Koran dated to before Muhamad birth.

[paarsurrey]

Koran dated to before Muhamad birth.

Not yet sure, it is only estimated.

Carbon dating is never accurate as to second/minuet/hour/day or even to year.
I don't see anything on the official website of the Birmingham University as to the date of the manuscript being before the birth of Muhammad.
If there is something concrete as to second/minuet/hour/day or even to year precisely , please give its reference please.
I get the following on the Birmingham University web site:

Do you have any information about the ink?
The brown ink from this period used on the manuscript would have been made from a carbon-based pigment, applied with a reed pen. The red ink, which may have been added later, could be made from kermes lake pigment, which was available at the time. The inks have not been age-tested as there is currently no scientifically reliable method of dating inks.
http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/events/quran-manuscript/faqs.aspx
Inner evidence of chapters/verses of Quran is therefore very valuable, and should be paid due attention to.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Since some 320+ posts have been exchanged on the topic, I think it will benefit members if answers to some frequently asked questions is given as provided by the University:
About the Birmingham Qur’an manuscript

What is the Birmingham Qur'an manuscript?Open all sections
The Birmingham Qur’an manuscript is a two-leaf, four-page manuscript made of parchment, written in ink, containing parts of Surahs 18, 19 and 20 of the Qur’an. The manuscript forms part of the University of Birmingham’s Mingana Collection of Middle Eastern manuscripts, held in the Cadbury Research Library, and its catalogue number is Islamic Arabic 1572a.

How old is the manuscript?
The manuscript has been carbon-14 dated by the University of Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit to the date range 568–645 CE with a 95.4% degree of confidence. This places the parchment on which the text is written close to the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad (who is generally thought to have lived between 570 and 632 CE).

Is it the oldest in the world?
It is impossible to say whether this is the oldest Qur’an manuscript in the world. However, researchers have concluded that the manuscript is among the earliest written textual evidence of the Qur’an known to survive. We also believe it to be the oldest Qur’an manuscript in the UK.

How did the manuscript come to be in Birmingham?
The manuscript was bought in the 1930s by Alphonse Mingana with funds from Edward Cadbury, the Birmingham-based Quaker philanthropist and businessman. Mingana was building a world-class manuscript collection in Birmingham. Cadbury named the collection the Mingana Collection after its first curator. The collection came to the University of Birmingham when it merged with Selly Oak Colleges in the late 1990s.

http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/events/quran-manuscript/faqs.aspx

Regards

 

[Augustus]

The manuscript has been carbon-14 dated by the University of Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit to the date range 568–645 CE with a 95.4% degree of confidence. This places the parchment on which the text is written close to the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad (who is generally thought to have lived between 570 and 632 CE).

The Islamic tradition states that Uthman demanded all preexisting copies of the Quran were burned sometime after 650 though which means even if we go by the later date then it still shouldn't exist.

 

[paarsurrey]

The Islamic tradition states that Uthman demanded all preexisting copies of the Quran were burned sometime after 650 though which means even if we go by the later date then it still shouldn't exist.

Usman's wish not withstanding, this manuscript has survived, there might be others as well, not yet discovered.
Usman's intention was to secure Quran, and he succeeded 100%, and we are very grateful to him. It is unparalleled in the history of revealed religions.
Regards

 

[Augustus]

Usman's wish not withstanding, this manuscript has survived, there might be others as well, not yet discovered.
Usman's intention was to secure Quran, and he succeeded 100%, and we are very grateful to him. It is unparalleled in the history of revealed religions.
Regards

The Islamic tradition says the Meccans were ignorant pagans and that Uthman destroyed the existing Qurans.

Lets assume the Birmingham Quran is from 645, then it can be said to support the idea that the Quran is well preserved, but it certainly raises questions about the Islamic tradition outside of the Quran.

It's audience is people familiar with Abrahamic monotheism and it predates Uthman's command to destroy the manuscripts.

 

[paarsurrey]

Koran dated to before Muhamad birth

Let us suppose that Quran had existed before Muhammad's birth, as assumed by the OP, or "According to scholars" "it also means that the fragment could pre-date the Prophet Muhammad".
Hitherto the OP has been asserting in these forums that Quran is not copied word for word but plagiarized from early source getting ideas or themes from the earlier sources.

The above supposition posits that the OP has to change his stance.
This supposition entails that if Quran existed before Muhammad's birth, then Muhammad could not get any ideas from the earlier sources but he had exactly to read from the earlier sources.

The onus of proving following verses of Mingana Collection and the existing Quran have been copied word for word from earlier texts rests now on the OP:
Mingana Collection verses 19:92-96

[19:92]Because they ascribe a son to the GraciousGod.
[19:93]Whereas it becomes not the GraciousGodto take unto Himself a son.
[19:94]There is none in the heavens and the earth but he shall come to the GraciousGodas a bondman.
[19:95]Verily, He comprehends themby His knowledgeand has numbered them all fully.
[19:96]And each of them shall come to Him singly on the Day of Resurrection.
www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?submitCh=Read+from+verse%3A&ch=19&verse=92

Existing Quran verses 19:89-96
[19:89]And they say, ‘The GraciousGodhas taken unto Himself a son.’
[19:90]Assuredly, you have done a most monstrous thing!
[19:91]The heavens might well-nigh burst thereat, and the earth cleave asunder, and the mountains fall down in pieces,
[19:92]Because they ascribe a son to the GraciousGod.
[19:93]Whereas it becomes not the GraciousGodto take unto Himself a son.
[19:94]There is none in the heavens and the earth but he shall come to the GraciousGodas a bondman.
[19:95]Verily, He comprehends themby His knowledgeand has numbered them all fully.
[19:96]And each of them shall come to Him singly on the Day of Resurrection.
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?submitCh=Read+from+verse:&ch=19&verse=89

Impossible to do it.

Regards

 

[outhouse]

Let us suppose that Quran had existed before Muhammad's birth, as assumed by the OP, or "According to scholars"

Muhammad was a collector of previous traditions, it is unknown that he ever completed a Koran in his lifetime. We know later people used his collections to create the books.


Because there were different traditions in circulation, the compiler of traditions burned any differences to try and give authority to the one surviving version.


Because these traditions that plagiarized the bible were collected or created by the warrior, does not mean he had a finished book. Its not likely he did.

No one is stating the Koran existed before the warrior.


This new date only has the possibility to give us details that we already know took place with more certainty.

 

[outhouse]

The above supposition

Is rhetoric that no one here or anywhere has claimed. You just made all that up.


Its why your on ignore. We do require honesty here. STOP saying I said things I never said.

 

[paarsurrey]

Muhammad was a collector of previous traditions, it is unknown that he ever completed a Koran in his lifetime. We know later people used his collections to create the books.
Because there were different traditions in circulation, the compiler of traditions burned any differences to try and give authority to the one surviving version.
Because these traditions that plagiarized the bible were collected or created by the warrior, does not mean he had a finished book. Its not likely he did.
No one is stating the Koran existed before the warrior.
This new date only has the possibility to give us details that we already know took place with more certainty.

One may please recollect the title of the thread "Koran dated to before Muhamad birth".
Regards

 

[Augustus]

these traditions that plagiarized the bible

I think using the word plagiarised is neither accurate or fair. The parts of the Quran that relate to Christianity/Judaism are more of a commentary on existing religious traditions than a copy of them.

Also seeing as most religions are built upon revisions and adaptations of existing traditions 'plagiarism' is unnecessarily pejorative and implies imitation rather than evolution.

Plagiarism is also an anachronistic concept, and assumes a modern mindset to times where such a mindset didn't exist. Using the term is both inaccurate and unhelpful when discussing such an issue and, in my opinion, should be avoided.

It is fair to note similarities, but 'plagiarism' is a bit ideological and counterproductive.

 

[paarsurrey]

I think using the word plagiarised is neither accurate or fair. The parts of the Quran that relate to Christianity/Judaism are more of a commentary on existing religious traditions than a copy of them.
Also seeing as most religions are built upon revisions and adaptations of existing traditions 'plagiarism' is unnecessarily pejorative and implies imitation rather than evolution.
Plagiarism is also an anachronistic concept, and assumes a modern mindset to times where such a mindset didn't exist. Using the term is both inaccurate and unhelpful when discussing such an issue and, in my opinion, should be avoided.
It is fair to note similarities, but 'plagiarism' is a bit ideological and counter-productive.

I agree with your approach, and it is very fair.
It is more of a critical review of the books of Judaism/Christianity , their concepts and creeds with references as was customary at that time.
Regards

 

[outhouse]

I think using the word plagiarised is neither accurate or fair

It is very accurate and fair is non sequitur.

The parts of the Quran that relate to Christianity/Judaism are more of a commentary on existing religious traditions than a copy of them.

Plagiarized does not really imply copied.

Also seeing as most religions are built upon revisions and adaptations of existing traditions 'plagiarism' is unnecessarily pejorative and implies imitation rather than evolution.

Yes most religions were plagiarized, what is not funny are those who think this one is somehow different.

It is fair to note similarities, but 'plagiarism' is a bit ideological and counterproductive.

No it is not.

It addresses the core of how these traditions came to be in this book.

Not liking the truth doers not mean we sugar coat it, to appeal to people who refuse reality of the situation.

 

[outhouse]

One may please recollect the title of the thread "Koran dated to before Muhamad birth".
Regards

One may realize that this is a header to be discussed.

And its not honest to imply anything, when I stated very clearly the date is not known with certainty.

Your taking it out of context due to your bias nothing more, and we do require honesty here.

 

[Augustus]

It is very accurate and fair is non sequitur.

Yes most religions were plagiarized, what is not funny are those who think this one is somehow different.

It addresses the core of how these traditions came to be in this book.

To plagiarise is to pretend someone else's ideas are your own.

The audience of the Quran knew these stories, how could someone attempt to pass off well known stories as their own?

What the Quran is, is a commentary/discourse based on the well known stories.

Posted this in the other thread, but it is worth posting again

"From a literary point of view, we should talk of Qur’ānic Psalms, as well as Qur’ānic madrāšē, memrē, and soḡiyāthā72. I don’t mean that the texts I am inclined to call Qur’ānic Psalms, madrāšē, and so on, are a servile borrowing of Syriac literary traditions – far from that: they are adapted, not without creativity, to the context of Arabic language and literature (e.g. Syriac verse is based on syllabic count, contrary to Arabic poetry and Arabic saǧ‘). But – and this is crucial –, they share compositional features with their Syriac/Aramaic homologs, they draw from them a good part of their verbal, phraseological and thematic repertoire, and, also, they play a similar role: they are suited for narrative or paraenetic compositions, and they are used in homiletic or liturgical settings. Indeed, a good number of Qur’ānic pericopes look like Arabic ingenious patchworks of Biblical and para- Biblical texts, designed to comment passages or aspects of the Scripture, whereas others look like Arabic translations of liturgical formulas.

This is not unexpected if we have in mind some Late Antique religious practices, namely the well-known fact that Christian Churches followed the Jewish custom of reading publicly the Scriptures, according to the lectionary principle. In other words, people did not read the whole of the Scripture to the assembly, but lectionaries (Syriac qǝryānā, “reading of Scripture in Divine Service”, etymon of Arabic qur’ān), containing selected passages of the Scripture, to be read in the community. Therefore, many of the texts which constitute the Qur’ān should not be seen (at least if we are interested in their original Sitz im Leben) as substitutes for the (Jewish or Christian) Scripture, but rather as a (putatively divinely inspired) commentary of Scripture. And since this Scripture was not in Arabic, we understand better the role of the Qur’ān, and we also understand better why it insists so much on Arabic (Q 12:2; 13:37; 14:41; 16:103; 26:195; 39:28; 41:3, 44; 42:7; 43:3; 46:12): stressing that there is an Arabic qur’ān supposes that there might be non-Arabic scriptures." Guillaume Dye - Traces of Bilingualism/Multilingualism in Qur’ānic Arabic

On what basis do you think 'plagiarised' is the best way to describe the Quran, especially since it is a highly anachronistic concept?

 

[outhouse]

The manuscript has been carbon-14 dated by the University of Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit to the date range 568–645 CE with a 95.4% degree of confidence.

Yet we don't have a finished book until roughly 650-655

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran

Compilation

Zayd ibn Thabit (d. 655) was the person to collect the Quran since "he used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah's Apostle". Thus, a group of scribes, most importantly Zayd, collected the verses and produced a hand-written manuscript of the complete book



So it needs to be noted the koran did not exist prior to 650. It was a compilation of traditions not completed by the warrior.


In about 650, the third Caliph Uthman ibn Affan (d. 656) began noticing slight differences in pronunciation of the Quran as Islam expanded beyond the Arabian Peninsula into Persia, the Levant, and North Africa.

Ill bet it was more then pronunciation differences. They would never admit there were different versions floating around because that instantly and factually reduces the warriors status as a REAL prophet.

 

[outhouse]

To plagiarise is to pretend someone else's ideas are your own.

And that is exactly what took place.

The warrior or later compilers of the book claims it origins were from a angel speaking directly to the warrior. Which means it is directly implied these ideas are their own.

That's is pretending biblical ideas are corrupt when they do not agree with the text of islam, after changing ones they did not agree with .


Its not up for debate that islam used the bible for its own traditions rewriting them to meet different cultural needs. Its called plagiarizing. And I have posted a credible source substantiating this.

 

[outhouse]

Other traditions show this.

According to Shia and some Sunni scholars, Ali ibn Abi Talib (d. 661) compiled a complete version of the Quran shortly after Muhammad's death. wiki


So all these new dates DO show pre koran traditions before compilation, they also have the possibility to show these traditions existed before the warrior was even born.


Scholars KNOW this, so even if the dates are before the warriors birth, it changes nothing.

 

[FearGod]

And that is exactly what took place.

The warrior or later compilers of the book claims it origins were from a angel speaking directly to the warrior. Which means it is directly implied these ideas are their own.

That's is pretending biblical ideas are corrupt when they do not agree with the text of islam, after changing ones they did not agree with .


Its not up for debate that islam used the bible for its own traditions rewriting them to meet different cultural needs. Its called plagiarizing. And I have posted a credible source substantiating this.

It isn't ideas but history, historical stories are the rights of no one.

 

[outhouse]

On what basis do you think 'plagiarised' is the best way to describe the Quran,

I never stated it is the best way.

You just cannot academically deny that is what took place.

Anything else is sugar coating it to protect a central matter of faith at the foundation of the religion.

 

[Augustus]

And that is exactly what took place.

The warrior or later compilers of the book claims it origins were from a angel speaking directly to the warrior. Which means it is directly implied these ideas are their own.

That's is pretending biblical ideas are corrupt when they do not agree with the text of islam, after changing ones they did not agree with .


Its not up for debate that islam used the bible for its own traditions rewriting them to meet different cultural needs. Its called plagiarizing. And I have posted a credible source substantiating this.

That is a very superficial approach.

The commentaries are supposed to be divinely inspired, the way to understand the existing scripture. The interpretative method was revealed to Muhammed, not the 'source material'.

How is someone suppose to discuss existing scripture without someone 1500 years later saying they 'plagiarised' it? Harvard Referencing?

It's pointless to apply modern concepts to periods when such concepts didn't exist. Also seeing it simply as 'plagiarism' is a complete misunderstanding of the historical context in which the Quran emerged. Crude ideological rhetoric isn't of great value in understanding things properly.