The 'Birmingham Koran' fragment that could shake the Islam world.

The 'Birmingham Koran' fragment that could shake Islam after carbon-dating suggests it is OLDER than the Prophet Muhammad

As the title suggests is it possible this fragment found is older than the Prophet Muhammad? If so what does this say about Islam?

Fragments of the world's oldest Koran, found in Birmingham last month, may predate the Prophet Muhammad and could even rewrite the early history of Islam, according to scholars. The pages, thought to be between 1,448 and 1,371 years old, were discovered bound within the pages of another Koran from the late seventh century at the library of the University of Birmingham. Written in ink in an early form of Arabic script on parchment made from animal skin, the pages contain parts of the Suras, or chapters, 18 to 20, which may have been written by someone who actually knew the Prophet Muhammad - founder of the Islamic faith.

The pages were carbon-dated by experts at the University of Oxford, a process which showed the Islamic holy book manuscript could be the oldest Koran in the world. The discovery was said to be particularly significant as in the early years of Islam, the Koran was thought to have been memorised and passed down orally rather written. But now several historians have said that the parchment might even predate Muhammad.

It is believed that the Birmingham Koran was produced between 568AD and 645AD, while the dates usually given for Muhammad are between 570AD and 632AD. Historian Tom Holland, told the Times: '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 history of Muhammad and the Companions.' Keith Small, from the University of Oxford's Bodleian Library, added: '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.

However, these claims are strongly disputed by Muslim scholars, with Mustafa Shah from the School of Oriental and African Studies in London also telling the paper: 'If anything, the manuscript has consolidated traditional accounts of the Koran's origins.' The Prophet Muhammad is thought to have founded Islam sometime after 610AD and the first Muslim community was founded in Medina in 622AD. During this time the Koran was memorised and recited orally but Caliph Abu Bakr, the first leader of the Muslim community after Muhammad's death, ordered the Koranic material to be collected into a book.

The final authoritative written form was not completed until 650AD under the third leader Caliph Uthman. Professor Nadir Dinshaw, who studies interreligious relations at the University of Birmingham, described the discovery as 'startling'. When it was found last month he said: 'This could well take us back to within a few years of the actual founding of Islam. 'According to Muslim tradition, the Prophet Muhammad received the revelations that form the Qur'an, the scripture of Islam, between the years AD 610 and 632, the year of his death. 'At this time, the divine message was not compiled into the book form in which it appears today. Instead, the revelations were preserved in 'the memories of men'.
'Parts of it had also been written down on parchment, stone, palm leaves and the shoulder blades of camels.

'Muslims believe that the Koran they read today is the same text that was standardised under Uthman and regard it as the exact record of the revelations that were delivered to Muhammad. 'The tests carried out on the parchment of the Birmingham folios yield the strong probability that the animal from which it was taken was alive during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad or shortly afterwards. 'These portions must have been in a form that is very close to the form of the Koran read today, supporting the view that the text has undergone little or no alteration and that it can be dated to a point very close to the time it was believed to be revealed.'

LINK



Not often do you see ATS cherry picking other religions as often as Christianity. So if this is true this would make Islam a false religion based on fraud and plagiarism.

Maybe Muhammad is not so holy after all? Maybe he is a fraud?

a reply to: DeathSlayer

Not often do you see ATS cherry picking other religions as often as Christianity. So if this is true this would make Islam a false religion based on fraud and plagiarism.

Any text that relied on oral traditions for years or decades ( in the case of both this and the bible) are more than likely highly removed from their original source material.

Hell we see what happens with historical revisionism in our schools over a period of 60 years, can you imagine what it's like over 3000?

I knew there would be a lot of push back from Muslim Scholars however, but that's to be expected, nobody wants there to be a nail in the coffin for their entire belief system. I don't consider the Koran any better than any other religious text though so for me it's not hugely impacting. I doesn't change my opinion of it.

~Tenth

a reply to: DeathSlayer

Maybe Muhammad is not so holy after all? Maybe he is a fraud?

Obviously. In fact all of Islam are a bunch of radically extreme, woman mutilating, beheading, jihadist suicide bombers… haven't your heard?

It is believed that the Birmingham Koran was produced between 568AD and 645AD, while the dates usually given for Muhammad are between 570AD and 632AD.

With a possible 2-year discrepancy, there is a 92% chance that it was produced at some point during or after Muhammad’s lifetime, and for the sake of simplicity I’ll also assume a two-in-three chance that he was an adult if alive.

Either way, the Daily Fail is hardly a reputable source of truth, after all it is ever-eager to slander Islam. Not only do those “parchments” look as though they’ve been stained with teabags but I’m also reluctant to believe that something purportedly so old and significant could mysteriously appear in Birmingham of all places.

Note what the article says...

“...may predate the Prophet Muhammad”

“may have been written by someone who...
...actually knew the Prophet Muhammad”

Either it was written before or after he came into being, not both.

Out of all of them Islam is the most with the lies, the followers pretty much change the rules as they go along lol, Id rather believe in Extra-terrestrials and worship the earth than follow a book written by some nutcase

a reply to: DeathSlayer

It is quite possible that the vellum parchment of the Birmingham fragment had been recycled from an earlier use. There are many examples of ancient Qur'anic manuscripts that were scribed over previously used texts. The Sana'a Codex is the most famous Qur'anic manuscript that illustrates erasure and re-writing.


Sana'a Codex



The article linked in the opening post has a couple errors.

"Caliph Abu Bakr, the first leader of the Muslim community after Muhammad's death, ordered the Koranic material to be collected into a book."

• The truth of the matter is that Ali ibn Ali Talib was the first to compile the Qur'an in full.

• Ubay ibn Ka'b, one of Muhammad's personal scribes, wrote down much of the Qur'an under Muhammad's direct instruction.

• Additionally, manuscripts from one of Muhammad's chief reciters, Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, were in existence during Muhammad's life.

"Muslims believe that the Koran they read today is the same text that was standardised under Uthman and regard it as the exact record of the revelations that were delivered to Muhammad.

'These portions must have been in a form that is very close to the form of the Koran read today, supporting the view that the text has undergone little or no alteration and that it can be dated to a point very close to the time it was believed to be revealed."

The truth is, every ancient Qur'anic manuscript has, so far, contained significant variations as compared to today's. There is not a single ancient Qur'an in existence that is word-for-word or letter-for-letter identical to today's.


Islam's Incorruptible Qur'an Is Corrupt

The bible christians read, is heavily edited from an isrealite text. The isrealite text, is heavily edited from an ethiopian text. The ethiopian text, was based on mythology from the kush empire. The kush empire arose from neolithic zulu ways of life.

The koran had a similar path, growing out of the indus valley over generations.

Each text, edited and changed to meet the control mechanisms of their contemporary societies.

I grew up baptist. My wife grew up ismaeli. Our son will grow up knowing that the word of god can't properly be understood via the word of man.

originally posted by: Sahabi

The truth is, every ancient Qur'anic manuscript has, so far, contained significant variations as compared to today's. There is not a single ancient Qur'an in existence that is word-for-word or letter-for-letter identical to today's.

The same could very easily be said about the Bible and Torah. Even with accurate text, language has significantly changed in 2,000 years and there could easily be misunderstandings in translation.

originally posted by: Sahabi
• The truth of the matter is that Ali ibn Ali Talib was the first to compile the Qur'an in full.

Depends who you ask. That Ali was the first to compile the Quran in full is the Shia narrative. May be true, may be false, but there's no way to authoritatively put that narrative over the opposing one that says Abu Bakr was the first to order its compilation.

originally posted by: VigiliaProcuratio

It is believed that the Birmingham Koran was produced between 568AD and 645AD, while the dates usually given for Muhammad are between 570AD and 632AD.

With a possible 2-year discrepancy, there is a 92% chance that it was produced at some point during or after Muhammad’s lifetime, and for the sake of simplicity I’ll also assume a two-in-three chance that he was an adult if alive.

Either way, the Daily Fail is hardly a reputable source of truth, after all it is ever-eager to slander Islam. Not only do those “parchments” look as though they’ve been stained with teabags but I’m also reluctant to believe that something purportedly so old and significant could mysteriously appear in Birmingham of all places.

Note what the article says...

“...may predate the Prophet Muhammad”

“may have been written by someone who...
...actually knew the Prophet Muhammad”

Either it was written before or after he came into being, not both.

Quoted for the overall truth.

Much more likely that this is either a fraud, or as I've believed for a while, their wasn't just the syllabic oral tradition.

Anyone who believes a document of the magnitude of the Koran could be accurately passed down verbally for thousands of years has blind faith in human infallibility. It's quite simply not possible because: humans.

originally posted by: angeldoll
Anyone who believes a document of the magnitude of the Koran could be accurately passed down verbally for thousands of years has blind faith in human infallibility. It's quite simply not possible because: humans.

If you orally recited your favourite song to your children and friends, and it became their favourite song...
& continuing on they did the same with their children and friends...

Would you trust it to remain pretty much identical?

I would, because learning the words of a song is pretty easy.

The Quran, in Arabic, rhymes throughout.
Even I, as a slow learning Londoner when it comes to other lexicons, already know the 1st Chapter of the Quran in Arabic without having to read it.

I'd imagine Arabs would find it even easier to remember and recite correctly.


Not to sway your opinion, Angel, just another perspective.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Would you trust it to remain pretty much identical?

That's a negative, and essentially not a great analogy because there's too much difference between a song and a humongous undertaking such as the Koran. Humans make too many mistakes, and have too many agendas for that kind of accuracy.

originally posted by: babloyi

originally posted by: Sahabi
• The truth of the matter is that Ali ibn Ali Talib was the first to compile the Qur'an in full.

Depends who you ask. That Ali was the first to compile the Quran in full is the Shia narrative. May be true, may be false, but there's no way to authoritatively put that narrative over the opposing one that says Abu Bakr was the first to order its compilation.

Though not a universal belief, it is actually a view held by Shia, Sunni, and Sufi scholarship.

Sufi scholar, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, wrote the following entry for Encyclopedia Brittanica:

"The Shīʿite view, as well as that of some Sunnis, holds that ʿAlī, one of the first converts to Islam and the fourth caliph, retired from public life after the death of the Prophet and compiled a complete version of the Qurʾān, which was later shown to the people of Medina."

Qur'an (Encyclopedia Brittanica)

a reply to: angeldoll

I can appreciate the honesty in your stance, Angel...

I'd have scoffed at the analogy too until I learned the 1st Surah within a couple of days.
I guess I'm biased, but I can also see that if I can do it (I'm terrible with other languages), then the companions of Muhammad (pbuh) must have found it 1000x easier than I did.


However, I'm happy to agree to disagree

Muhammed was illiterate and had scribes write what he claimed the angel Gabriel recited to him over the span of his life.
So the Quran tradition started as written AND oral.

There were variances apparently, and one has to ask, how can man change the word of god?
Just a thought .

It is believed that the Birmingham Koran was produced between 568AD and 645AD, while the dates usually given for Muhammad are between 570AD and 632AD.

Oh deary me.......thats a fail OP

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: angeldoll

I can appreciate the honesty in your stance, Angel...

I'd have scoffed at the analogy too until I learned the 1st Surah within a couple of days.
I guess I'm biased, but I can also see that if I can do it (I'm terrible with other languages), then the companions of Muhammad (pbuh) must have found it 1000x easier than I did.


However, I'm happy to agree to disagree

Ubay ibn Ka'b and Abdullah ibn Mas'ud were trusted Qur'anic reciters and were actually highly acclaimed, recommended, and endorsed by Muhammad himself.

Ironically, both Ubay and Abdullah's Qur'an structure, wording, and inclusions greatly differ to the standardized "Uthmani" Qur'an of today.

Furthermore, not a single ancient Uthmani Qur'an is identical to today's Uthmani Qur'an.

a reply to: Sahabi

but but but, it's the word of god??? How can it be different

originally posted by: DeathSlayer


Not often do you see ATS cherry picking other religions as often as Christianity. So if this is true this would make Islam a false religion based on fraud

So - um - like Christianity then and almost all religion.