oldest fragments of Quran found
-
Salaam,
As I said earlier in other threads, to me alQuraan exists since Adam. Like some of the instructions were given directly to Adam. Then more aayaat were added to the existing ones when Bani-Adam came into existence. And later some more aayaat for Nooh, then for Ibrahim and it goes on. And today we have a copy of all together compiled and called as alQuraan. AlTauraat and alInjeel also are available in this alQuraan.
If not many questions arise.
May Allah increase our knowledge and guide us on His path pr
mmKhan -
The reader should make note these sensational topics should always be viewed in the correct perspective. The parchment can be dated to a certain date. The text written on it can not be dated. It's a speculative claim to say this is the oldest Quran.
Peace
-
The reader should make note these sensational topics should always be viewed in the correct perspective. The parchment can be dated to a certain date. The text written on it can not be dated. It's a speculative claim to say this is the oldest Quran.
Peace
The script of the Quran shows when it was written. If its Jazm Script, which was introduce between the end 4th, that means the Quran is old. Kuffic Script was introduced in the early decades of 7th Century. The 7th Century was the actual era where the Abbasiyyah took control.
-
Peace Hafeez Kazi,
Alif, Lam, Ra. These are the verses of the Book and a clear Qur'an. (Al-Hijr 1)
Ta, Seen. These are the verses of the Qur'an and a clear Book (An-Naml 1)
surprisingly the fragments survived but still no sign of the BOOK and the complete QURAN. Why the BOOK and the complete QURAN was not preserved by the COMPANIONS/ followers of prophet Muhammad when the same people preserved the much older fake foot prints of prophet Abraham.
Then do they not reflect upon the Qur'an? If it had been from other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction. (An-Nisaa 82)
The disbelievers also had access to the complete Quran so that they can see for themselves if there are any contradictions in it.
Say, "If mankind and the jinn gathered in order to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like of it, even if they were to each other assistants." (Al-Israa 8
The challenge to mankind and the jinn to produce the like of (complete) Quran and not fragments.
This implies that the Quran was intact during the period of the prophet but then all of a sudden vanished from the face of this earth is very much surprising?
SUSPICION/CONSPIRACY?
bravo
I agree that ORIGINAL AL-QURAN was a COMPLETE BOOK and intact during the period of the prophet.
My standing HYPOTHESIS/SUSPICION is that some years after the death of the prophet, SOME ADDITIONS, DELETIONS/OMISSIONS were made to/from ORIGINAL AL-QURAN.
ORIGINAL AL-QURAN was subsequently DESTROYED by so called "Muslims" (pagans) and the ALTERED TEXT survives as the CURRENT TEXT.
Approximately 15,000 Sana'a parchment fragments which are some of the oldest Quranic fragments discovered, might give an inkling of what happened if properly studied. When analysis of about 40 folios started to expose the truth, the Yemeni government CONVENIENTLY PUT THEM UNDER LOCK AND KEY to prevent complete analysis and exposure of the full truth.
I eagerly await discovery of COMPLETE ORIGINAL TEXT OF AL-QURAN for confirmation or rejection of my HYPOTHESIS, but not too optimistic because "the ones in power" will not allow it to be available to the public, just like in case of the Sana'a fragments.
Best regards.
-
Peace Jafar,
There is no evidence to back this up.
Given.. where is "the original" to compare it with?
Nonetheless I don't see this as a big issue anyway..Because the only valid way to see whether a "statement" is true (about anything, written on anything or spoken by anyone) is to do validation with facts.
This method is known as "Scientific Method".Why Persians?
Why not the Arabs themselves?
They have hundreds of motives to did it.. (the usual; political power, wealth and control over other people)Back to the main topic..
The findings is indeed interesting..
And due to the estimated range of 568 and 645 AD..
There is still possibility that the piece was written after Mohammad's death.However it also promote the hypothesis of Mohammad wrote his own notes..
Although perhaps not as a "bundled book".
I find it odd that Mr. Muhammad didn't keep his "notes" properly, I am sure he has one and keep it attentively..bravo
Additionally, how certain are we about when the prophet actually lived?
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=14366.msg133525#msg133525
Best regards.
-
Peace runninglikezebras,
The reader should make note these sensational topics should always be viewed in the correct perspective. The parchment can be dated to a certain date. The text written on it can not be dated. It's a speculative claim to say this is the oldest Quran.
bravo
Actually, there were only 2 parchments discovered and not the complete Quran.
In some newspapers in a certain "Islamic" country, the news was deliberately changed to discovery of the full Quran to deceive the people!
Best regards.
-
Your Master shall soon deliver you the right "Quran". It was an outstanding prophecy.
Be well
-
Will it be in Swedish?
-
Your Master shall soon deliver you the right "Quran". It was an outstanding prophecy.
Which one is the outstanding prophecy?
The Quran? Or that the right "Quran" shall soon deliver?
What if the original Qur'an is actually not written by using alphabet that they call "Arabic"...
-
Your Master shall soon deliver you the right "Quran". It was an outstanding prophecy.
Be well
I'm so excited!
-
Why Persians?
Why not the Arabs themselves?
They have hundreds of motives to did itClassic Jafar. Mono-track mind as per usual.
Peace Wakas,
Do you know if anyone is studying this version to see if it matches the Hafs or Warsh?
I'm thinking primarily of Layth's article, Which Quran? where he tries to unearth which is the actual version we should be using.
And incidentally, what is your own view on the textual integrity of the Quran we have today?
-
I'm flabbergasted by this debate on Hafs Version or Warsh Version.
Why shouldn't we use Abdullah ibn Masud?s version? Or why not Ubay ibn Ka'b?s version?
I could name many other versions were it not that everyone of those, including the above, have been systematically destroyed by caliphs that authorized only their own compilation of Quran.
Whether you have a hafs or warsh version at home, your quran is uthmanic. Without Uthman, your Quran would look differently. But these were rashidun caliphs right? Corruption did not exist right? No caliphs were murdered because they disputed over the control over the religious aspects next to the political right?
I know the arguments but all the people had memorized quran and changing its content would have undoubtedly led to protests. This is a false argument for two reasons
- Quran was only known to the elite in the early days it was not widespread as it is today.
- Do you see similar protests in hardcore sectarian Islamic states when their religious leaders invent another fatwa? We never see those. When the religious power is controlled by an elite, it becomes a tool for totalitarian control of the masses. They get away with fatwa's they invented themselves, just like the early caliphs could hire some scribes to invent, alter or remove some Quranic verses for them.
For reference, a study of suspected verses resulting from a study of the Sanaa manuscripts among others see http//rootsofislamtruehistory.com/subpages/Codicology_and_suspected_verses.htm
-
peace,
Peace Wakas,
Do you know if anyone is studying this version to see if it matches the Hafs or Warsh?
I'm thinking primarily of Layth's article, Which Quran? where he tries to unearth which is the actual version we should be using.
And incidentally, what is your own view on the textual integrity of the Quran we have today?
I don't know of anyone. I haven't looked into it.
I commented previously on Layth's article, if I recall correctly, that the variances demonstrated were minor and didn't change anything of significance and no research whatsoever was done on applying a systematic methodology to see if variances could be eliminated. The same thing could be said for whatever version is being discussed.
I think the textual integrity of Quran is very good, and the variances that I have seen are of no significance and no methodology has been applied (that I know of) to determine if the variances can be reduced or eliminated. However, I would say that I'm not so sure Quran promises to preserve every letter and dot, rather than it's message - I'd have to research that a bit more before concluding what it actually claims to preserve/protect etc.
Edited post shortly after posting, edits in italics.
-
Thanks for the concise response Wakas.
I've never looked into the question of Quranic integrity and have always taken it as a basic assumption. The many number matches, like dunya & akhera, man & woman, day, month, etc. would seem to indicate a very high level of integrity at the very least. But it does make one wonder about the efficacy of the huge exertions we make to decipher even the smallest grammatical and linguistic inflections if the text itself isn't 100% pristine...
-
Any skilled scribe hired by the caliphs would be able to either detect the number matches (if they are pre-existing to the compilation and manipulations) and keep them intact, or would be able to implement such number matches into a compilation to give it a halo of divine origin. I'm quite convinced the latter is true.
A modern example of this would be the novel Gadsby https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadsby_(novel) this novel does not contain the letter E in its 50 000 words.
-
But it does make one wonder about the efficacy of the huge exertions we make to decipher even the smallest grammatical and linguistic inflections if the text itself isn't 100% pristine...
This is exactly how I feel about 90% of the debate on this forum. My exegesis of Quran is focused on comparing it to the Judeo-Nazarene writings, Torah, Gospel, and early christian writings to restore it's original content and message. This requires to take into account the many foreign words in Quran (Syrio-Aramaic, Ugaritic, Akkadian, Hebrew).
A good example of this is the more than 50 pages long thread about inheritance in the Quran which is based on a text manipulation http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604035.msg376599#msg376599
Be warned though, if you step into this type of exegesis you are one step removed of becoming an apostate in Islam. If Islam is a faith you hold dear because you are going through difficult times, you may want to choose to remain ignorant instead of suffering an religious identity crisis on top of it. I say this in all sincerity not out of arrogance.
-
Any skilled scribe hired by the caliphs would be able to either detect the number matches (if they are pre-existing to the compilation and manipulations) and keep them intact, or would be able to implement such number matches into a compilation to give it a halo of divine origin. I'm quite convinced the latter is true.
This would've had to be done extremely early in Islamic history, no later than Omar's reign really. Otherwise we'd have significantly different Qurans lying around.
And that would make it quite weird for the caliph's scribe to have chosen to repeat "day" 365 times instead of the Hijri 354.
-
This would've had to be done extremely early in Islamic history, no later than Omar's reign really. Otherwise we'd have significantly different Qurans lying around.
And that would make it quite weird for the caliph's scribe to have chosen to repeat "day" 365 times instead of the Hijri 354.
In Omar's time, the compilation of Quran was not widespread, mostly exclusively accessible to the elite. There were heterodox copies around which were ordered to be destroyed.
365 days because of its judeonazarene origins (the hebrew calendar is based on 365 days in a year - lunisolar calendar).
-
-
It's not conjecture. Even the Moors who landed in Spain showed no knowledge of the Quran whatsoever. This widespread idea of Quran in the early days is a total myth. But you have to see the translation I have been posting in the "great secret of Islam" to understand why these assertions have historical grounds. The "muslims" who conquered Jerusalem did not call themselves "muslims" at all, they were Saracens. Islam was not a word they used in their discourse. All these are later evolutions. Even the dome of the rock does not contain any verse that is an exact match of a Quranic verse known today.
The hijra calendar is much more recent than the Islamic discourse wants it to be. The hebrew calendar was for a long time the standard in Primo-Islam. It's rather funny how you are using the "365" count as evidence for Qurans integrity while ignoring to see how it contradicts the historicity of the Hijra calendar (contradicted by the 365 count).
