Koran dated to before Muhamad birth.

[Gharib]

You inability to accept this as a possible conclusion is due to your religon. You are unable to compromise between academic thought and religious thought since you are invested financially and emotional into your religion. Thus you hold a bias which rejects any view which does not align to your indoctrination.

Wow you completely didn't read my mind. I agree with your statement, white-out tape was used to erase someone else's name and have that of Muhammed put there. What a genius conclusion. I could never have thought of it myself as it is quite (you name it).

 

[Augustus]

Can somebody give full text of verses in the manuscript with the text of verses in the Quran in vogue, for comparision? Please
Regards

Here are the scans of the ancient documents

http://www.muslimworldjournal.com/2015/07/1400-year-old-quran-scans-released/

 

[Shad]

Wow you completely didn't read my mind. I agree with your statement, white-out tape was used to erase someone else's name and have that of Muhammed put there. What a genius conclusion. I could never have thought of it myself as it is quite (you name it).

I guess you have a limited imagination and the ability to think outside your narrow religious box.

There are two texts, one older than the other. One text has the name Bob in it. The second text didn't include Bob but replaced it with Joe. You take the second text as authentic but it is not.

There are two texts, one older than the other. One text has no name in it. The second text does. The name was added to the text. You think the second text is authentic but it is not.

Both are examples of people placing authenticity for the 2nd texts. However there possibility that the 2nd text is not authentic, as per the dating method. People may have made a mistake. However since people are invested in the 2nd text, you, they refuse to even consider any possibility that their invested authenticity, and worldview, is wrong. Also you reply is a strawman, nothing more. You have no point other than whining

 

[Shad]

Academic thought

Considering the dating was done in an academic setting and Islam is done in a religious one this is accurate. Your inability to differentiate between the two is due to your religion. You have nothing to contribute since your religious bias drives you thus you can unable to consider anything that does not agree with your religious view.

And what about the events that were happening at the era of Mohammed and verses revealed accordingly according to such specific events,
was it recorded before such events had occurred, lets just use our minds beside science, science can't be useful if we can't have minds to think, just saying .

Easy. Parts of the text were plagiarized while others parts were not. Another possibility is that there could have been two authors as such in collaborative writing or in the case in which one author dies but another continues their work. Like I said, you are unable to challenge your bias to even entertain possibilities outside your indoctrination.

 

[Augustus]

100 years plus !!!!

I'm talking about the process of dating an ancient document via radiocarbon and other methods, not about the Islamic tradition in isolation.

I'm just treating it like any other document. If you read my posts fully, you would see that I clearly said that, we have to take into account all evidence, including the accepted Islamic tradition when coming to any conclusion and that there is a higher chance of it being mid-late 7th C than early 7th C which would support the traditional narrative.

I was actually arguing against the idea that we should jump to any conclusions about the Quran predating Muhammed.

You shouldn't assume that everyone with an interest in history is out to attack Islam, some people just like history and treat Islamic history the same way they treat Greek, Roman or Persian history.

 

[FearGod]

Considering the dating was done in an academic setting and Islam is done in a religious one this is accurate. Your inability to differentiate between the two is due to your religion. You have nothing to contribute since your religious bias drives you thus you can unable to consider anything that does not agree with your religious view.

No, not true
we accept logic, speaking about myself.

Easy. Parts of the text were plagiarized while others parts were not. Another possibility is that there could have been two authors as such in collaborative writing or in the case in which one author dies but another continues their work. Like I said, you are unable to challenge your bias to even entertain possibilities outside your indoctrination.

And both used the same older animal skin

 

[Godobeyer]

I'm talking about the process of dating an ancient document via radiocarbon and other methods, not about the Islamic tradition in isolation.

I'm just treating it like any other document. If you read my posts fully, you would see that I clearly said that, we have to take into account all evidence, including the accepted Islamic tradition when coming to any conclusion and that there is a higher chance of it being mid-late 7th C than early 7th C which would support the traditional narrative.

I was actually arguing against the idea that we should jump to any conclusions about the Quran predating Muhammed.

You shouldn't assume that everyone with an interest in history is out to attack Islam, some people just like history and treat Islamic history the same way they treat Greek, Roman or Persian history.

OP is talking about "Koran text was written to the period between 568 A.D. and 645 A.D"

so Islam sources said the writen of Quran start during age of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) ,

so i see no problem ,on contrary , this is confirmed that Islam had credibility in it's history .

i think this thread is MAY will used by God as an argument against the disbelievers in Judgement day ,granty pass to Hell .

 

[outhouse]

The date range covers before the birth of Muhammad, during his life and after his death.

Ya we know.

More so the dating is done in the paper not the ink.

False you need to study what your talking about.

It was done on animal skin, and the composition is usually the same time as the age of skin.

The script used does not predate Muhammad.

You dont know that.



Look bud, I already stated quite clearly the context here. See's covered it well and I agree. This is only shining a light in a direction we already know took place, it gives us a better understanding the origin and compilation of pre existing traditions.

The material and legends and stories existed before the man, he was what we know as a collector of traditions, and was responsible for the compilation. There is nothing out of the ordinary here if the SKIN dated before his birth. It changes nothing in how we know the book came to be, its just what was suspected the whole time.

 

[outhouse]

i think this thread is MAY will used by God as an argument against the disbelievers in Judgement day ,granty pass to Hell .

So sad.

Using threats again? We already know you would refuse facts in favor of faith.


First no credible scholar in the whole world thinks the book originated in whole from muhammads adult lifetime.


I already posted credible sources saying the Koran used biblical sources when it incorporated biblical mythology into the Koran.

 

[outhouse]

You inability to accept this as a possible conclusion is due to your religon. You are unable to compromise between academic thought and religious thought since you are invested financially and emotional into your religion. Thus you hold a bias which rejects any view which does not align to your indoctrination.

That is why the first sentence of the OP addressed facts will not change faith. And were only talking about possible evidence here in context.

 

[Godobeyer]

So sad.

Using threats again? We already know you would refuse facts in favor of faith.


First no credible scholar in the whole world thinks the book originated in whole from muhammads adult lifetime.


I already posted credible sources saying the Koran used biblical sources when it incorporated biblical mythology into the Koran.

threat

what facts i refused ?
in last few i proved this thread is pro-Islam , according to your date !!!

who is you to nominate the crediblility for scholars ?


there is no credible source say Koran used biblical , that's anti-Islam claims .

Why ?
since you are not witness (nor me) how Quran written , or credibile source from Muslim History for that claim (that Muslims used copy/paste from Bible ) .

EDITED :
anyway Talmud or Torah or Gospel , were not translated to Arabic yet , while Quran writen .

 

[Augustus]

anyway Talmud or Torah or Gospel , were not translated to Arabic yet , while Quran writen .

There were lots of Arabian Christians and Jews though. there were also Syriac texts and it is quite likely that a trading people had, to some extent, knowledge of more than 1 language. Arabia was very multicultural and connected to the rest of the region; it wasn't in the middle of nowhere full of people with no idea about religion.

The Quran also seems to address an audience who are, at least reasonably, familiar with the characters and stories of Jews and Christians.

Here are some articles about some comparisons between Quranic Arabic and Syriac

https://www.academia.edu/4730102/Traces_of_Bilingualism_Multilingualism_in_Quranic_Arabic

http://global.oup.com/obso/focus/focus_on_quran_and_syriac/

 

[David M]

Because you have to actually study something to understand it. Reading helps

The text was completed in 650-653 A.D under Caliph Uthman. Thus, if the Birmingham Koran was produced on or before 645 A.D. it confirms that written portions of the Suras had existed earlier than official Islamic history acknowledges.

Which means nothing. Uthman did not write the first quran. He compiled the "official quran" and destroyed other copies. Which means that there were other copies that predate the one he had completed. Islamic history already states there were earlier copies.

If this quran is so early then its going to be interesting to see if there are any differences.

 

[David M]

EDITED :
anyway Talmud or Torah or Gospel , were not translated to Arabic yet , while Quran writen .

lol. Are you seriously suggesting that people of that era were incapable of learning more than 1 language?

Latin and Greek were still widely used in the middle east in the period and the Bible had been translated into greek and latin well before then, Christianity had spread as far as Yemen by the end of the 6th Century. Don't try denying the influence of the Byzantines in that period.

 

[Godobeyer]

lol. Are you seriously suggesting that people of that era were incapable of learning more than 1 language?

Latin and Greek were still widely used in the middle east in the period and the Bible had been translated into greek and latin well before then, Christianity had spread as far as Yemen by the end of the 6th Century. Don't try denying the influence of the Byzantines in that period.

indeed there are whom learning more than 1 language , i talking about full translation of Bible to Arabic .

 

[Godobeyer]

There were lots of Arabian Christians and Jews though. there were also Syriac texts and it is quite likely that a trading people had, to some extent, knowledge of more than 1 language. Arabia was very multicultural and connected to the rest of the region; it wasn't in the middle of nowhere full of people with no idea about religion.

The Quran also seems to address an audience who are, at least reasonably, familiar with the characters and stories of Jews and Christians.

Here are some articles about some comparisons between Quranic Arabic and Syriac

https://www.academia.edu/4730102/Traces_of_Bilingualism_Multilingualism_in_Quranic_Arabic

http://global.oup.com/obso/focus/focus_on_quran_and_syriac/

whatever there is no evidence that Quran copy/paste from Bible by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) .
inspite that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) used to visit Jeruslam many times during his life , and Madinah and Madinah was host many Jews .

Arabic and Syriac and Aramaic and Hebrew are semitic languages , they shared many words and spelling and letters .

 

[David M]

indeed there are whom learning more than 1 language , i talking about full translation of Bible to Arabic .

Why would you thimk that a full translation would be needed? A fair degree of tranmission of religion would have been oral, literacy levels were not that high in the poorer classes.

 

[David M]

whatever there is no evidence that Quran copy/paste from Bible by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) .

Almost no one claims that there was any copy/paste. What is claimed is that the Torah and the Bible were sources for many things that were put in the quran.

 

[Shad]

No, not true
we accept logic, speaking about myself.

Then you accept that there is no logical arguments for God and it is an unjustified belief. Thus to believe in the Quran is unjustified. I doubt that you agree thus you use the word logical as an appeal rather than a method.

And both used the same older animal skin

Your failure in logic is amusing. You assumed I was talking about a single piece of text rather than the complete Quran. You do realize that it is fallacious thinking to jump to this conclusion, right? So much you using logic...

 

[Shad]

False you need to study what your talking about.

It was done on animal skin, and the composition is usually the same time as the age of skin.

Your own sources says what I have said, read it.... When you wish to talk about studying in order to talk about something this does extend to you and your own sources

"Radiocarbon analysis carried out by experts at the University of Oxford dated the parchment on which the Koran text was written to the period between 568 A.D. and 645 A.D. with an estimated accuracy of 95.4 percent, according to a release by the University of Birmingham."

You dont know that.

The script used was one that existed during the emergence of Islam and the first used for recording the early Qurans and codification

Look bud, I already stated quite clearly the context here. See's covered it well and I agree. This is only shining a light in a direction we already know took place, it gives us a better understanding the origin and compilation of pre existing traditions.

I am only pointing out that people are far to focused on the possibility the text predates the Muhammad and seems to be excluding the possibility that the text does not. The idea becomes sensationalized just like the Sana'a manuscript

The material and legends and stories existed before the man, he was what we know as a collector of traditions, and was responsible for the compilation. There is nothing out of the ordinary here if the SKIN dated before his birth. It changes nothing in how we know the book came to be, its just what was suspected the whole time.

I completely agree with this hence why I pointed out Syriac texts and the Alexander Romance. Two stories from two sources are combined into a single story in the Quran. Muslims dismiss ahadith when embarrassed by it's contents thus Islamic tradition is unreliable as secular scholars point out as oral traditions fail within 3 generations.