However, with the one in tashkent there exist pictures of the text online, in books, etc.
Below are some questions raised regarding the authenticity...It seems words/letters in the Uthmanic version differ from those of today.
Examples of human errors in the Tashkent Quran, the oldest available Quran:
Here are some of the correction done in the Tashkent copy of the Quran in comparison with 1924 edition of the Quran in Egypt made after Hafs. Remember these are only some of many examples. In all the next examples, the word ‘original’ means the Tashkent manuscript of the Quran.
Adding Nuns ;
The ‘original’ of 20:3 is without nun but the modern version includes it
The ‘original’ of 36:20 is missing the Yaa and Nun which the modern version has. The ‘original’ of 36:21 is missing a Meem which the modern version has
In the ‘original’ the letter form for fa or qaf is present in 19:72 whereas the letter nun occurs in the modern versions
Adding Seen ;
The ‘original’ of 20:108 is without seen which is in the modern version.
Changing Seen into Sad ;
In the ‘original’ of 7:69 there isa seen whereas in the modern versions the word has sad
Adding Yaa ;
The ‘original’ of 20:79 has nun whereas the modern version has yaa
In the ‘original’ , 38:26 is without yaa whereas the modern version has one
There is an extra yaa in 2:15 in the modern 1924 Egyptian Arabic EDITION
Adding Nun and Yaa ;
The ‘original’ of 18:83 has the letter meem that was replaced by the letters nun and yaa in the modern version.
Adding Whole words to the verses ;
The pronoun huwa [he] is present in the Tashkent-Samarqand ‘original’ of 2:284, whereas the modern Arabic version has the word Allah!!
In the modern version of 2:57 a word "Alykum" appears which is not in the ‘original’ but a small portion remains in the margin where it was sought to ‘add’ it.
Replacing an Alif with a Yaa;
In the ‘original’ an alif in 5:99 was replaced in the the modern Arabic version with yaa.
Changing Lam into Tha ;
In the ‘original’ of 6:11, the letter lam precedes the mim whereas in the modern version a letter tha is in its place.
In the ‘original’ of 7:27 there is the letters meem and nun, which are not in the modern Arabic version.
And many more examples that can make this article very long. Of the copies made by Uthman, two still exist to our day. One is in the city of Tashkent, (Uzbekistan) and the second one is in Istanbul (Turkey). Below is a brief account of both these copies:
1. The copy which Uthman sent to Madina was reportedly removed by the Turkish authorities to Istanbul, from where it came to Berlin during World War I. The Treaty of Versailles, which concluded World War I, contains the following clause:
'Article 246: Within six months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, Germany will restore to His Majesty, King of Hedjaz, the original Koran of Caliph Othman, which was removed from Madina by the Turkish authorities and is stated to have been presented to the ex-Emperor William II". 
'This manuscript then reached Istanbul, but not Madina (Where it now resides)'.
II. The earliest complete Koran manuscript in existence:
The Muslim claim:
"In other words: two of the copies of the Qur’an which were originally prepared in the time of Caliph `Uthman, are still available to us today and their texts and arrangement can be compared, by anyone who cares to, with any other copy of the Qur’an, be it in print or handwriting, from any place or period of time. They will be found to be identical." (Von Denffer, Ulum al-Qur’an, p 64)
Although Muslims proclaim they have a Koran that dates to the time of Muhammad, the Reality is different.
Two ancient copies of Koran that are in existence are the Samarqand MSS is in Tashkent, and the MSS housed in the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul. What many Muslim's do not know, is that because these two manuscripts were written in a script style called "Kufic", practicing Muslim scholars generally date these manuscripts no earlier than 200 years after Muhammad died. Had these two manuscripts been compiled any earlier, they would have been written in either the Ma'il or Mashq script style. John Gilchrist, in his book, "Jam' Al-Qur'an" came to this same conclusion. (John Gilchrist, Jam' Al-Qur'an, Jesus to the Muslims, 1989)
Now we do have one ancient copy of the Koran written in the Ma'il style of script, that is housed in the British Museum in London (Lings & Safadi 1976:17,20; Gilchrist 1989:16,144). But scholar Martin Lings, who was not only a practicing Muslim, but also a former curator for the manuscripts of the British Museum, dates this manuscript at 790 AD, making it the earliest. On the other hand Yasir Qadhi notes one Islamic Masters/PhD scholar who believes the Samarqand MSS is the ‘most likely candidate for the original’.
It is unknown, even by Muslims that authorities will not release photographs of the ancient Topkapi manuscript in Istanbul and so there are no known studies on it. This is why the Muslim apologist, M. Saifullah had to state "Concerning the Topkapi manuscript we are not aware of studies done it." (Who's Afraid Of Textual Criticism?, M. S. M. Saifullah, 'Abd ar-Rahman Squires & Muhammad Ghoniem) What is in this manuscript that Muslims are afraid to let the world see? After all in Qur'an 2:111 it says "Produce your proof if you are truthful."
Even the earliest fragmentary manuscripts of the Koran are all dated no earlier than 100 years after Muhammad died.
Add to this the fact that there is no archeological evidence dated at the time when Muhammad was alive, by way of artifact, manuscript or inscription has ever been found were Muhammad is actually referred to as "a prophet".
If you don’t believe me, listen to faithful Muslim, Ahmad Von Denffer, in his book, Ulum al Quran, in a chapter called, Old Manuscripts Of The Qur'an, "Most of the early original Qur'an manuscripts, complete or in sizeable fragments, that are still available to us now, are not earlier than the second century after the Hijra. [or 800 AD] The earliest copy, which was exhibited in the British Museum during the 1976 World of Islam Festival, dated from the late second century.' However, there are also a number of odd fragments of Qur'anic papyri available, which date from the first century." (Grohmann, A.: Die Entstehung des Koran und die altesten Koran- Handschriften', in: Bustan, 1961, pp. 33-8)
III. Textual variations in the different versions of the Koran:
* In Qur’an 2:284 we find the word 'Allah' in the modern Egyptian Qur'an, but in the Tashkent MSS, we fing the word 'huwa' (the pronoun 'he'). Which word are we to believe was in the "preserved master tablet" and "mother of all books" in heaven? In fact there are four more places this same thing happens in Q2:283 Q3:37, Q3:109 and Q5:119. (Modern Islamic scholars Dr. Muhammad Hamidullah who has mode copies of the Tashkent/Samarqand Mss for distribution world-wide, also notes this type of problem in the Qur'anic text. He says that the problem occurs four or five times. Muslims are generally informed that the Qur'an is of such a high quality of Arabic that no one but Allah could have written it. Yet this is not what some great Islamic scholars have admitted. For example, the great ibn Khaldun wrote in his Muqaddimah that the men around Muhammad were unable to write well and thus made many errors in the Qur'an. He further goes on to note that some scholars - whom he calls incompetent - contend that there are no problems in the Qur'an's text and that Allah intended it to be as it is. The problem is that the 'incompetent' scholars state that the meaning of the particular verse cited should say 'no' (because of the extra letter), while ibn Khaldun's group (and the modern Qur'an translations) want the text to say 'yes'. He gives further examples which he say the scholars note. ("Brother Mark, author of "The perfect Koran"))
* The text of Q37:103 in the modern Qur'an translates "they had both submitted their wills (became Muslims)" while the text of the Tashkent MSS gives the exact opposite meaning, "they did not submitted their wills" (they did NOT become Muslims.)
* The rhetoric of "a perfect Koran", is false.
* When one examines the various Arabic texts of the Qur'an in print world-wide, one finds that the numbers of these extra letters in fact vary widely. It appears that some Muslims do not like to have these letters in the Qur'anic texts. And one can understand why for in W.W. Wright's 'A Grammar of the Arabic Language', we find in Vol. 2, Sec. 20, p. 41 a clear grammatical rule in which he uses the Qur'anic text of Q3:158 (where an ecxtra alif appears in many texts). The rule forces those texts with the extra alif to give the meaning 'no' instead of 'yes'. ("Brother Mark, author of "The perfect Koran")
Edited by 4christ, 07 February 2004 - 02:59 AM.