Hatun! Did the early scholars really disagree on the Qur'an?

Hatun and Jay are looking at the Insertion of the words “bi mithli” in Surah 2:137 in the BnF Arabe 331, fol.iv manuscript of the Qur'an. According to Dr Dan Brubaker, in his book '20 Corrections in Early Qur'an Manuscripts, the word word مثل mithli “as” was omitted when it was first written, and then was added at a later time, along with the preceding bi, using a completely different handwriting, and a much narrower nib. Brubaker notes that it has vowels and diacritical marks, suggesting that it was corrected in modern times. The bi which was first written was linked along with the letter mā, and has not been erased. So, as it now stands, the portion reads امنوا بمثل بما  amanū bi-mithli bi-mā, which is an incorrect and non-viable reading. The Original used to read: “If they believe in that which you have believed” The current reading now says: “If they believe similarly to that which you have believed” The full verse now reads: “So, if they believe in the like of that which you believe then they are then rightly guided; but if they turn away, then they are only in opposition. So Allah will suffice for you against them. And He is the All-hearer, the All-knower.” Hythem Sidky, in his criticism of Brubaker says this is possibly an instance of such variance, with the variant āmanū bimā (“believe in that”) present in Q 2:137 in Arabe 331 rather than the standard āmanū bi-mithli mā (“believe in that which is similar to”) [note: he forgot about the ‘bi’ preceding the ‘ma’ – ‘bima’], but this possibility goes unmentioned. This variant is recorded as being found in the muṣḥafs of the Companions Ibn Masʿūd and Anas b. Mālik and the Successor Abū Ṣāliḥ. Ibn ʿAbbās is also reported to have disliked the ʿUthmānic reading, which contains bi-mithl, as he considered God to have “no equivalent (laysa lahū mathīl).” Orthographical Variants & the problem between Academic Muslims & Orthodox Muslims Sidky is an academic Muslim, and so starts from the premise that the Qur’an, like all ancient books, will have orthographical variants. This is not a theological problem for him, because he wouldn’t make the same claims for the Qur’an that our orthodox Muslim friends are making (i.e. that the Qur’an is eternal, exists on eternal tablets in heaven – Surah 85:22 – and that therefore it is not open to human intervention, or correction, etc…). Sidky refers to Brubaker’s claim in his book 'Corrections in early Qur’anic Manuscripts' (2019:19), where he says, “the notion that there was strict uniformity and widespread agreement about every detail, every word and letter, such as one would expect to find if there were widespread agreement upon a standard from a very early date, such as the time of ʿUthmān’s caliphate” (p. 19). Sidky’s response is revealing: “Although this is not an uncommon notion among modern-day lay Muslims [which  includes 99.9% of the Muslim world], when it comes to scholarly works, as early as we can peer into the Islamic past, we find widespread recognition of orthographic variation among muṣḥafs". Including: 1) Al-Farrāʾ’s (d. 207/822) Maʿānī al-Qurʾān is brimming with reports of regional and nonregional rasm variants. 2) Abū ʿUbayd (d. 224/838) traveled the Muslim world collecting such differences first-hand; these find their way into his Faḍāʾil al-Qurʾān and later works. 3) Ibn Abī Dāwūd’s (d. 316/928) Kitāb al-Maṣāḥif is dedicated to collecting reports of so-called Companion codices and other orthographic idiosyncrasies. 4) The canonical hadith collections also make note of contentious rasm variants, with several disagreements attributed to Companions themselves. Here then is the dichotomy between Orthodoxy and Popular views on the Qur’an’s viability which is discussed in today’s program. © Pfander Centre for Apologetics - US, 2020 (27,350)