Preservation of the Qur"an

Sorry for the delay im busy nowdays, anyway this subject preservation of the quran is new to me, so for the muslims if i wrong about something just correct... nevertheless lets examine what con gave us.con - B4- Lack of diacritical marks in Uthman's codexits true that the quran not contain diacritical marks and it can change the meaing of it (for the same word). but provide some examples that i can elaborate and explain from verses of the Quran.con - B3- Early Muslim accounts of the Qur'an not being preservedtheses two hadiths of A’isha(Prophet's wife) and Uba ibn Ka’b(Prophet's companion) are Da’if (weak). its Authenticity of the narrations (the same source) are not reliable. for the second hadith - Ubayy (RA) only one person, Zirr is reporting this narration. This fact itself makes the case doubdtful and from there two people narrate this (sources). One is Aasim b. Bahdala [Abi al-Najud] and other is Yazid b. Abi Ziyad. From them onwards there are multiple narrators but the point to note here is that scholars who has termed the narration as weak have criticized these two narrators.for the first hadith - ‘Aisha (RA) is reported in al-Ittiqan (cf. Abu ‘Ubaid’s Fadhail al-Qur’an H. 700) but it is also extremely Da’if (weak)for in its chain is the narrator Ibn Lihiya who is well known to be unreliable.con - B2- Zuhri's reports many lost chapters and versesThe fact is this narration is not valid according to the rules of narration as Zuhri was not the eye witness nor has he mentioned as to what is his source of information. He rather narrates with the word بلغنا i.e. ‘it has reached us’ and a narration this way is not acceptable. Even if he had actually related it on the authority of someone who was the eyewitness and had not listened from personally the narration would still have been unauthentic while in this case nothing is known about his source the narration is totally unreliable. Moreover it also goes against other more rigorous narrations about the people who had memorized the whole of the Qur’an and did not die in the Battle.con - B1- Uthman's confession that he modified the Qur'an.I cant find any refrences to this "uthman confession". maybe its from shia source? con - A3- Corruption of the Reciter's political classi dont know where this one came from. you giving here names of scholars.my question is how this connect " eciters abused authority and received bribery from the state" with the preservation?if its true and what verses you talking about? "even if those verses were false". you gave us names so what? here from german Prof Angelika Neuwirth she is a scholar on text of the quran and she clearly stated that what we have (quran) today is the same of the quran of the prophet peace be upon him: book 'The Cambridge Companion to the Quran' pg 100:"New findings of the qur'anic text fragments , moreover can be adduced to affirm rather than call into question the traditional picture of the Qur'an as an early fixed text composed of the suras we have. Nor have scholars trying to deconstruct that image through linguistic arguments succeeded in seriously discrediting the genuineness of the Qur'an as we know it."So she is a scholar. im just going to sites and bringing here some information... con writes - "knowing that two reciters can conspire together to add an unknown verse which serves their political interest" well as i said beside the written texts, there were bunch of men who memorized the Quran so if there were some errors or something they would corrected it.con - A2- Zaid Ibn Thabet's inaccurate measures to collect the Qur'anZaid found it extremely difficult to collect the quran becuase it involved the Word of God, so he had to be very clear and careful about what he was to do. ‘So I started locating Qur’anic material and collecting it from parchments, scapula, leaf-stalks of date palms and from the memories of men.’ Al-Zarkashi responds to this; “This statement has lead few to suppose that no one had memorized the Qur’an in its entirety during Prophet’s lifetime, and that claims of Zaid and Ubayy bin K’ab having done so are unfounded. But his is erroneous. What Zaid means in fact is that he sought out verses from scattered sources, to collate them against the recollections of the huffaz. In this way everyone participated in the collection process. No one possessing any portion of it was left out, and so one had any reason to express concern about the verses collected, nor could anyone complain that the text had been gathered from only a select few.” (Al-Burhan fi ‘Uloom al-Qur’an 1/238 pub. Darul Ahya al-Kutb al-Arabiyya, Cairo 1957) Further Hafiz Ibn Hajr comments; “Abu Bakr had not authorized him to record except what was already available [in written]. For this reason Zaid refrained from including the last verse of Surah Bara’a until he came upon it in written form these "some men" who memoriesed the quran were the nearests companians of the Prophet peace be upon him, not just "some men".con- A1- Controversy over who actually collected the Qur'an. The apparent meaning of the narration cannot be true as many companions had memorized the Qur’an in full while the Prophet (PBUH) was alive. The fact is Anas (RA) said this in a particular context and it relates to Ansar only. The following narration, referred to by Ibn Hajr as well, clarifies this; ‘Two families of Aws and Khazrij boasted about their superiority over the other. The Aws said, four of us have been of great esteem. One for whom Allah’s throne trembled, he was Sa’d bin M’az. Second, whose testimony was considered equal to two, he is Khuzaima bin Thabit. Third whom the angels gave the (funeral) bath, he is Hanzala bin Abi Aamir. And fourth whose body was saved by the bees from being taken by the infidels, he is Asim bin Thabit. The Khazrij said four of us memorized the whole of Qur’an and no one except them memorized the whole of it. Then Anas (RA) named the four.’ (Al-Ittiqan 1/171 Section 20) As per this, it was only a comparison between two tribes of Ansar and thus it ought to be considered with respect to them only and not the Muhajireen (Emigrants). Moreover we also ought to consider what Al-Maziri argued about this narration for he made really a valid point when he said; ‘The saying of Anas (RA) does not prove that except these four no other companion had memorized the whole of Qur’an and that his saying is the ultimate truth because here his words merely imply that Anas (RA) did not know anyone except these four to have memorized the whole of the Qur’an. And while the companions had spread in different cities how could it have been possible for Anas (RA) to know (about each one of them)? It would be possible only if Anas (RA) had met each of them individually and asked him if he had collected the whole of Qur’an during the Prophet’s (PBUH) lifetime and if each of them had replied in negative. This is obviously out of question and if this statement is taken only to be according to the knowledge of Anas (RA) then it does not mean his statement is actually true.’ (Al-Ittiqan 1/170 Section 20)