Koran dated to before Muhamad birth.

[outhouse]

Not that factual evidence would change anyone's faith, but here is a new twist on an old game.


http://www.inquisitr.com/2382300/th...-shake-the-foundations-of-islam-scholars-say/


Radiocarbon dating of a Koran manuscript found last month at the University of Birmingham’s Cadbury Research Library suggests that it could predate the Prophet Muhammad.


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.

 

[MD]

Wow

 

[MARCELLO]

There are claims that the paper written on are dated before islam and masallah there are claims of any kind for everything

 

[columbus]

dated the parchment on which the Koran text was written to the period between 568 A.D. and 645 A.D.

I'm sure we both know that parchment was expensive and durable. So the age of the parchment doesn't necessarily reflect the age of the writing on it.
Tom

 

[Augustus]

Be very careful with radiocarbon dating as it is not as accurate as people think. For example, the Sanaa Manuscript has been dated to 433-599, and 543-643.

It can be used as a guide, but it is not even the most important tool in dating manuscripts. People get a bit excited because it's "science". Of course it remains a possibility, one that was overlooked when people started speculating that this Quran 'could have been written by someone who knew Muhammed', but it ultimately proves nothing.

A professor from SOAS recently said that the writing looks distinctively late 7th C, meaning its likely that it is neither 'too early' nor 'possibly owned by someone who met the Prophet'. The same guy is mentioned in this article, but it seems to have left out that part of his comments.

 

[HekaMa'atRa]

I guess this is the controversial part: "the discovery could force scholars to give more attention to outlier theories that Muhammad appropriated texts already in existence and claimed that he received them as revelations from Angel Gabriel."

 

[George-ananda]

I don't get it. If Mohammed died in 632AD then why is a date of between 586AD and 645AD problematic to conventional Islamic thinking?

 

[outhouse]

I don't get it. If Mohammed died in 632AD then why is a date of between 586AD and 645AD problematic to conventional Islamic thinking?

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.

 

[outhouse]

Be very careful with radiocarbon dating as it is not as accurate as people think

Sure it is to 95% accuracy.

But as I already stated it could be fact and muslims would not accept it.

 

[outhouse]

I guess this is the controversial part: "the discovery could force scholars to give more attention to outlier theories that Muhammad appropriated texts already in existence and claimed that he received them as revelations from Angel Gabriel."

That has never been an argument in academia. Scholars state the koran plagiarized biblical mythology long after the fact.

I mean no scholar in the world uses the koran for any historical research on jesus or Israelite history because it is devoid of historicity.

 

[outhouse]

I'm sure we both know that parchment was expensive and durable. So the age of the parchment doesn't necessarily reflect the age of the writing on it.
Tom

Understood, but the argument goes against them, not for them.

Parchment was often made specifically as requested when someone needed it. It did not sit on a shelf waiting to be purchased.

It was very common to reuse text, but that would be obvious, and if so would have been noted.


This Is not a shock to anyone outside of islam, we know the book was written on pre existing traditions.

 

[Augustus]

Sure it is to 95% accuracy.

This is why philosophy of science is important. Where does that 95% figure come from?

But as I already stated it could be fact and muslims would not accept it.

It might be true, hard to see how it would be fact though.

 

[outhouse]

It might be true, hard to see how it would be fact though.

It was hypothetical.

muslims already refuse credible academia now that is not even up for debate. Silly things like facts wont change any of their beliefs.

The fanaticism and fundamentalism is to deeply ingrained into the cultures.

 

[Sees]

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.

It's only a few fragments, so if it's the early half of the carbon dating estimate then that's something but if it's towards the end it can blend into traditional Islamic history - which we know for sure Islamic apologists are working on as we speak. They will make this seem like a witness to the Qur'an's authenticity unless people can nail down the earlier timeframe.

 

[Nietzsche]

Understood, but the argument goes against them, not for them.

Parchment was often made specifically as requested when someone needed it. It did not sit on a shelf waiting to be purchased.

It was very common to reuse text, but that would be obvious, and if so would have been noted.

Depends on what was used as 'ink'. Some inks don't last very long, while you can discover them, you've got run a battery of long tests to do so. It's entirely possible, even likely, that it was used before, the ink faded, and was re purposed.

This Is not a shock to anyone outside of islam, we know the book was written on pre existing traditions.

I didn't know you had access to documents that prove this conclusion without any shadow of doubt. Care to release them to the rest of the world?

 

[George-ananda]

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.

Perhaps it was you who didn't read where it said: However, some scholars had speculated that the early followers might have written scattered sections of the Koran on parchment and palm leaves

Notice it said 'had' meaning this speculation was in existence already before the carbon dating.

 

[outhouse]

It's only a few fragments, so if it's the early half of the carbon dating estimate then that's something but if it's towards the end it can blend into traditional Islamic history - which we know for sure Islamic apologists are working on as we speak. They will make this seem like a witness to the Qur'an's authenticity unless people can nail down the earlier timeframe.

Exactly.

Its leaving the possibility open for an early date, but not decided with any certainty.

From my take it looks like, the time it took them to compile the works into one piece, means its about a 70% shot of being early and 30% chance it was compiled in his lifetime.

 

[outhouse]

Notice it said 'had' meaning this speculation was in existence already before the carbon dating.

Perhaps it was you who didn't read it doesn't matter either way.

We already know the book was plagiarized from the Bible, that's not even up for debate. The koran originated from pre existing sources, we know what you posted already


The article is dealing with new evidence that may give more conclusive evidence to the books origin.

 

[outhouse]

I didn't know you had access to documents that prove this conclusion without any shadow of doubt. Care to release them to the rest of the world?

Sure. Its not up for debate academically.

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


Islam incorporates many Biblical events and heroes into its own mythology.

 

[outhouse]

Depends on what was used as 'ink'. Some inks don't last very long, while you can discover them, you've got run a battery of long tests to do so. It's entirely possible, even likely, that it was used before, the ink faded, and was re purposed.

We can see ink that was once used but faded.

Different light spectrums as you know bring out original text.

On this piece, and the time frames involved it all looks original.


The KEY factor here is Islamic tradition shows the koran was compiled in its current form in the year 653 by Uthman.

So dating of 568 AD and 645 AD. is very informative.

Other key features are the fact the early text was written on ANIMAL SKIN.


Keith Small, from Oxford’s Bodleian Library, was blunt, “This gives more ground to what have been peripheral views of the Quran’s genesis,

Which repeats and confirms what I have stated is already common knowledge of plagiarization that took place.