It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 03:36 PM
a reply to: Sahabi

That's a very pro Jewish version of history. Sounds like the Jews were just minding there business and Mohammed came in and destroyed the peaceful Jewish people.

Have you read the OT? Have you read any of the Talmud? The Jews were never at peace with anyone.

The Jews killed Jesus Christ because he was not the warlord king they were expecting. The Jews believed, and many still do, that the Christ is a warrior that will subdue the world through military power. They were very much in the habit of starting wars.

They killed Jesus Christ and they tried to kill Mohammed. I choose to believe the Quran and Mohammed over believing that the Jews were peaceful.

Here is a slightly alternative historical view for you. One that doesn't paint the Jews, who ordered the crucifixion of Christ as the peaceful people that their own history suggests they were not.

Judaism was already well established in Medina two centuries before Muhammad's birth. Although influential, the Jews did not rule the oasis. Rather, they were clients of two large Arab tribes there, the Khazraj and the Aws Allah, who protected them in return for feudal loyalty. Medina's Jews were expert jewelers, and weapons and armor makers. There were many Jewish clans-some records indicate more than twenty, of which three were prominent-the Banu Nadir, the Banu Qaynuqa, and the Banu Qurayza...

Muhammad arrived in Medina in 622 believing the Jewish tribes would welcome him. Contrary to expectation, his relations with several of the Jewish tribes in Medina were uneasy almost from the start. This was probably largely a matter of local politics.

Medina was not so much a city as a fractious agricultural settlement dotted by fortresses and strongholds, and all relations in the oasis were uneasy. In fact, Muhammad had been invited there to arbitrate a bloody civil war between the Khazraj and the Aws Allah, in which the Jewish clans, being their clients, were embroiled.

At Muhammad's insistence, Medina's pagan, Muslim and Jewish clans signed a pact to protect each other, but achieving this new social order was difficult. Certain individual pagans and recent Medinan converts to Islam tried to thwart the new arrangement in various ways, and some of the Jewish clans were uneasy with the threatened demise of the old alliances.

At least three times in five years, Jewish leaders, uncomfortable with the changing political situation in Medina, went against Muhammad, hoping to restore the tense, sometimes bloody-but predictable-balance of power among the tribes.

According to most sources, individuals from among these clans plotted to take his life at least twice, and once they came within a bite of poisoning him. Two of the tribes, the Banu Nadir and the Banu Qaynuqa, were eventually exiled for falling short on their agreed upon commitments and for the consequent danger they posed to the nascent Muslim community.

I will believe the OT, the Talmud and the PBS source I have quoted. I will also assume the Jews played a large role in the other wars as well.

To say the Jews were peace loving and tolerant is denying their own history and their beliefs. I choose not to be so nieve.

The current Zionist Jews represent the historical Jewish leadership, and they want the US to do a preemptive strike on Iran. They haven't changed much.

edit on 31-8-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 04:32 PM
I call BS. If a holy parchment has been discovered in Birmingham it is fraud, guaranteed.unless Birmingham is in the middle east and not the Birmingham in england .

Shame ppl are treating this as real

posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 03:12 AM
a reply to: VigiliaProcuratio

"the Daily Fail is hardly a reputable source of truth, after all it is ever-eager to slander Islam."
Found in Birmingham UK!!!

posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 08:04 AM
a reply to: VigiliaProcuratio
a reply to: rossacus
a reply to: supamoto

To those calling "Hoax":

The Birmingham Qur'an, also known as Mingana Islamic Arabic 1572a, is a legitimate 6th or 7th Century manuscript.

How did an ancient Islamic manuscript make its way to Birmingham, UK?" If we recall the eighteen and nineteen hundreds, there was a great European fervor for Egyptian, Middle-eastern, and Asian antiquities. Many ancient relics made their way to Europe through legal and illegal excavations, as well as through private holders, dealers, and the black market. The Birmingham Qur'an was obtained during the great European antiquities trade:

The Birmingham part of this manuscript belongs to what is commonly known as the ‘Mingana Collection’. The core Mingana Collection, of manuscripts and manuscript fragments, was built up between 1924-29 through the common interest and energy of Dr. Edward Cadbury and Alphonse Mingana. Edward Cadbury, owner of family's chocolate factory at Bournville, sponsored Alphonse Mingana in three journeys to the Middle East, and subsequently engaged Mingana to catalogue much of the collection. This must represent one of the last such European Orientalist enterprises undertaken to scour the Middle East for manuscripts.

When Mingana worked in Manchester, from 1915-32, cataloguing the Arabic manuscripts of the John Rylands Library, Edward Cadbury sponsored him to undertake three journeys to the Middle East to collect manuscripts. In the spring of 1924 in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq, Mingana acquired twenty-two Arabic and some Syriac manuscripts for the John Rylands Library and other Syriac manuscripts for Cadbury. A visit in the autumn of 1925 to Syria, Iraq and South Kurdistan yielded mostly Syriac manuscripts with some Arabic. Another in 1929 to Sinai Peninsula (St. Catherine's monastery) and Upper Egypt produced mostly Arabic manuscripts, with some Coptic and Greek.

Codex Arabe 328c – A Qur'anic Manuscript From 1st Century Of Hijra (Islamic Awareness)

The reason this manuscript is just coming to light is because it was improperly dated, categorized, and bound with other unrelated Qur'anic manuscripts.

Alba Fedeli, who was studying items in the Mingana Collection of Middle Eastern Manuscripts for her PhD thesis Early Qur'ānic manuscripts, their text, and the Alphonse Mingana papers held in the Department of Special Collections of the University of Birmingham, found the two leaves misidentified and bound with those of a late seventh century Quranic manuscript (now catalogued as Mingana 1572b). She arranged for them to be radiocarbon dated at the University of Oxford's Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit. They dated the parchment to between AD 568 and 645, within a 95.4% (2σ) confidence interval.

Birmingham Qur'an Manuscript (Wikipedia)

The vellum (sheep or goat skin) parchment was radio-carbon dated by the University of Oxford to 568-645 CE with 95.4% probability. Additionally, the writing of the parchment is representative of the archaic Hijazi script, which is an ancient writing style particular to both the time and location of Islam's earliest beginnings.

edit on 9/1/15 by Sahabi because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 11:02 AM
a reply to: Isurrender73

But both Jewish faith and Quran suffer from duality ideas that they are gods only perfection and should be masters of everyone else or wipe them out either by killing them or by submission.

The curse that will continue to create wars and suffering and hate since neither will reform and accept the universal golden rule for all souls forever killing each other for their religious dogmas.

If you clean up the Quran from duality hate then it could be a voice for only good and unity. But you do not even accept that there is darkness there since our noticing something is wrong in both Jewish faith and the Quran is hate speech from your point of view.

posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 12:11 PM
a reply to: LittleByLittle

This is the only possible duality found in either the Torah or the Quran.

The Torah allowed one conquest nearly 3,500 years ago as a judgment from God against another people. Isreal was told to destroy demon worshiping, child sacrificing, pagan sex practitioners that occupied the land of Isreal 3500 years ago.

After the conquest of Isreal they were not authorized any war outside of self-defense.

Both the Torah and Koran teach 100% acceptance of other religions. They both tell their followers to treat foreigners like brothers, but not to convert to a different ideology.

The religions that have sprung up around the Torah and the Quran have cherry picked verses which are heavily misrepresented in the Talmud and Hadith. The Talmud and the Hadith teach hate and duality, but this is not the message given by Moses and Mohammed.

The religion of Moses and Mohammed is 100% acceptance. You keep looking at the Torah and Quran from the viewpoint of the followers who teach hate. That is just as bad as a Jewish or Muslims condemning the NT because of Westboro Baptist Church or the Inqusition.

Is Christ to blame for the genocide and the hate that people claim they do in his name? Christ is not guilty of any such genocide, and both Moses and Mohammed are innocent of the bigotry that has been taught in their name.

The duality does not exist in the texts, the duality exists in the minds of the self-righteous who lack understanding and have perverted the meaning of the prophets.

When a Holy Book says that the followers should never forsake the teaching contained within it, it is not saying God only sent one prophet or left man with only one version of the truth.

The Torah claims many prophets, Moses did not tell the Jews that Jesus and Mohammed were not prophets. Mohammed himself says quite clearly that Moses was a prophet and Jesus is the Messiah. There is no duality in the texts when it comes to the prophets. The duality lies only in the minds of self-righteous bigots.

Their is no allowed religious separation found in the Torah and Quran, the only message to the followers is not to forsake their Holy Books. They were never told they could not accept that the Buddist scriptures, the works of Homer and Plato, the Avesta, the Vedas and any other spiritual texts was not authored by an enlightened prophet.

The Quran actually tells it's readers that God sent many prophets to people over the whole world. The Quran also claims that all the prophets are equal and God's word cannot be corrupted, outside of misunderstanding leading to poor interpretation.

The only teaching you will find is not to accept a message that directly contradicts the message of your prophet.

What you will not find is even one verse in any sacred text that says followers are not allowed to believe that God sent other prophets to other regions of the world that teach about the same God and same Holy Spirit. There is no religious duality found in the texts, the only duality lies within the minds of self-righteous men who have little understanding.

You can quote many verses that you think are contrary, but when taken in context the Quran and the Torah only allow for acceptance and self defense, and in defense it is no crime to completely eliminate your enemy.

Teaching self defense is not duality. Do you think it's ok if we completely eliminate ISIS if they fail to surrender and ask for peace? Or is destroying ISIS duality in your opioin?

Their is much duality found in the non spiritual self-righteous man, but there is no duality in the sacred texts.

edit on 1-9-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 01:28 PM
a reply to: Isurrender73

From my point of view:

Many words and ad hominem attacks but no proof of your statements. Your telling your view. I wish your view was the objective truth. Since it would have been so much easier. All would only have been miss understandings and there would have been no duality in the Torah or the Quran and no wars would happen if they where followed.

Removing the Hadith would be a good start.

Reading the Quran turns on my spider sense. Yeshua, Nanak, Buddha, Rumi no problem only oneness. Muhammad and Paul and it tingles like crazy.
edit on 1-9-2015 by LittleByLittle because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 03:44 PM
a reply to: Sahabi

I'm not going to debate its authenticity given that it is held at University of Birmingham, although I will remain cautious. I do have to question how something like this can end up in the hands of Cadbury. So the general story is, and certainly correct me if I'm wrong in assuming, that it was taken from Egypt around 1800 during Napoleon's conquest? That would be just typical of European powers pilfering ancient relics, and such artefacts ought be returned to their rightful place... in this example it should be handed over to Al-Azhar University.

posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 05:59 PM

originally posted by: LittleByLittle
a reply to: Isurrender73

But both Jewish faith and Quran suffer from duality ideas that they are gods only perfection and should be masters of everyone else or wipe them out either by killing them or by submission.

I'm pretty sure "Judaism" doesn't give a rotund rodent's rectum about everyone else - at least those outside the "promised land" - it is not a proselytizing religion.

posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 04:03 AM
a reply to: LittleByLittle

You hit the problem within both these religions as far as they are a threat to world peace. Both see themselves as dominant to all other belief systems and whilst one turned inwards and tries to dominate the world through its observers living in countries they dominate via securing themselves places of power within both the legal profession and especially government, the other turned outwards with the relentless desire to dominate the world. Christianity despite its once similar ideals, maintains the balance within the desert religions.

One good thing today is that many people although born into these two religions are non religious anymore and can see the destructive side of their teachings. It doesn't matter about the beautify and benevolence many claim is within them and indeed cling to, its actually the judgemental hatred that just has a clever coating of sugar on its message.

posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 04:08 AM
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

I disagree to an extent, its those Jews outside Israel that support it via the positions of power they are in and the wealth they raise and send and of course the relentless lobbying they carry out .

Without them Judaism would die out - if in fact inbreeding doesn't eventually take its toll. The teaching Jew must marry Jew we all know now means an ever decreasing gene pool, which beggars the thorny question surely their God knew about the dna of the people he created - maybe not?

posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 04:14 AM
a reply to: Shiloh7

I beg to differ. Religion is a mess the world over and Christianity is no exception. I'd go so far as to say that many influential people within the upper echelons do not even practice what they preach. Where is the Church today whilst civilisation destroys itself?

posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 09:34 AM
a reply to: Sahabi

originally posted by: Sahabi
If the professor were incorrect in stating that some Sunnis accept the landmark mus'haf of Ali, surely, such a statement would have been torn asunder by the peer-review of religious and theological scholars.

I didn't say it was incorrect, I said it was meaningless. I even gave a counter example statement ("Abu Bakr is an early muslim figure who is revered by Sunnis and some Shias") to show what I meant. That "Some Sunnis" might agree means nothing. Just like the fact that "Some Shias" might not consider Abu Bakr a figure worthy of total and absolute criticism, and that I could give you examples of early Shia figures who spoke against criticism of Abu Bakr means nothing when the vast majority of Shia scholarship absolutely does criticise Abu Bakr totally and absolutely.

Again, I write none of this with a mind to sectarian divisions, just pointing out that using the arguments made by one side of a group against the other side as representative of the whole group doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

originally posted by: Sahabi
Additionally, a multitude of Sunni sources have been cited in the Q&A of IslamQuest (Shia site); What is the Sunni viewpoint regarding the Mus’haf of Imam Ali (as)?

I don't understand. Why are you quoting to me a Shia source on a Sunni viewpoint?

a reply to: VigiliaProcuratio

originally posted by: VigiliaProcuratio
in this example it should be handed over to Al-Azhar University.

Judging from the UK's stance on returning such things (Mummy remains, the Koh-i-Noor diamonds, loads of other texts), I don't see that ever happening.

edit on 2-9-2015 by babloyi because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-9-2015 by babloyi because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 11:32 AM
a reply to: babloyi

"I don't understand. Why are you quoting to me a Shia source on a Sunni viewpoint?"

The source material is not Shia. It is a Shia site citing Sunni sources.

I referenced 'Islam Quest' because we are conversing in an online format and this site gave the largest number of Sunni sources readily available to verify my statement. In such a digital discussion, linking sources and providing researchable references is important. If I would have found a Sunni site referencing as many Sunni sources as 'Islam Quest', I would have linked that instead. Regardless, the cited Sunni sources are existential and verifiable.

edit on 9/2/15 by Sahabi because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 12:29 PM
a reply to: babloyi

That’s kinda my point; I know they wouldn’t because thieves don’t tend to return what they stole.

posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 04:16 PM
a reply to: Shiloh7

irrelevant - they are not intent on conquering the world - they are intent on preserving themselves, as is everyone else. Judaism isn't out there actively insisting everyone converts as the post implied.

posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 07:27 PM
a reply to: Sahabi

Actually no, you're wrong. Firstly, Shias claim Ali was the first to make the Mushaf,Sunnis though claim it was Abu Bakr. Which sect do you then believe? That's entirely up to you.
Ever heard about the two false verses that were injected into Surah Tawba?
It is the only chapter that never started with God's name(Bismi Allah) and there was a reason behind that. The Quran works like a formula. Kinda hard to add or take away verses.
Read about it here.

edit on 2-9-2015 by Boeing777 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 08:03 PM
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

The only thing left of Islam today is the Quran. Looking around, there are barely any Muslims today who integrate the Quran into their lives. Even the so called Sharia law that Muslims and non-Muslims argue about are not from the Quran. They are in fact all from hadith books.

Just observe how Muslims(Sunnis and Shias being the two largest sects) live their lives today and their religious laws. Non of it is found in the Quran. All of it is in fact found in hadith books. Everything from stoning to death, 5 daily prayers, beheadings, male and female genital mutilation, wife beating, forced marriages, 72 virgins, killing black dogs, women banned from religious activities during menstruation, child marriage, drinking camel piss(yes no joke), killing apostates, killing homosexuals, burqa, only men being able to execute divorces, endorsing of suicide bombings ALL of which contradict the Quran and cannot be found in it. They claim to follow the Quran but are in fact the farthest from it. Kinda hard to call yourself a Muslims while you're breaking every command in the Quran. The Quran has been turned into some song you memorize and recite. Just go to a madrasa and see it for yourself.
The hadith books are what dictates their religous laws. They just claim to follow the Quran when they're asked about it. All you need to do is observe them to see the truth.

The hadith books were actually written over 2 centuries after the death of Muhammad.
Does history repeat itself?

The Jews, hundreds of years after Moses's death created Mishnah (hadith, sayings) and Gemarrah (sunna, Actions) and uphold them and the invented laws in them rather than the TORAH (revealed word of God).

In the city of Nicene 300 years after the death of Jesus, the concept of Trinity was created, and is now the primary source of a Christian's belief in defiance of the Bible which advocates the absolute worship of God Alone.

The Muslims 150- 200 years after the death of Muhammed created another source of their religion with the Quran, "Hadith and Sunnah", falsely attributed to the prophet Muhammed, and in defiance of the Quran. Today most Muslims have discarded the Quran in favor of Hadith and Sunnah.
Sunnah is basically the teachings of someone. There really is no such thing as the so called sunnah of Muhammad.
Muhammad followed the same Sunnah mentioned in the Quran, that is the Sunnah of Allah.

"The only Sunna to follow shall be God's Sunna." [17:77, 33:62, 48:23, 6:114]

To say that Muhammad came with his own sunnah alongside Allah's sunnah is a great lie. That is blasphemy. You are ascribing partners with Allah and lying about the messenger claiming he said this and that.

I see these people as hadithist and Muhammadans. Sounds harsh but that's the truth.

Quran 6:114] Shall I seek other than God as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed? Those who received the scripture recognize that it has been revealed from your Lord, truthfully. You shall not harbor any doubt.

[Quran 6:115] The word of your Lord is complete, in truth and justice. Nothing shall abrogate His words. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient.

posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 02:08 AM
a reply to: Sahabi
Then why not quote the Sunni sources directly, instead of quoting a Shia source speaking about a Sunni viewpoint by listing the names of a number of Sunni people and books?
edit on 3-9-2015 by babloyi because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in