1. the original says: xSecondly, it is your assumption that a group of Salafis (sic) have arbitrarily replaced the text - that would be true in case they played around with the Arabic, it is incorrect to call a translation as a pseudo-Qur'an. Usually, a translator follows a methodology.
2. translations say: x
3. this book says: y
Is it a false assumption or conclusion to say the text was replaced by something different?
1. the Koran "is a book with Arabic textg representing the words of the God of the Universe and all that exists."
2. this book does not contain any Arabic text inside
3. it says "Qur'an" on the outside
My conclusion: if what is claimed outside is not found inside, it is it called pseudo.
not genuine; pretended
Is this a mistake?
Anyhow, my point was understanding what you guys here thought what the definition of such a book is and how you evaluated the consequences.