Qur-án, after the Holy Prophet, was the most valuable thing which the Muslims had in their possession, and every Muslim, no doubt, did his best to have it preserved and transmitted in all its purity to the next generation. Now, supposing for the sake of argument that 'Us̲man arbitrarily suppressed certain copies, was it in his power to destroy every transcript of every verse or chapter in the possession of the widely spread community of the Muslims? Supposing he could seize the copies of such prominent men as Ibn—i-Mas'ud, how could he get hold of the numerous transcripts that must have been made from Ibn-i-Mas'ud and others? For the practice of early Muslims shows that transcripts of the Holy Qur-án were extensively made. If any of the Muslims had therefore considered 'Us̲man's copy to be defective, and they had in their possession any transcript substantially differing from it, they would experience no difficulty in keeping it hidden during the reign of 'Us̲man. In such a case, however, such copies would have become abundant as soon as 'Us̲man's power declined, or at least during the reign of 'Ali, who could not have any motive to continue the policy of 'Us̲man with regard to the suppression of variant copies. During the reign of 'Ali, therefore, many other copies would have come into circulation, and even if he had not the courage to stop the circulation of 'Us̲man's copy he would have favourably regarded the circulation of other copies. But the wonder is that even the men who murdered 'Us̲man did not interfere with the circulation of 'Us̲man's copy of the Holy Qur-án, nor did they put into circulation a different edition or a new chapter or even a single new verse. They never pointed out that a single word in the Divine revelation had been changed by 'Us̲man. When 'Us̲man's power ceased to exist, or when he himself was murdered in cold blood by the insurgents, what hindrance was there then to the circulation of parts which 'Us̲man might have suppressed? Even if the transcripts could by some extraordinary means be all destroyed, the words imprinted on the living tablets of Muslim hearts could not be blotted out by any means in the power of a mortal. It was simply impossible. The end of 'Us̲man's reign would have seen the circulation of all these parts which, it is alleged, had been suppressed by him, and such parts would no doubt have then been embodied in the copies of the Qur-án. But history shows no trace of any such happening. With all their differences, different men and different sects have always used one and the same copy of the Qur-án. Had any difference actually existed, such difference must have appeared in subsequent copies of the Qur-án; but the use of the same Qur-án by sects which have sometimes had the deadliest designs against each other shows clearly that no difference actually existed.
The recent "discovery" of Dr. Mingana, who has given us Leaves from Three Ancient Qur-áns, has proved from a critical point of view as great a failure in assailing the purity of the text of the Holy Qur-án as the unwarranted assertions of earlier writers. Certain leaves are said to have been bought by Dr. Agnes Lewis from a commercial antiquary, containing three writings crossing each other, the oldest of these writings being some passages of the Qur-án. When these passages were written and who wrote them are questions which Dr. Mingana has not answered. All statements to the effect that they are pre-'Us̲manic, or copies made from pre-'Us̲manic manuscripts, are simply conjectures, boldly put forward as "facts" to attract public attention. And what are the differences that are shown to exist? That certain words are written in a different style of writing; that there are some variants (three in all); that there are three omissions, huwa, káffah and má-lakum, in three places, and that there is one addition, the word Allah.
This "discovery" is, I think, additional proof that the text of the Holy
