings (95% read vs 3%), but rather, how one group of people can reject Salaat as timed prayers or reject the need for fasting playing semantic gymnastics and linguistic microsurgery, whilst the other accepts this based on the same Quran! Now that
is a change in the message.
I hope this helps, God willing
Joseph
REFERENCES:[1] BROCKETT. Adrian Alan, Studies in Two Transmissions of the Qur'an, University of St. Andrews, Department of Arabic Studies. PhD Thesis 1984https://www.scribd.com/doc/21972348/Studies-in-Two-Transmissions-of-the-Qur-an-by-Adrian-Alan-Brockett[2] Discussion with Bassam Zawadi on Hafs, Warsh and Transmissionhttp://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=840