How accurate is the statement that our knowledge of the orthography of the Mushaf today is based on the writings of Imam Al-Dani and his student Ibn Najah from the fifth century, and that it relies on an inductive methodology of Mushaf manuscripts from their time, rather than being a direct transmission from the Imam Mushaf or the Companions and Tabi'in? And how do you explain the many discrepancies in the orthography of Mushafs attributed to the first and second centuries?

We summarize what we know from the words of Dr. Ghanem Qaddouri: that the Mushafs copied from the mother Mushafs of the major cities served in place of the originals for the study of the Uthmani script, and that old manuscript Mushafs are a secondary source for that. Dr. Ghanem believes that most researchers rule out any of the remaining old Mushafs being one of the original Uthmani Mushafs for several reasons, but they are undoubtedly very old, dating back to the first Hijri centuries, and perhaps to the first century specifically, representing the reality of the script in which the Uthmani Mushafs were copied.

Regarding the differences in the script of Mushafs from the first and second Hijri centuries, it does not affect the authenticity of the recited text, as reliance is placed on the continuous transmission and reception. The original Uthmani Mushafs differed in their script very slightly, mostly in a single letter or the addition of a letter such as "huwa" (هو) or "falaa" (فلا). This difference is due to the Mushafs containing some letters heard from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, which could not all be written in one Mushaf (definition), so they were distributed among the Mushafs to preserve them, or it is a difference in readings within one language intended to affirm what was agreed upon, and the difference in any given aspect was minimized as much as possible.