Koran dated to before Muhamad birth.

[leibowde84]

As regards the religious environment of Late Antique Arabia:

"By the early seventh century it is possible to speak of a fledgling Arab Christianity, based in the settlements of Rusafa (in northern Syria), Hira (southern Iraq), Najran (northern Yemen), and a number of places in the Roman province of Arabia stretching from Jabiya in the north, in modern southwest Syria, to Petra and Kilwa in the south, in modern south Jordan and northwest Saudi Arabia, respectively."

In God's path: The Arab conquests - Robert Hoyland

At Kilwa they found the following:

The date of occupation of this monastery will remain undetermined until the final outcome of the studies of the excavated materials is known. In the meantime, we might base our assumptions on the Arabic inscription found on the lintel of cell 63 (Fig. 16, photograph and facsimile)3 which translates as follows:

Bism Allâh ḥimat ‘hl Taklâ min ‘Iqlîm
In the name of God, this is ‘the forbidden land, the irrigated field’, belonging to the community of Takla, originally from Iqlīm.

The first remark we would like to make concerns the script. It is identical to the inscription at Qaṣr Burquʿ, dated 81 AH/AD 700 by the Omayyad caliph, al-Walīd, before his ascension to the throne (AD 705–715). According to Savignac’s observations, the lettering of the text resembles script dating from about AD 1000 (Horsfield, Horsfield & Glueck 1933: 381). Unlike the text of Qasr Burqu’, we owe this text to Christians: the name of the saint is clear from the reading (Takla). The name seems to refer to Thecla (Takla), the famous saint whose cult flourished in Seleucia and Syria during the fourth and fifth centuries (Davis 2001)... The monastery of Kilwa, which still retains much of its mystery, may very well help us to gain a greater understanding of the expansion of Islam and its behaviour towards other communities, in this case Christianity. It is essential to stress that the crosses in Kilwa, more than ten in number, are all in very good condition, as are those in Qaṣr Burquʿ (Gaube 1974: 98; Field 1960), and that this Christian symbolism has never been damaged. Further work on Kilwa will improve our knowledge of the historical geography of Arabia at the beginning of Islam, and will help us to understand the spatial organisation adopted by nomadic peoples in arid areas.

Christian monasticism on the eve of Islam: Kilwa (Saudi Arabia) — new evidence - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0471.2011.00335.x/abstract

None of this on its own really 'shows' a great deal. Just more examples of how the region wasn't this pagan backwater completely separated from the rest of the region. The people of the region were not ignorant of monotheism and the contemporary religious issues of the wider region.

Absolutely. I agree. Which makes it clear that the Quran borrowed these oral Hebrew traditions.

 

[leibowde84]

You did not give any argument. Is science excepted from plagiarization? Why?
Regards

Science freely admits that it utilizes discoveries of the past in order to make new discoveries today. What's your point? That's the entire point of science. And, frankly, I dont see anything negative about the Quran borrowing from oral Hebrew traditions/stories either. Maybe that is what Muhammad wanted to provide... Small tweaks to the ancient Hebrew stories that everyone was already familiar with at the time.

 

[jeager106]

Science freely admits that it utilizes discoveries of the past in order to make new discoveries today. What's your point? That's the entire point of science. And, frankly, I dont see anything negative about the Quran borrowing from oral Hebrew traditions/stories either. Maybe that is what Muhammad wanted to provide... Small tweaks to the ancient Hebrew stories that everyone was already familiar with at the time.

If true^^^^ that would make Muhammad a clever, insightful,
individual.
Tweak an existing, familiar religion, to create another religion.

 

[leibowde84]

If true^^^^ that would make Muhammad a clever, insightful,
individual.
Tweak an existing, familiar religion, to create another religion.

Doesn't that seem like the most-likely explanation?

 

[jeager106]

Doesn't that seem like the most-likely explanation?

Yes, likely and logical.

 

[Shad]

You know what is meant. It's as silly as dismissing everything that you say about Hebrew literature because you're writing in religious forums in ENGLISH.

I have no external tradition or theology or religion.

All I saw was your attempting to dismiss the tools you used for your idea thus using a double-standard.

Study the academics of culture, tradition, theology, religion, language, and linguistics all that you want. I dismiss none of this.

You do since none support your idea

Noah's ark is about the brain and mind.

Which was not my point. Red herring and dismissed as such

Assuming because one sees the word "Israel," that it must be referring to literal country Israel is not very academic. If a writer wrote in Hebrew, and from the literal country Israel, writing "Israel" doesn't make it a literal country, one is using symbolism.

Nope, wrong again. Israeli was symbolic and a representation of a person and then people centuries before it was a kingdom or the modern nation. Read the Bible.

The literature was never meant and still isn't meant for any external religion, tradition, or theology. Religion was born out of taking myths externally. That is the conflict. You feed right into it. If it makes you feel better, making unconscious excuses for professionals searching and studying literature that doesn't exist externally. . So be it. . keep categorizing and labeling humans. If you want to know the literature, study your own brain and mind. Get to know yourself.

Wrong again as theology is covered in academia. Wrong again as some myths have kernels of historical truth. Ended by sophistry in order to ignore these facts.

 

[Augustus]

Which makes it clear that the Quran borrowed these oral Hebrew traditions.

It seems to be more rely on Syriac versions of those traditions, probably both oral and written.

Much of it appears to be more of a commentary on these traditions, or a reworking/adaptation of them than straight 'borrowing'.

There's no doubt about the similarities, just to how the similarities should be viewed based on how they were viewed in the situation they emerged in.

 

[leibowde84]

It seems to be more rely on Syriac versions of those traditions, probably both oral and written.

Much of it appears to be more of a commentary on these traditions, or a reworking/adaptation of them than straight 'borrowing'.

There's no doubt about the similarities, just to how the similarities should be viewed based on how they were viewed in the situation they emerged in.

Nevertheless. It was still borrowed.

 

[paarsurrey]

The carbon dating of the Birmingham manuscript, as is evident, is not correct to second/minute/hour/day/year extent, it only provides a range within which it could be possibly located. Rest is to be decided by the inner evidence from the text of the scripture. The inner evidence rejects that it could before Muhammad's birth for the reasons I have mentioned. Similarly, Muhammad was a real and historic person, the innever evidence of the Birmingham manuscript reject that Quran descended after Muhammad.
The only possibility is that it was descended on Muhammad within his life span, though codified later in the time of Caliph Uthmān. Birmingham manuscript is similar to Uthmān Codex without change
I think the OP as well as other friends here would agree to it, now.
Regards

 

[Augustus]

The only possibility is that it was descended on Muhammad within his life span, though codified later in the time of Caliph Uthmān. Birmingham manuscript is similar to Uthmān Codex without change

Given the overlap with the accepted range of Muhammed's life, the balance of evidence most likely suggests it relates to this period. Nothing can be proved, but it remains the most likely possibility.

I will add another question it raises though. It might well support the idea that the Quran was from Muhammed's era, but could also possibly suggest that the Quran, at least in part, was written down earlier than the Islamic tradition suggests it was. Instead of being transmitted through purely oral recitation, it could, to some extent, also have been passed on in written format.

On balance, it broadly supports the idea it is from Muhammed's lifetime, but also increases the possibility that parts of the Quran were written down earlier than the tradition states.

Of course, this relies on the dating being accurate.

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

Given the overlap with the accepted range of Muhammed's life, the balance of evidence most likely suggests it relates to this period. Nothing can be proved, but it remains the most likely possibility.

I will add another question it raises though. It might well support the idea that the Quran was from Muhammed's era, but could also possibly suggest that the Quran, at least in part, was written down earlier than the Islamic tradition suggests it was. Instead of being transmitted through purely oral recitation, it could, to some extent, also have been passed on in written format.

On balance, it broadly supports the idea it is from Muhammed's lifetime, but also increases the possibility that parts of the Quran were written down earlier than the tradition states.

Of course, this relies on the dating being accurate.

The hadith say that the quran was conserved on animal skin and leaves. And that when the quran was being collected some parts of it were lost. one hadith even says that a goat ate a part of the quran. and that there were chapters that didnt make it to the modern quran, such as the chapter of breast feeding.

 

[Unification]

All I saw was your attempting to dismiss the tools you used for your idea thus using a double-standard.



You do since none support your idea



Which was not my point. Red herring and dismissed as such



Nope, wrong again. Israeli was symbolic and a representation of a person and then people centuries before it was a kingdom or the modern nation. Read the Bible.



Wrong again as theology is covered in academia. Wrong again as some myths have kernels of historical truth. Ended by sophistry in order to ignore these facts.

Israel was the name of a person's state of mind after that person wrestled, amidst the "sun" coming up with "God." An "Israelite" is one who strives with "God." Not a literal heritage "Israelite." That land was filled with diversity and people from all over the place. There was never a state until 1948. A Brazilian individual with no ties to anything literal "Israel" could be considered a biblical "Israelite." Anyone can. External academic theology of the bible is misleading and false. Not a history book. External academic theology sees it as a literal heritage Israelite. Just seeing the problems of the world over the years with the external academic theology of "Israel" and "Israelite" should be enough to see its foolishness.

Yis/Is Ra and El

Ra-Sun

El- Elohim

Only, the external and academic theology of myths has all of those existing outside, external deities and not something symbolically happening inside of a human.

Stick to the theology of how religions formed. It is by taking mythological biblical text as external academic theology. No different than what the so called "professionals" are doing. All misleading mainstream garbage. . Both religiously and academically.

I understand why you aren't cognitively aware of this, an external biblical academist as well as an external biblical religionist will hold on at all costs no matter how wrong they are. Too prideful. Too painful for neurological plasticity with an image and ego to protect. The blind teachers leading the blind sheep and claiming scholar/professional and theologian.

 

[leibowde84]

The carbon dating of the Birmingham manuscript, as is evident, is not correct to second/minute/hour/day/year extent, it only provides a range within which it could be possibly located. Rest is to be decided by the inner evidence from the text of the scripture. The inner evidence rejects that it could before Muhammad's birth for the reasons I have mentioned. Similarly, Muhammad was a real and historic person, the innever evidence of the Birmingham manuscript reject that Quran descended after Muhammad.
The only possibility is that it was descended on Muhammad within his life span, though codified later in the time of Caliph Uthmān. Birmingham manuscript is similar to Uthmān Codex without change
I think the OP as well as other friends here would agree to it, now.
Regards

Who was this in response to? Because, I can't figure out the relevance. Can you explain?

 

[paarsurrey]

Who was this in response to? Because, I can't figure out the relevance. Can you explain?

The OP and also anybody else who endorses his view on the topic.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

The carbon dating of the Birmingham manuscript, as is evident, is not correct to second/minute/hour/day/year extent, it only provides a range within which it could be possibly located. Rest is to be decided by the inner evidence from the text of the scripture.
The inner evidence rejects that Quran could be before Muhammad's birth for the reasons I have mentioned. Similarly, Muhammad was a real and historic person, the ineer evidence of the Birmingham manuscript reject that Quran descended after Muhammad.
The only possibility is that it was descended on Muhammad within his life span, though codified later in the time of Caliph Uthmān. Birmingham manuscript is similar to Uthmān Codex without change.
One cold observe the correctness of my above expression from the following verse of Quran:
The Holy Quran : Chapter 10: Yunus
[10:3]Is it a matter of wonder for men that We have inspired a man from among them,saying, ‘Warn mankind and give glad tidings to those who believe that they have a true rank of honour with their Lord?’ The disbelievers say, ‘Surely, this is a manifest enchanter.’
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=10

The OP or anybody else to tell us which other scripture could have come up with the above verse except Muhammad.
Regards

 

[leibowde84]

The OP and also anybody else who endorses his view on the topic.
Regards

There is no claim or position stated in the OP. It just asks to Co side an article and share your opinion on it, right?

 

[paarsurrey]

There is no claim or position stated in the OP. It just asks to Co side an article and share your opinion on it, right?

I don't get the meaning of the word "Co side".
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

There is no claim or position stated in the OP. It just asks to Co side an article and share your opinion on it, right?

I meant the starter of the thread the 'original poster'.
Regards

 

[leibowde84]

I don't get the meaning of the word "Co side".
Regards

Sorry, that was my bad ... Typo.
* read

 

[leibowde84]

I meant the starter of the thread the 'original poster'.
Regards

Do you mean later on in the thread? Can you give me a general estimate of where?