OLDEST KORAN ‘DESTABILISES’ ISLAMIC HISTORY, SCIENTISTS SAY IT PRE-DATES MOHAMED

[SwingFirst]

Of course I am not a muslim and maybe there are 1000's variations of the koran...?

There are probably thousands of variations of the Qur'an, but in accordance with Islamic beliefs there is only one true Qur'an. That is why there has been many disputes about whether or not a translated Qur'an is the true Qur'an.

Was that koran found a true koran or not?

I bet that will be hard to answer. kinda like which of these is the true Bible?
https://www.bible.com/versions
And this is only a partial list that does not include my choice, an ancient Aramaic version.

The bible differs from the Qur'an in many ways. The bible was written by people inspired by God, but the Qur'an is supposed to have been made by Allah himself, and sent down to Muhammad intact via the angel Gabriel.

Thus finding a koran, even an untrue koran, before the event of the angel gabriel is impossible...

Yes. I am not taking a stand in favor of Islam here, I am just telling you guys what I know about the religion

[1714164477]

1714164477

[1714164477]

1714164477

[1714164477]

1714164477

[Wapinter]

Fragments of an early Koran found in a Birmingham library may rewrite Islamic history after carbon dating revealed they could be older than Mohammed.

Scientists at the University of Oxford had already revealed that the parchment was among the oldest known Koranic texts in the world, but now several historians say it could be so old that it pre-dates the Muslim prophet, thus contradicting traditional accounts of his life and radically altering “the edifice of Islamic tradition.”

The dating reveals the text to have been written between AD568 and 645, while the dates of Mohammed’s life are traditionally given as AD570 to 632. This means that at the very latest it was written before the first formal texts were supposed to have been collated, and at the earliest it was written before or shortly after Mohammed was born.

Some academics now say that the impact of the text could be comparable to finding a copy of the Gospels dating back to before the time of Christ.

Historian Tom Holland told the Sunday Times that evidence was now mounting that traditional accounts of Islam’s origins are wrong.

“It destabilises, to put it mildly, the idea that we can know anything with certainty about how the Koran emerged — and that in turn has implications for the historicity of Muhammad and the Companions [his followers],” he said.

Other very old Korans also seem to confirm that written texts were circulating before Mohammed’s death.

Needless to say, Muslim academics have disputed the claims. Mustafa Shah of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) said: “If anything, the manuscript has consolidated traditional accounts of the Koran’s origins.”

Meanwhile, Shady Hekmat Nasser from the University of Cambridge said: “We already know from our sources that the Koran was a closed text very early on in Islam, and these discoveries only attest to the accuracy of these sources.”

Dr Keith Small, a Koranic manuscript consultant at Oxford’s Bodleian Library, admits the carbon dating applies to the parchment, not the ink, while the calligraphy is characteristic of a later style.

Nevertheless, he believes the dates are probably correct and could raise serious questions for Islam.

“If the [carbon] dates apply to the parchment and the ink, and the dates across the entire range apply, then the Koran — or at least portions of it — pre-dates Muhammad, and moves back the years that an Arabic literary culture is in place well into the 500s.

“This gives more ground to what have been peripheral views of the Koran’s genesis, like that Muhammad and his early followers used a text that was already in existence and shaped it to fit their own political and theological agenda, rather than Muhammad receiving a revelation from heaven.

“This would radically alter the edifice of Islamic tradition and the history of the rise of Islam in late Near Eastern antiquity would have to be completely revised, somehow accounting for another book of scripture coming into existence 50 to 100 years before, and then also explaining how this was co-opted into what became the entity of Islam by around AD700.”


http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/08/31/oldest-koran-destabilises-islamic-history-carbon-dating-says-it-pre-dates-moh
am

I suggest you read the more authentic version here http://www.bbc.com/news/business-33436021
What may be the world's oldest
fragments of the Koran have been
found by the University of
Birmingham.
Radiocarbon dating found the
manuscript to be at least 1,370 years
old, making it among the earliest in
existence.
The pages of the Muslim holy text had
remained unrecognised in the
university library for almost a century.
The British Library's expert on such
manuscripts, Dr Muhammad Isa Waley,
said this "exciting discovery" would
make Muslims "rejoice".
Prof Thomas says the dating of the
Birmingham folios would mean it was
quite possible that the person who
had written them would have been
alive at the time of the Prophet
Muhammad.
"The person who actually wrote it
could well have known the Prophet
Muhammad. He would have seen him
probably, he would maybe have heard
him preach. He may have known him
personally - and that really is quite a
thought to conjure with," he says.

... "According to Muslim tradition, the
Prophet Muhammad received the
revelations that form the Koran, the
scripture of Islam, between the years
610 and 632, the year of his death."[/blue]
Because radiocarbon dating creates a
range of possible ages, there is a
handful of other manuscripts in public
and private collections which overlap.
So this makes it impossible to say
that any is definitively the oldest.
But the latest possible date of the
Birmingham discovery - 645 - would
put it among the very oldest.
Prof Thomas says the dating of the
Birmingham folios would mean it was
quite possible that the person who
had written them would have been
alive at the time of the Prophet
Muhammad.
"The person who actually wrote it
could well have known the Prophet
Muhammad. He would have seen him
probably, he would maybe have heard
him preach. He may have known him
personally - and that really is quite a
thought to conjure with," he says.

[Possum577]

Is it possible that the world is unclear on Mohammed's birth time period? It's possible this doesn't destabilise anything it just resets when Mohammed was alive to an earlier date than previously thought (which is a lot more plausible than presuming the Islam faith isn't genuine or something.)

By the way, did the fragments mention anything about how to stand up to those that kill in the name of Islam? That would be a bit of guidance that could be widely used right now. I have never seen an Islamic cleric or official formally condemn terrorism conducted in the name of Islam (and I fully admit I've not seen everything!)

[Wapinter]

I have never seen an Islamic cleric or official formally condemn terrorism conducted in the name of Islam (and I fully admit I've not seen everything!)

Then you better watch this
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KtgGDq7tbwk
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_SbMyy4dJNc
Sorry I am posting from mobile so its YouTube mobile version links

And also read this
http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/commonwordcommonlord/2014/08/think-muslims-havent-condemned-isis-think-again.html

[Wilikon]

Is it possible that the world is unclear on Mohammed's birth time period? It's possible this doesn't destabilise anything it just resets when Mohammed was alive to an earlier date than previously thought (which is a lot more plausible than presuming the Islam faith isn't genuine or something.)

By the way, did the fragments mention anything about how to stand up to those that kill in the name of Islam? That would be a bit of guidance that could be widely used right now. I have never seen an Islamic cleric or official formally condemn terrorism conducted in the name of Islam (and I fully admit I've not seen everything!)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad
Muhammad (Arabic: محمد‎; c. 570 – 8 June 632

Sounds pretty accurate to me, more so than Jesus' birth. If the koran they found is within that time table then all is fine. If not then the angel gabriel gave the message to more than one mortal...

[Snail2]

Then the carbon dating data would point to a period after 1815, not before the birth of mohamed, when, I believe, few american indians would be using coal for their iron horses...

No, if it got contaminated with "old coal" like the smoke of black coal or anthracite (low C14) then it changes the C12/C14 ratio in favour of C12, therefore the carbon dating will show it older. If you burning "new coal" like logs, peat (C14 is still high) it will modify the ratio in favour of C14 so the dating will show it newer then it's real age.

[Wilikon]

Then the carbon dating data would point to a period after 1815, not before the birth of mohamed, when, I believe, few american indians would be using coal for their iron horses...

No, if it got contaminated with "old coal" like the smoke of black coal or anthracite (low C14) then it changes the C12/C14 ratio in favour of C12, therefore the carbon dating will show it older. If you burning "new coal" like logs, peat (C14 is still high) it will modify the ratio in favour of C14 so the dating will show it newer then it's real age.

Then those scientists did not know what they were doing and will be tarred and feathered soon...

[RodeoX]

Then the carbon dating data would point to a period after 1815, not before the birth of mohamed, when, I believe, few american indians would be using coal for their iron horses...

No, if it got contaminated with "old coal" like the smoke of black coal or anthracite (low C14) then it changes the C12/C14 ratio in favour of C12, therefore the carbon dating will show it older. If you burning "new coal" like logs, peat (C14 is still high) it will modify the ratio in favour of C14 so the dating will show it newer then it's real age.

Then those scientists did not know what they were doing and will be tarred and feathered soon...

All these factors are taken into account when testing a sample. With velum it may involve meticulous scrubbing of the sample and/or solvent baths. It's not my expertise, but my wife is a medieval historian who works with theses kinds of documents all the time. 

[Wilikon]

Then the carbon dating data would point to a period after 1815, not before the birth of mohamed, when, I believe, few american indians would be using coal for their iron horses...

No, if it got contaminated with "old coal" like the smoke of black coal or anthracite (low C14) then it changes the C12/C14 ratio in favour of C12, therefore the carbon dating will show it older. If you burning "new coal" like logs, peat (C14 is still high) it will modify the ratio in favour of C14 so the dating will show it newer then it's real age.

Then those scientists did not know what they were doing and will be tarred and feathered soon...

All these factors are taken into account when testing a sample. With velum it may involve meticulous scrubbing of the sample and/or solvent baths. It's not my expertise, but my wife is a medieval historian who works with theses kinds of documents all the time. 

If you have time, and if she cares, it would be great to have a professional opinion from her right here. After she had time to go through as much as info as possible regarding this subject...

 

[Spendulus]

Then the carbon dating data would point to a period after 1815, not before the birth of mohamed, when, I believe, few american indians would be using coal for their iron horses...

No, if it got contaminated with "old coal" like the smoke of black coal or anthracite (low C14) then it changes the C12/C14 ratio in favour of C12, therefore the carbon dating will show it older. If you burning "new coal" like logs, peat (C14 is still high) it will modify the ratio in favour of C14 so the dating will show it newer then it's real age.

Then those scientists did not know what they were doing and will be tarred and feathered soon...

All these factors are taken into account when testing a sample. With velum it may involve meticulous scrubbing of the sample and/or solvent baths. It's not my expertise, but my wife is a medieval historian who works with theses kinds of documents all the time. 

I figured it out.  The Big Guy In The Sky sent Gabriel down at the right time, but he decided to go visit his old buddy Angel that ran the Dark Side, and got thouroughly smashed on some pretty good crack. Stayed around down there for a while and lost track of time.  But see, down there time runs backward, that's how they get to experience hell fire over and over.  So that time ran backwards, and he was hitting some pretty good shit.

Hey, what's a hundred years or two? 

[RodeoX]

Then the carbon dating data would point to a period after 1815, not before the birth of mohamed, when, I believe, few american indians would be using coal for their iron horses...

No, if it got contaminated with "old coal" like the smoke of black coal or anthracite (low C14) then it changes the C12/C14 ratio in favour of C12, therefore the carbon dating will show it older. If you burning "new coal" like logs, peat (C14 is still high) it will modify the ratio in favour of C14 so the dating will show it newer then it's real age.

Then those scientists did not know what they were doing and will be tarred and feathered soon...

All these factors are taken into account when testing a sample. With velum it may involve meticulous scrubbing of the sample and/or solvent baths. It's not my expertise, but my wife is a medieval historian who works with theses kinds of documents all the time. 

If you have time, and if she cares, it would be great to have a professional opinion from her right here. After she had time to go through as much as info as possible regarding this subject...

 

I will ask her about it. I'm curious also. However her expertise is in medieval music notation, so beyond the carbon dating of the vellum I don't know how much she can contribute. It would be nice to know someone who knows about the written script. Just as you can distinguish between a writer from the 1930's, they may be able to narrow down the date by the style of the writing.

[RealBitcoin]

It's not like reason and evidence matters when you talk about religions. So i doubt it will "destabilize" anything.

There are plenty of scientific proofs & evidences that dismiss the bible yet still 90% of western people are christians.

[Spendulus]

It's not like reason and evidence matters when you talk about religions. So i doubt it will "destabilize" anything.

There are plenty of scientific proofs & evidences that dismiss the bible yet still 90% of western people are christians.

That's because those proofs and evidences do not "dismiss the bible."  They dismiss certain alleged miracles and such. 

The vast majority of Christians I know either actively do not believe in miracles or are highly skeptical about all or some of them.  They may, however, believe in "a Creator."  That's the ultimate "irrefutable hypothesis," which is why science cannot "refute it."

Rather unique among alleged religious miracles is the Koran's assertion that Mohammed "split the Moon."  Today we have imaged the lunar surface, the entire thing is available in the public domain.  The Moon was not split.

As you note, some people will believe even against proof and evidences, in miracles.   

[Wilikon]

It's not like reason and evidence matters when you talk about religions. So i doubt it will "destabilize" anything.

There are plenty of scientific proofs & evidences that dismiss the bible yet still 90% of western people are christians.

... Still 90% won't react violently if scientists make fun of them, their holly book, their prophet or their belief. It is not so much about them believing if this particular koran is really older than mohamed, it is how believers, not christian believers that is, will react if non muslim scientists say it is so... Re read the thread again. Some are already afraid for the safety of those scientists.

I wonder why...

 

[BCEmporium]

There are probably thousands of variations of the Qur'an, but in accordance with Islamic beliefs there is only one true Qur'an. That is why there has been many disputes about whether or not a translated Qur'an is the true Qur'an.

The Quran is written in the VIII Century Al-Farahidi's Arabic, so it had to be "translated" or transcribed from its original form into it at some point.

[Raeg]

The dating reveals the text to have been written between AD568 and 645, while the dates of Mohammed’s life are traditionally given as AD570 to 632. This means that at the very latest it was written before the first formal texts were supposed to have been collated, and at the earliest it was written before or shortly after Mohammed was born.

Doesn't carbon dating have a margin of error that can spam decades? I wouldn't get that excited about this prediction to be honest but of course the media will have a field day with it. Just like the bible it probably have nothing to do with the people who they claim wrote it nor is it obviously an acurate text any way (much like the bible).

[Spendulus]

I have never seen an Islamic cleric or official formally condemn terrorism conducted in the name of Islam (and I fully admit I've not seen everything!)

Then you better watch this
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KtgGDq7tbwk
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_SbMyy4dJNc
Sorry I am posting from mobile so its YouTube mobile version links

And also read this
http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/commonwordcommonlord/2014/08/think-muslims-havent-condemned-isis-think-again.html

My impression from the Muslims posting here is that they are universally opposed to Isis, and take it very seriously.  I am certain their clerics have the same opinion.

[Wapinter]

I have never seen an Islamic cleric or official formally condemn terrorism conducted in the name of Islam (and I fully admit I've not seen everything!)

Then you better watch this
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KtgGDq7tbwk
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_SbMyy4dJNc
Sorry I am posting from mobile so its YouTube mobile version links

And also read this
http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/commonwordcommonlord/2014/08/think-muslims-havent-condemned-isis-think-again.html

My impression from the Muslims posting here is that they are universally opposed to Isis, and take it very seriously.  I am certain their clerics have the same opinion.

Majority of them has the same opinion unfortunately only few who supports get all the media attention

[Spendulus]

I have never seen an Islamic cleric or official formally condemn terrorism conducted in the name of Islam (and I fully admit I've not seen everything!)

Then you better watch this
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KtgGDq7tbwk
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_SbMyy4dJNc
Sorry I am posting from mobile so its YouTube mobile version links

And also read this
http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/commonwordcommonlord/2014/08/think-muslims-havent-condemned-isis-think-again.html

My impression from the Muslims posting here is that they are universally opposed to Isis, and take it very seriously.  I am certain their clerics have the same opinion.

Majority of them has the same opinion unfortunately only few who supports get all the media attention

True, and a lot of them are silent, and most of them consider hating Israel perfectly fine, usually along with the Great Satan.

[Wapinter]

I have never seen an Islamic cleric or official formally condemn terrorism conducted in the name of Islam (and I fully admit I've not seen everything!)

Then you better watch this
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KtgGDq7tbwk
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_SbMyy4dJNc
Sorry I am posting from mobile so its YouTube mobile version links

And also read this
http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/commonwordcommonlord/2014/08/think-muslims-havent-condemned-isis-think-again.html

My impression from the Muslims posting here is that they are universally opposed to Isis, and take it very seriously.  I am certain their clerics have the same opinion.

Majority of them has the same opinion unfortunately only few who supports get all the media attention

True, and a lot of them are silent, and most of them consider hating Israel perfectly fine, usually along with the Great Satan.

They are not silent,they dont have proper platform to air their views.Israel is a geo-political issue for many muslims it has nothing to do with Islam