oldest fragments of Quran found
-
How do you know if the text doesn't state it? To Muhammad is your conjecture, which is only supported by hadith.
Even though the text doesn't mention "to Muhammad" you still believe it implies "to Muhammad". That is a prime example of conjecture.
We can say little about Jibreel but we can say at least this much in the verses you quoted about Jibreel, Muhammad is NOT mentioned!
Salaam,
I agree that the Quran has no explicit statement naming both Jibreel and Muhammad, much like how the majority of the verses where the prophet/messenger is concerned, is not referred to by name but by the functioning title i.e. "O prophet, O messenger, the prophet, the messenger" and so on. This does lend some argument to the time-less quality of the text. However if you read the chapter 33, it addresses this prophet, rather more specifically and then further towards the end, names this prophet who the Quran is being revealed/inspired to.
331 O Prophet! Fear Allah and (do) not obey the disbelievers and the hypocrites. Indeed, Allah is All-Knower, All-Wise.
Then immediately after this, we learn that a "something" is being given to this prophet to follow
332 And follow what is inspired to you from your Lord. Indeed, Allah is of what you do All-Aware.
337 And when We took from the prophets their Covenant and from you and from Nuh and Ibrahim and Musa and Isa, Maryam's son. And We took from them a covenant strong
...and to convey
3338 Not is upon the prophet any discomfort in what Allah has imposed on him. Allah's way in concerning those who passed away before. And is Allah's Command a decree destined.
3339 Those who convey Messages (of) Allah and fear Him and not fear anyone except Allah. And sufficient is Allah a Reckoner.
3340 Not is Muhammad father (of) any from your men but is Messenger of Allah and Seal (of) the Prophets. And Allah is of every thing All-Knower.
After reading the Quran in its entirety, I accept this "something" to be referring to itself, i.e. the Quran.
-
Peace runninglikezebras,
As AW pointed out, 297-99 make it clear that Jibreel is (1) an angel/controller, and (2) the one who 'sent down' by God's leave the revelations to the Prophet.
Regarding Muhammad's prophethood, he is mentioned in several verses, notably 472 and 4829 where it is made clear that he is (1) a prophet, and (2) the recipient of what was sent down.
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).
You seem to be of the habit of making broad claims without providing any sources or evidence. Please explain how you know that the Arabs and Berbers who conquered Spain had "no knowledge of the Quran whatsoever". And please explain how you know that the "Quran in the early days is a total myth". Particularly in light of this very thread where a Quran from Muhammad's lifetime was found.
Based on the other thread titled 'Forum Activity' where you expounded a little bit on your theories, I noticed that you have nearly no filter for proper sources. You should stick to academic secular sources instead of crappy internet forums full of teenagers and couch experts.
Lastly, regarding the Quranic integrity itself - at best you could argue that there were wildly differing Quran's for 20 years following Muhammad's death. We do not have extant differing codices today, which is extraordinarily impressive. We have codices with minor textual variations, which is more than expected considering thousands upon thousands of people over the last 1500 years were copying it by hand, and without vocalizations in the early periods.
Now Patricia Crone and Michael Cook and some other academic scholars used to argue that the Quran was developed over several centuries. This is now a moot point thanks to the Birmingham codex in this thread which predates Crone's claim of a 9th century Quran. This codex is far from complete, but it is dated to Muhammad's lifetime and shows that there was such a thing as 'the Quran' in the lifetime of Muhammad himself, matching word-for-word what we call the Quran today, even containing the correct verse endings. The Sanaa version has been proven to match the modern Quran, with what I consider minor differences in the lower text that was erased. I find it hardly surprising that a hand-copied Quran from 1400 years ago sitting in Yemen has things like "wa maa" instead of "fa maa", and occasional different words. The lower text has been dated to before Uthman's reign with 75% probability, and Yemen was one of the first places to convert to the new religion, making it hardly surprising at all that there would be variations in the text. What makes it surprising is that it doesn't have random hadiths strewn in left and right if it is based on one person's handwritten notes.
Regarding the "fluid Quran" argument of some scholars, at the moment I cannot believe that they have read the Quran in the way that we do. I started a project a few years ago that I abandoned out of laziness, where I tried to follow the Quran's logical argument. I found that the beginning of surah 2 has an extremely strong logical pattern. Just as an example
21-5 this is the book - an explanation of what the book is (hudan lil-muttaqeen). and an explanation of who these ppl are
5-20 definition of who the kuffar are > confrontations with others and lying (11,13,14)
17-20 analogies of the kuffar
21-26 therefore worship Him + reasons given for worship- creation, a catering environment, and paradise (25)
22-23 if you doubt then bring forth an equal surah or witnesses; this finishes the argument from beginning (let there be no doubt)
26 parable of a gnat
27-29 again describing the iniquitous. and giving reasons to believe.So to summarize what happens in the first 30 verses of surah 2, we get an introduction to what the book is, describing good and bad ppl, analogies to help ppl understand, instruction to worship, reasons for worship, challenge to deniers, 2nd description of bad ppl, questions how one can still deny, and then 2nd time same reasons given to worship.
So if there was a "fluid Quran" where scribes are sitting randomly cutting and inserting verses to make "day" match 365 an whatever else, you would find complete inconsistency. Here we have an absolutely perfectly coherent and methodical argument given over the span of 30 verses.
-
It is rediculous to speak of the conquest of spain by Arabs or berbers or whatever other variations want to be introduced. There was not such conquest.
The very fact that at the time what is called Spain now and the north of Africa con the other side of the Gibraltar straghit were the same state under the same state authority and there was nod ifference between them on that count, it could hardly be spoken of any conquest. The very concept is nonsense. And that is universla knowledge, although many suposedly learned people continue to speak as if they ignored that fact. What happened in th whole of the state was that most of the people were arrians, that is unitarian christians and that they were being oppressed for that reason by the gothics kings who were themselves roman christians, that is trinitarians, The kings won and all people were forced to be trinitarians it is in that context that islam was introduced into Spain, though not by conquest as the selk seeking legend goes but by raction to the religious oppression of the romans till with time many unitarian christians and others evolved into muslims.
Some people tend a lot to have opinions, strong opinions and confuse their own opinions with solid proof of something. And then they require that you prove whatever you say based on the requirer's opinion which is taken as soled proof. Weird.
Salaam
-
No it may be recorded but it is not proved that there was a conquest. At any rate, as I said, it could hardly have been a conquest when it is done within the same state. And yes a do feel strongly because that has been the weapon whereby the shole history of Spain has been highjacked by the Roman Church and its servants, conscious or unconscious of what they were and are doing. You say there are proofs, which are they?
Salaam
-
Huruf, I'm not interested in continuing this discussion as it has absolutely nothing to do with the Quran or the topic of this thread. Suffice to say that I've never before heard of anyone denying the Muslim conquest of Iberia, and what you are arguing without any sources or supporting evidence goes against all modern academic scholarship on this issue. If you have some new archaeological or historical evidence that casts doubt on the established narrative, then by all means make a new thread about the lies of Spanish and Iberian history.
-
Peace huruf,
I don't know why you feel so strongly about this issue. The conquest of Iberia from Africa is well recorded both archaeologically and through contemporary sources...
It is also well recorded that some Arabs crashed 3 NY buildings with umm 2 planes
Physics says it was recorded wrong, yet mainstream people mention it. -
Oh lovely. Is there anyone else who would like to air his favorite conspiracy theories? Let's get them all out now. I personally believe that there were no people in north America when Europeans arrived. It's all a hoax perpetrated by the illuminati and the Jewish-Muslim lobby based in Germany. Also, Germany doesn't exist. If you can prove it exists then bring your evidences!
-
Well there is plenty of writing on it, but I do not have the time to starte relooking and seeking for proofs, for me, and I am Spanish and therefore know the whole running of the historical business on it, and I just laugh at that unanimous shcolarship which it is not as unanimous at it is rpetended and I know on the ground many things that contradict that. The whole medeival history of the Iberian penunsula is a scam.
But what about the question of how could Spain of that time bbe invaded when in fact it os the same state on the south of the state of Gibraltar and on the north? Do you accpet that or not or according to you is it also unanimous that it was not so?
And I do htink it is very much to the point on what is dealt with in this thread in the sense that all those thing swe are sold are in fact rearrangements of facts or legends made to suit political power purposes and therefore prove nothing.
I know also in the Arab imaginary that it for some of them very flattering to consider that they conquered Spain, butt it is pure legend. Have heard in those unanimous accounts about the conquest of Spain about La Cava?
In fact readin what you say a just smile because I find it funny. Very funny, not to say ridiculous. But it does serve very clear political purposes to maintain the legend.
Salaam
-
It is also well recorded that some Arabs crashed 3 NY buildings with umm 2 planes
Physics says it was recorded wrong, yet mainstream people mention it.Yeah that is the way it works, overwhelming downpouring of nonsense and the nonsense becomes accepted fact.
Physics has nothing to say on that the overwhelming downpouring of nonsense is roof enough, who need physics?
On that trend that Arabs are good normal humans and not filth is also a conspiracy theory, on the looks of it.
Salaam
-
In fact readin what you say a just smile because I find it funny. Very funny, not to say ridiculous. But it does serve very clear political purposes to maintain the legend.
Huruf, I personally couldn't care less whether the Arabs and Berbers invaded Spain or not. It's completely inconsequential to me and I'm not pushing any hidden political agendas for anyone. There is absolutely no scholarly dissensus on the Muslim conquest of Iberia whatsoever, except regarding the question of whether they had intended to conquer it, or whether it had started as just a raid for booty which turned into a conquest following surprisingly successful battles against the Visigothic Germanic empire.
And that's all I care to discuss about this topic. As I said, if you would like to revise our current understanding of this period, then please create a thread about it. I'd like for everyone to stick to the topic of the Quran and its historical codices/manuscripts.
Peace
-
Again who are "they" as in "they intended to conquer it". As to no disensus obvioulsy their is if you care to take into account those who disagree. If you don't in this as in every other question their will be no disensus. Do you at any rate admit the roven and accepted fact that it was the same state on both sides of the state of Gibraltar?
Salaam
-
Peace runninglikezebras,
As AW pointed out, 297-99 make it clear that Jibreel is (1) an angel/controller, and (2) the one who 'sent down' by God's leave the revelations to the Prophet.
Regarding Muhammad's prophethood, he is mentioned in several verses, notably 472 and 4829 where it is made clear that he is (1) a prophet, and (2) the recipient of what was sent down.
My understanding is that 472 and 4829 are later additions. If not it would clearly mention Muhammad in the same verse with Gabriel. Did you know the first depiction on currency of Muhammad can only be dated to Ibn Zubayrs time? None of the earlier currencies even mention Muhammad!
You seem to be of the habit of making broad claims without providing any sources or evidence. Please explain how you know that the Arabs and Berbers who conquered Spain had "no knowledge of the Quran whatsoever".
Source According to Ignacio Olag?e (The Arabs never invaded Spain, Flammarion 1969) citing Eulogius of Cordoba (857) and John of Seville (85, the conquest of Spain in the 8th century and was made without Quran or collection of religious texts
And please explain how you know that the "Quran in the early days is a total myth". Particularly in light of this very thread where a Quran from Muhammad's lifetime was found.
First let me address the latter. This Quran is not from Muhammad's lifetime. The parchment is that old. We can only speculate about the text. To me it looks Uthmanic, written on an older parchment. "A widespread Quran" in the early days is a total myth. The compilation of Quran took centuries to become what it is today. See my translation in "the great secret of Islam" for detailed information.
Based on the other thread titled 'Forum Activity' where you expounded a little bit on your theories, I noticed that you have nearly no filter for proper sources. You should stick to academic secular sources instead of crappy internet forums full of teenagers and couch experts.
Cheap accusations. My sources are academic scholars Patricia Crone, Robert Kerr, Gerd R Puin, EM Gallez, and many others.
Lastly, regarding the Quranic integrity itself - at best you could argue that there were wildly differing Quran's for 20 years following Muhammad's death. We do not have extant differing codices today, which is extraordinarily impressive. We have codices with minor textual variations, which is more than expected considering thousands upon thousands of people over the last 1500 years were copying it by hand, and without vocalizations in the early periods.
Now Patricia Crone and Michael Cook and some other academic scholars used to argue that the Quran was developed over several centuries. This is now a moot point thanks to the Birmingham codex in this thread which predates Crone's claim of a 9th century Quran.This shows your lack of reason the birmingham qurans ink can not be carbon dated, the parchment can. Since it corresponds with the Uthmanic codex it most likely is Uthmanic. The fluid Quran theory is still very much relevant. Furthermore you are making a conclusion based on a couple of pages that fit? This only shows your wish for it to be unmanipulated to be true. But it's hardly a scientific standard.
This codex is far from complete, but it is dated to Muhammad's lifetime and shows that there was such a thing as 'the Quran' in the lifetime of Muhammad himself, matching word-for-word what we call the Quran today, even containing the correct verse endings.
See above...
The Sanaa version has been proven to match the modern Quran, with what I consider minor differences in the lower text that was erased. I find it hardly surprising that a hand-copied Quran from 1400 years ago sitting in Yemen has things like "wa maa" instead of "fa maa", and occasional different words. The lower text has been dated to before Uthman's reign with 75% probability, and Yemen was one of the first places to convert to the new religion, making it hardly surprising at all that there would be variations in the text. What makes it surprising is that it doesn't have random hadiths strewn in left and right if it is based on one person's handwritten notes.
Regarding the "fluid Quran" argument of some scholars, at the moment I cannot believe that they have read the Quran in the way that we do. I started a project a few years ago that I abandoned out of laziness, where I tried to follow the Quran's logical argument. I found that the beginning of surah 2 has an extremely strong logical pattern. Just as an example
21-5 this is the book - an explanation of what the book is (hudan lil-muttaqeen). and an explanation of who these ppl are
5-20 definition of who the kuffar are > confrontations with others and lying (11,13,14)
17-20 analogies of the kuffar
21-26 therefore worship Him + reasons given for worship- creation, a catering environment, and paradise (25)
22-23 if you doubt then bring forth an equal surah or witnesses; this finishes the argument from beginning (let there be no doubt)
26 parable of a gnat
27-29 again describing the iniquitous. and giving reasons to believe.So to summarize what happens in the first 30 verses of surah 2, we get an introduction to what the book is, describing good and bad ppl, analogies to help ppl understand, instruction to worship, reasons for worship, challenge to deniers, 2nd description of bad ppl, questions how one can still deny, and then 2nd time same reasons given to worship.
So if there was a "fluid Quran" where scribes are sitting randomly cutting and inserting verses to make "day" match 365 an whatever else, you would find complete inconsistency. Here we have an absolutely perfectly coherent and methodical argument given over the span of 30 verses.
You are wrong the sanaa manuscripts inferior script only contains minor differences see EM Gallez list here http//rootsofislamtruehistory.com/subpages/Codicology_and_suspected_verses.htm
Furthermore the sanaa inferior script is still being researched, but you have already concluded there is nothing to worry about. Pretty pre-emptive, if you ask me...
Your understanding of Kuffar is utterly wrong see http//rootsofislamtruehistory.com/subpages/KFR-root_from_Bible_to_Koran.htmI suggest you read the translation I made in http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9607768.0 before we discuss this further...
This will explain to you my sources are not crappy internet forums full of teenagers and couch experts but respected academics (at least in the western world).
-
Peace runninglikezebras.
You hold a different view about Qoran to mine.
I have read your posts,and your translation of the French "history of Islam , Qoran and its origin". I find no concrete evidence provided.
I have read different versions of the "history of Islam". This is another "mixed up "version of parts from different centuries mixed up and made to fit with no solid back up of clear facts.
My take on Qoran is simple. Study Qoran from cover to cover ,then see what you really find!
No falsehood could enter it, in the past or in the future;* a revelation from a Most Wise, Praiseworthy.
For me Qoran is what GOD says it is
He thus sets up the devil's scheme as a test for those who harbour doubts in their hearts, and those whose hearts are hardened. The wicked must remain with the opposition.
Those who are blessed with knowledge will recognize the truth from your Lord, then believe in it, and their hearts will readily accept it. Most assuredly, God guides the believers in the right path.
As for those who disbelieve, they will continue to harbour doubts until the Hour comes to them suddenly, or until the retribution of a terrible day comes to them.
God establishes the truth with His words, despite the Mujremeen.
The word of your Lord is complete,* in truth and justice. Nothing shall abrogate His words. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient.
Of course you will continue to push your side of the story,I will say
Wait. I am also waiting. Then we will see?
Instead, it is our plan to support the truth against falsehood, in order to defeat it. Woe to you for the utterances you utter.
GOD knows all these various stories of "history" are happening and His Qoran ( true words) will be challenged
We have permitted the enemies of every prophet - human and jinn devils - to inspire in each other fancy words, in order to deceive. Had your Lord willed, they would not have done it. You shall disregard them and their fabrications.
This is to let the minds of THOSE WHO DON'T BELIEVE IN THE HEREAFTER listen to such fabrications, and accept them, and thus expose their real convictions.*
Many will continue to argue that Qoran is "man made"
None argues against God's revelations EXCEPT THOSE WHO DISBELIEVE. Do not be impressed by their apparent success.
For me it's divinely proclaimed
This is the absolute truth.
It is the absolute truth.
Proclaim "O people, the truth has come to you herein from your Lord. Whoever is guided is guided for his own good. And whoever goes astray, goes astray to his own detriment. I am not a guardian over you."
Brother, it is clear we differ in our understanding.
However you are entitled to yours.
GOD bless you.
Peace. -
Hello,
The most common version of Quran is not the original one. The erased text on the Sana'a manuscript is more truthful to the original manuscript. The text that overwrites it has been changed to suit the clerical agenda to some extent. Even without changing the text however no one ever interpreted it as intended.
Be safe
Amenuel -
Everyone is entitled to their own views, I am by no means trying to push my truth and enforce it on anyone. But regardless of whether one shares my view or not, western scholars will continue their research and try to find answers to questions Islamic scholars have refused to answer for many centuries.
-
You seem to be going out of your way to make things fit your narrative by avoiding the simplest explanation nearly every time.
My understanding is that 472 and 4829 are later additions. If not it would clearly mention Muhammad in the same verse with Gabriel.
On what basis?? This is absolutely confirmation bias if I've ever seen it. There's zero basis for saying that Muhammad's name should be in the exact same verse as Gabriel's name. That's ridiculous. They're in the same book. Do you have any proper evidence for this belief other than this?
Did you know the first depiction on currency of Muhammad can only be dated to Ibn Zubayrs time? None of the earlier currencies even mention Muhammad!
-
This can easily be attributed by the first generations of Muslims following God alone.
-
There are actually very early coins that mention Muhammad. According to this site, the earliest discovered coin with his name dates to 685 AD. That's about 50 years after his supposed death. Close enough.
Source According to Ignacio Olag?e (The Arabs never invaded Spain, Flammarion 1969) citing Eulogius of Cordoba (857) and John of Seville (85, the conquest of Spain in the 8th century and was made without Quran or collection of religious texts
Ok?? Is that it? Just because 1 book exists doesn't mean anything. A respected Lebanese historian argued that the Bible came from Yemen, and his career was ruined by it in the academic community. I can find you about 1000 books that claim that there was no moon landing.
So what actual evidence do you have, other than 1 quotation from 857, more than 100 years after the supposed invasion took place?
First let me address the latter. This Quran is not from Muhammad's lifetime. The parchment is that old. We can only speculate about the text.
This is an absolutely moot argument. In ancient times parchment was very expensive and troublesome to get. Particularly in a place like Arabia. No one on earth from that time just happened to have spare parchment lying around for 50 years before deciding to write on it. This is the very reason that we have so many ancient parchments with lower text that was washed off. The same is true of the earliest Bible codices.
Cheap accusations. My sources are academic scholars Patricia Crone, Robert Kerr, Gerd R Puin, EM Gallez, and many others.
And those scholars have been totally refuted by the Birmingham codex, as I already mentioned. Joseph Lumbard, Assistant Professor of Classical Islam, Brandeis University, made this comment after the discovery
These recent empirical findings are of fundamental importance. They establish that as regards the broad outlines of the history of the compilation and codification of the Quranic text, the classical Islamic sources are far more reliable than had hitherto been assumed. Such findings thus render the vast majority of Western revisionist theories regarding the historical origins of the Quran untenable.
And this ignores the fact that there were even more academic historians who supported the old Quran view prior to the discovery of this manuscript.
This shows your lack of reason the birmingham qurans ink can not be carbon dated, the parchment can.
See above. This only exposes your lack of knowledge regarding the historical context and the value of parchment. There is a reason that no historians have raised this point as a serious problem.
You are wrong the sanaa manuscripts inferior script only contains minor differences see EM Gallez list here http//rootsofislamtruehistory.com/subpages/Codicology_and_suspected_verses.htm
Another cherry-picked source. Why don't you listen to the 2 historians who actually made the study? Why is the word of 1 random Catholic theologian with a niche theory so valuable to you? Just because it confirms what you want to believe?
Behnam Sadeghi (Professor of Islamic Studies at Stanford University) and Mohsen Goudarzi (PhD student at Harvard University) are the ones who studied the lower text, and stated that "a small fraction of the variants do make a difference in meaning."
But ignore Gallez and ignore Sadeghi and Goudarzi. You can read a long list of the differences for yourself right here
So why don't we settle this right here and now. You can go through that list and tell me exactly which variants you consider to significantly change the meaning of the Quranic message or one of its tenets.
I suggest you read the translation I made in http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9607768.0 before we discuss this further...
Who is "Olaf" ?? Why should I read what he thinks?? What is his expertise on this subject?? Why does every source you like have to be some fringe internet person with a niche conspiracy theory??
-
-
The erased text on the Sana'a manuscript is more truthful to the original manuscript. The text that overwrites it has been changed to suit the clerical agenda to some extent.
Why don't you go through this list of some variants between the lower text and the modern Hafs Quran, and tell us which variations change the meaning "to suit the clerical agenda".
-
You seem to be going out of your way to make things fit your narrative by avoiding the simplest explanation nearly every time.
On what basis?? This is absolutely confirmation bias if I've ever seen it. There's zero basis for saying that Muhammad's name should be in the exact same verse as Gabriel's name. That's ridiculous. They're in the same book. Do you have any proper evidence for this belief other than this?
-
This can easily be attributed by the first generations of Muslims following God alone.
-
There are actually very early coins that mention Muhammad. According to this site, the earliest discovered coin with his name dates to 685 AD. That's about 50 years after his supposed death. Close enough.
This is getting kind of embarassing the coin you are referring to is the currency I mentioned of Ibn Zubayr (who was a rebel leading a revolt). Read "the great secret of Islam" which explains how the image of Muhammad was rescued from oblivion first by the opposing forces to the caliphate (such as Ibn Zubayr) and later adopted into the Caliph's theology to enforce his divine rule. The first caliphs however never made mention of Muhammad. Furthermore it is very suspicious that a Quran that pretends to be clear nowhere states Muhammad received a divine revelation from Gabriel (in a single verse). Again, I suggest you read the full article I linked you to. It's the work of an honest journalist using academic resources for his work.
Ok?? Is that it? Just because 1 book exists doesn't mean anything. A respected Lebanese historian argued that the Bible came from Yemen, and his career was ruined by it in the academic community. I can find you about 1000 books that claim that there was no moon landing.
So what actual evidence do you have, other than 1 quotation from 857, more than 100 years after the supposed invasion took place?
You asked me for a source reference I give you one and you still refute it as evidence. The burden is upon you to show proof the Moors had such texts. The simple truth is they totally "forgot" to bring those with them. Kind of odd dont you think, if Quran was so established as the muslim discourse claims it was.
This is an absolutely moot argument. In ancient times parchment was very expensive and troublesome to get. Particularly in a place like Arabia. No one on earth from that time just happened to have spare parchment lying around for 50 years before deciding to write on it. This is the very reason that we have so many ancient parchments with lower text that was washed off. The same is true of the earliest Bible codices.
Again you are embarrassing yourself you admit to the practice of re-usage of older parchment while at the same time claiming the text has to be as old as the parchment. It is a totally irrational statement you are making. Parchments were re-used, washed off, scraped off exactly because they were so precious. The preciousness of parchment further proves it was technically impossible to have a widespread Quran. There was no mass scale industry of parchment.
And those scholars have been totally refuted by the Birmingham codex, as I already mentioned. Joseph Lumbard, Assistant Professor of Classical Islam, Brandeis University, made this comment after the discovery
These recent empirical findings are of fundamental importance. They establish that as regards the broad outlines of the history of the compilation and codification of the Quranic text, the classical Islamic sources are far more reliable than had hitherto been assumed. Such findings thus render the vast majority of Western revisionist theories regarding the historical origins of the Quran untenable.
Many have misunderstood the importance of the Birmingham Quran exactly because they don't understand how carbon dating for the inscription is impossible.
And this ignores the fact that there were even more academic historians who supported the old Quran view prior to the discovery of this manuscript.
I am not saying there aren't but they are wrong however as proven by Gerd R Puin's work.
See above. This only exposes your lack of knowledge regarding the historical context and the value of parchment. There is a reason that no historians have raised this point as a serious problem.
No historians do? What about all those mentioned earlier?
Another cherry-picked source. Why don't you listen to the 2 historians who actually made the study? Why is the word of 1 random Catholic theologian with a niche theory so valuable to you? Just because it confirms what you want to believe?
I'm not cherry picking sources. Western modern research is converging thanks to the work of EM Gallez it fills in the gaps left by Crone's work among others. Eg Crone never managed to explain where exactly Islam started if not the Hejaz. EM Gallez offers a very sound hypothesis to this.
Behnam Sadeghi (Professor of Islamic Studies at Stanford University) and Mohsen Goudarzi (PhD student at Harvard University) are the ones who studied the lower text, and stated that "a small fraction of the variants do make a difference in meaning."
But ignore Gallez and ignore Sadeghi and Goudarzi. You can read a long list of the differences for yourself right here
So why don't we settle this right here and now. You can go through that list and tell me exactly which variants you consider to significantly change the meaning of the Quranic message or one of its tenets.
I will take a look at them and compare it to other studies made to see how complete their work is. Did they discover the text manipulation about inheritance?
Who is "Olaf" ?? Why should I read what he thinks?? What is his expertise on this subject?? Why does every source you like have to be some fringe internet person with a niche conspiracy theory??
He is a journalist who worked with EM Gallez. You are calling these sources fringe internet persons? Everyone can check the qualifications of Crone, Luxenberg, EM Gallez, R. Kerr, Gerd R. Puin. You are calling them fringe internet persons in a weak attempt of slander, just because you don't like what they are saying.
-
-
Why don't you go through this list of some variants between the lower text and the modern Hafs Quran, and tell us which variations change the meaning "to suit the clerical agenda".
I did in some post I wrote at a point compare a verse from the Sana'a and also wrote why the clergy would have drawn advantage from the deliberate change. One thing is that they diminished the importance of Musa/Moses in the passage.
I do not deem it worth the effort though in this case to spend the time to analyze it for you, even if it may sound arrogant. You do not acknowledge any worth in what I write so I am probably only "throwing pearls to swine" (only using the ancient saying, nothing personal).
Be safe
Amenuel
