oldest fragments of Quran found

truthseeker11

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.

Man_of_Faith

Your Master shall soon deliver you the right "Quran". It was an outstanding prophecy.

Be well

runninglikezebras

Will it be in Swedish?

JavaLatte

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"...

FreedomStands

Your Master shall soon deliver you the right "Quran". It was an outstanding prophecy.

Be well

I'm so excited!

ths

Why Persians?
Why not the Arabs themselves?
They have hundreds of motives to did it

Classic 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?

runninglikezebras

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

Wakas

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.

ths

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...

runninglikezebras

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.

runninglikezebras

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.

ths

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.

runninglikezebras

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).

ths

How do you know it was not widespread? Seems rather conjectured..

And whether it was based on the Hebrew calendar isn't really the vital point. It's why this scribe of a caliph didn't choose the hijri calendar and that was never changed afterwards.

runninglikezebras

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).

good_logic

Peace ths

Actually what I posted in the "surah" thread is also relevant here.

GOD knew people will make the claim that Qoran is not original ,that the Qoran we have is nothing like the one given to the prophet!!!
16101
When we substitute one revelation in place of another, and God is fully aware of what He reveals, they say, "You made this up!" Indeed, most of them do not know.

16102
Say, "The Holy Spirit has brought it down from your Lord, truthfully, to assure those who believe, and to provide a beacon and good news for the Muslimeen."

16103
We are fully aware that they say, "A human being is teaching him!" The tongue of the source they hint at is non-Arabic, and this is a perfect Arabic tongue.

16104
Surely, those who do not believe in God's revelations, God does not guide them...

16105
The only ones who fabricate false doctrines are those who do not believe in God's revelations; they are the real liars.

The Qoran I know,study and have checked is the original revelation to the last prophet ,according to my findings.

Bogus histories ,made up stories and theories are many. What is the truth? This is a question to ponder.
There will always be those who will believe "human revelations" instead of GODs revelations?
GOD bless.

runninglikezebras

Isn't it peculiar the verses you quote nowhere cite Gabriel as the source when countering these arguments of being a human revalation, goodlogic?

good_logic

Peace runninglikezebras.

My study of Qoran confirms for me that the " holy spirit " mentioned in verse 16102 is Gabriel.

Say, "The Holy Spirit has brought it down from your Lord, truthfully, to assure those who believe, and to provide a beacon and good news for the Muslimeen."

Check it out.
GOD bless you.
Peace

runninglikezebras

Kinda weird to use ru l-qudusi instead of Gabriels name, don't you think? Even weirder that this verse doesn't clearly state from Gabriel to Muhammad, wouldn't you agree? Instead it says the Holy Spirit "has brought it down". The receiver is not mentioned, nor is the carrier. You can make of those words what you want, but it's not a literal understanding of yours. Ruhu I-qudusi is a judeo-christian understanding of revelation to Jesus and Moses.

good_logic

peace runninglikezebras.

are you forgetting to check the context with the other verses?

Also KUL NAZZALAHU ALRUHU ALAMIN,ALA KALBIKA LITAKUNA MINA ALMUMINEEN" translated

"Say ,the trusworthy holy spirit(Gabriel) has brought it down to your heart ( prophet s heart) to be among the believers."

Like i advised, check Qoran to find out who is the "RUH AL KUDDUS/RUH AL AMIN..."?
GOD bless you.
Peace