QUOTE(s2peMocls @ Feb 19 2016, 02:45 PM)
This is another typical response from those who choose to ignore the history of islam. Most muslims don't even know there are many versions of "the original" quran, but they make claims it is solid and without errors. When it is pointed out that due to the actions of Uthman, the quran cannot be solid and free of errors, the rationale that "it is not important who put together the quran" given. The Shia muslims do not recognize the caliphs as successors to muhammed, thus as far as they are concerned, the Uthmanic codex of the quran is not solid and free of errors.
Shouldn't there be efforts to reconciliate the differences in interpreting the religion rather than saying "my version is fixed i don't care what you say, but it is fix because the version i have says it is fix, even though the version you have says too that it is fixed". Never ending conflict.
Interpretation is one thing, the quran is another.
We have a number of interpretation books, from Ibn katheer, AlQurtuby and so on. But we have only one Quran.
(By the way, car you didn't know yet, some of the shia sects are not conssidered Muslim. So it is not aa strong argument here.)
The Muslim firmly believe that the Quran we have right now is the same one that was finalized during the time of the prophet Muhammad shallallahu 'allaihi wasallam.
The key word being believe. If people don't believe, then that is their business.
I hve already stated that the feuds were on the pronunciation and I have shown my source. I have not seen credible source to say that there were other versions of the Quran.
Anyway, if you have further questions on the authenticity of thr Quran as we have it, I suggest you direct to peoplle of knoowledge.