oldest fragments of Quran found
-
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 -
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).
The page I linked to clearly states he is a Zubayrid governor. The point is that you left out the date - 50 years after the death of Muhammad and extremely early in Islamic history. What are you arguing? That 50 years into the new religion a bunch of caliphs decided to invent Muhammad? The early Islamic coins clearly define the emergence of a new religion in the area.
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).
Why are you on a Quran alone forum if you don't understand the main tenet of the Quran alone movement? Namely that Muhammad is not a special prophet, he is just another one of God's prophets. There was no reason for the Quran to treat him in a special way, or his earliest followers.
And secondly, the Quran says Gabriel sent down revelation. And then it states Muhammad received revelation that was sent down. This is as clear as it needs to be.
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.
I'm sorry, but an "honest journalist" is nowhere near the qualifications for this man to be authoritative about this subject.
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.
No the burden is on you to show that a group of people took over an entire region (Iberia) and quickly and decisively converted its local population to a new religion, all without any holy text whatsoever. Your narrative makes no sense. They were minting coins apparently, and had all adopted Arabic for some mysterious reason, but there was no Quran. Ok.
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.
There is so much flawed with this paragraph that I need to break it down.
-
There is no lower text in the Birmingham manuscript. That is obviously why it is so important.
-
You admit that parchment is so important that text needed to be washed off, but then you propose that some guy had a random book of parchment sitting around his house for decades until the Quran was written on it much later.
-
You admit that parchment was precious and hard to come by, and then you make huge claims about the integrity of the Quran based largely on spelling mistakes and completely minor differences in the text, like the use of synonyms in some cases, or the use of "so" instead of "and". It is precisely the difficulty of spreading parchments quickly around the globe which necessitated individual memorization, and therefore human error when writing it down later. Unlike the Bible, however, there are no extant 'books' or 'chapters' of the Quran that completely change the message of the Quran.
No historians do? What about all those mentioned earlier?
They made their claims before the Birmingham discovery. Patricia Crone argued that the Quran wasn't complete until the 9th century. Here we have a text that is 99% identical to the modern Quran, dated to 250 years earlier. Therefore she is manifestly wrong.
I will take a look at them and compare it to other studies made to see how complete their work is.
It's astounding to me that you can sit there and make such grandiose statements without ever bothering to actually look at the variants themselves. It was literally the first thing I did. "What are the variants?" "Oh, these are completely irrelevant".
-
-
@ths if you don't like reading, watch this documentary by "fringe internet person" aka historian Tom Holland, as broadcasted on the fringe television channel BBC.
-
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.
So you made the claim that the manuscript was tampered with to please the clergy based on 1 verse?
Very well, please link me to your post and I'll check it out there.
-
The page I linked to clearly states he is a Zubayrid governor. The point is that you left out the date - 50 years after the death of Muhammad and extremely early in Islamic history. What are you arguing? That 50 years into the new religion a bunch of caliphs decided to invent Muhammad? The early Islamic coins clearly define the emergence of a new religion in the area.
Do you realize how many caliphs before that had currencies without Muhammad? None of the rashidun caliphs used Muhammad on their currency. The first one in history was produced by a rebel leading a revolt against the caliphate. By all means this implies Muhammad never had such status in the caliphate before that revolt. It was an anti-caliphate propaganda tool, and thus a later development never attested for by the early caliphs.
Why are you on a Quran alone forum if you don't understand the main tenet of the Quran alone movement? Namely that Muhammad is not a special prophet, he is just another one of God's prophets. There was no reason for the Quran to treat him in a special way, or his earliest followers.
I used to understand Muhammad as one of the prophets. I no longer consider him to be that anymore. Clearly he was an anti-establishment "cult figure" that has roots outside the quran, later adopted and implemented in the discourse of the authorities.
And secondly, the Quran says Gabriel sent down revelation. And then it states Muhammad received revelation that was sent down. This is as clear as it needs to be.
It would have been if it said that in one verse. If it said so in one verse there could be no doubt about later interpolations.
I'm sorry, but an "honest journalist" is nowhere near the qualifications for this man to be authoritative about this subject.
Did you even bother to read it?
No the burden is on you to show that a group of people took over an entire region (Iberia) and quickly and decisively converted its local population to a new religion, all without any holy text whatsoever. Your narrative makes no sense. They were minting coins apparently, and had all adopted Arabic for some mysterious reason, but there was no Quran. Ok.
Lol. You seem very immersed into the Muslim fantasy rewriting of history. Fact of the matter is when "muslims" (they didn't even call themselves such, rather Saracens) conquered Jerusalem they did not establish a new religion (see Tom Hollands docu). Neither did the Moors convert entire Iberia. They were tolerant to existing faiths, it's not clear what new faith they brought with them at all.
There is so much flawed with this paragraph that I need to break it down.
- There is no lower text in the Birmingham manuscript. That is obviously why it is so important.
Still doesn't prove the text is as old as the parchment.
- You admit that parchment is so important that text needed to be washed off, but then you propose that some guy had a random book of parchment sitting around his house for decades until the Quran was written on it much later.
You make this sound ridiculous but there are very many parchments around, that are found to have later scriptures on a much older parchment. The practice of keeping parchment for centuries even is well attested for.
- You admit that parchment was precious and hard to come by, and then you make huge claims about the integrity of the Quran based largely on spelling mistakes and completely minor differences in the text, like the use of synonyms in some cases, or the use of "so" instead of "and". It is precisely the difficulty of spreading parchments quickly around the globe which necessitated individual memorization, and therefore human error when writing it down later. Unlike the Bible, however, there are no extant 'books' or 'chapters' of the Quran that completely change the message of the Quran.
You make it seem like the differences are small, but just to cite one example changing a word entirely to another word to make it speak about inheritance laws where it originally does not is quite huge to me.
They made their claims before the Birmingham discovery. Patricia Crone argued that the Quran wasn't complete until the 9th century. Here we have a text that is 99% identical to the modern Quran, dated to 250 years earlier. Therefore she is manifestly wrong.
My god... 2 pages written in a time that has not been dated fitting the Uthmanic text means proof? This is why you are no scholar. Neither am I by the way.
It's astounding to me that you can sit there and make such grandiose statements without ever bothering to actually look at the variants themselves. It was literally the first thing I did. "What are the variants?" "Oh, these are completely irrelevant".
I will take a look at them. I'm not all knowing nor am I a scholar.
-
So you made the claim that the manuscript was tampered with to please the clergy based on 1 verse?
If you deliberately change words for other words in several occasions then you obviously have an agenda, particularly since I managed to localize one change and examine it and see its impact on a rendition. I have not had any more time to analyze anything else at the time being and I do not seek to spend more time on this matter here on now either. I have given out sufficient elaboration on this forum previously which have often been unheeded. Eventually there will be a full reinterpretation of Quran published by me after an estimated project time of about 6-7 years.
I basically nullified the interpretations that you have as amateurish "blabber" of people who only sought to fit a doctrine into its passages and did not even understand the literal meaning of the word allah. There are some people who see my point, but that group is small. It does not matter, they will be more.
My work right now is not nullifying Quran as you have it but I work on discovering its true interpretation instead. I see no meaning in correcting something which does not even convey the real point even 7% of the time.
Very well, please link me to your post and I'll check it out there.
I apologize for a surge of disinterest in complying with your wish. It would probably take some time to locate the post which has no value to you anyway.
Be safe
Amenuel -
It would have been if it said that in one verse. If it said so in one verse there could be no doubt about later interpolations.
If it said so in one verse you would be telling us that the verse was a later addition. And then you would state that if it was truly a revelation given to Muhammad by Gabriel, they would both be mentioned many times throughout the Quran together.
Either way, we can do this forever. I'll wait for you to create a list of all serious differences between the San'aa manuscript and the modern Quran. I can tell you that the ones listed on that wikipedia link are very much minor differences.
It would probably take some time to locate the post which has no value to you anyway.
Ok then.
-
This phenomenon of debate, God has revealed, God has not revealed, belief and disbelief, interesting to note how timeless it is, it keeps on going.
The period when everything is clear without any room for reasonable doubt, it would be all over. Then believing will not avail nor help.
-
I again refer you to http//rootsofislamtruehistory.com/subpages/Codicology_and_suspected_verses.htm
They are better explained there than I possibly can including the change to ar-r al-qudus (dropping the al to make it able to identify Gabriel with), the change to ?min ?inda Ll?hi? (adding of ?min ?inda Ll?hi? to add status of prophethood to the rasul if not divinity to the Quran), the adding of Q 4176, adding of 4171b, removal of a of verses between 171a and 172, adding of "Nar".
Read what EM Gallez writes about the change to ar-r al-qudus and its significance
It is immediately noticeable that this formulation, with its article ?al?, is the expression Christian Arabs have always use to refer to the Holy Spirit. Moreover, this formulation also was used by the Judeo-Nazarenes because it is biblical, even if they rejected the Christian faith; they simply gave it a different meaning. For them, ?Holy Spirit? was one way of expressing how God animates and supports His ?Messiah-Jesus? 19. This background helps us to understand the different possible ways of reading the fourth verse containing the expression r al-qudus, the highly crucial verse 102 from Sura Al-Nahl
? r al-qudus has brought it down from your Lord with the truth, in order to strengthen those who believe, and as guidance and good news (bu?ra) for the muslims (those who submit)? (Q 16102).
This verse alone is worth a complete study, as so much meaning is packed into it we find the word ?muslimn?, which was only used after the 8th century, to designate the instruments of the Arab Caliphate power structure, also known as the ?Muslims? 20. In the Koran, the word muslim simply takes upon the meaning of those subjecting to (as isl?m means submission). There is also the word ?bu?ra?, meaning Gospel to Aramaic and Arab Christians, according to the precise meaning attached to the word as found in the New Testament, where it refers to the teachings of the Apostles and other witnesses. Finally, we find the expression ar-rh al-qudus (with or without the article) in relation to something that came down from Heaven by God?s will in the form of a writing. However, the co-text is very controversial we read in verse 101 the charge of forgery, while verse 103 says
?A man assuredly (innam?) teaches him. The tongue of him they point to is foreign (a?jamyy), while this is Arabic, pure and clear? (Q 16103).
The discussion therefore focuses upon the fact that the language of the teacher is not Arabic, and not upon the fact that the the teacher is an angel rather than a man it is the false interpretation given to the adverb innam? (only instead of indeed, as we will see further) that suggests that some would believe in the intervention of an angel, while others object that it is but only a man.
What is for us of interest in verse 102 is its formula ar-rh al-qudus if it is to designate the angel Gabriel, we must accordingly delete the first article to prevent it from meaning ?the Holy Spirit? and mean instead ?the spirit of the Holy one? ? by which is meant ?an angel of God?. This change is radical it is linked to the idea that the angel Gabriel dictated the Koran to Muhammad. It can also be dated the idea in itself is posterior to AD 735, year around which John of Damascus simply wrote that Muhammad received the Koran in his sleep. Arguably, then, the case can be made that the scriptio superior or the last text from the manuscript of an??? (including its second scriptio inferior, namely the most recent) does postdate 735.
-
Peace All.
GOD has provided the answers in Qoran.
I have no doubt that Gabriel is consistently called the "Ruh" in Qoran, The witnesses will be brought on the day of Judgement and Gabriel ( the Ruh) will be there with the Angels
7838
The day will come when the Spirit( Gabriel) and the angels will stand in a row. None will speak except those permitted by the Most Gracious, and they will utter only what is right.7839
Such is the inevitable day. Whoever wills let him take refuge in his Lord.7840
We have sufficiently warned you about an imminent retribution. That is the day when everyone will examine what his hands have sent forth, and the disbeliever will say, "Oh, I wish I were dust."My take on itGabriel,or the "Ruh" will indeed confirm that he brought the Qoran down to the prophet,to warn about "this day""!!!
Like AW mentioned, it will be too late to believe?
GOD bless .
Peace. -
Good logic, please understand you are not making a big impression when you are using an injected understanding not present in the quranic text (between brackets), as proof of your understanding. Furthermore are you contesting that ar-r al-qudus was a known christian denominator for the Holy Spirt (not Gabriel)?
-
Peace runninglikezebras.
I keep asking people to study Qoran from cover to cover, from the first letter to the last,so they can at least do it justice and checking it out properly.
You keep saying that many are using" hadith" to believe Qoran when claiming they believe in Qoran Alone?
Well you believe in "hadith"( another version of men s words) according to your posts. You insert " Scientists/titles" for the authors and you believe them. What is the difference?
At least I give Qoran its "dues" and keep studying it .
Each to their choice.
GOD bless you.
Peace. -
That's the final messianist argument isn't it? When criticized, this is normal because good logic is of the only guided ones, Gods elect, chosen for the kingdom to come.
I'm pretty shocked you are willing to throw overboard rational thinking and scientific arguments to preserve the divinity of the Quran you know.
-
Hello,
It does not have anything to do with belief but you must realize yourself, to be 'such as Him'. This is what you must accomplish in this life.
Believing is easy and a lot of people say you are a disbeliever if you do not understand Quran and thus reject it, but having faith in a 'Higher Intelligence' would be sufficient, the rest is about who you are. I would also reject Quran unless I discovered its real words beneath an ocean of lies by the grace of God.
Be safe
Emanuel -
Peace running likezebras.
No one is guaranteed anything. We must all strive to earn our salvation.
I am simply trying to stay loyal to the Lord. Checking all information,Scientific or not, is a job that we must do.
Do you think Science is free from "manipulations/fabrications and lies".especially when humans have certain motives?
Of course some proven Science and facts are useful and I am the first to acknowledge these.
I am also aware that a lot of people have their own agendas.
I am trying to search for the truth. But of course you will say everyone says that!I truly want to know the truth,but I shall do my own checking.
GOD bless you.
Peace. -
Good logic, please understand you are not making a big impression when you are using an injected understanding not present in the quranic text (between brackets), as proof of your understanding. Furthermore are you contesting that ar-r al-qudus was a known christian denominator for the Holy Spirt (not Gabriel)?
- From the Quranic perspective, Gabriel is RUHUL AMIN
0297 - Say, "Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel - IT IS HE WHO SENT DOWN THE QURAN UPON YOUR HEAART, by permission of ALLAH, confirming what was in between, support it and as guidance and good tidings for the believers."
Cross-referencing with 26193-194
Sent down by the Truthful Spirit
UPON YOUR HEART, that you may be of the warners,
- From the Quranic perspective, Mikaal is the RUHUL QUDDUS
0287 - And We gave to Moses the Book, and after him sent succeeding Messengers; and We gave Esa son of Mary the clear signs, and confirmed him with the Holy Spirit...
Cross-referencing with...
16102 - Say 'The Holy Spirit sent it down from thy Lord in truth, and to confirm those who believe, and to be a guidance and good tidings to those who surrender.'
Now, if you read the verse 101, you will notice that it mention verses that were substituted was sent down by the Holy Spirit. So from hear we safely conclude that Jibril, the Truthful Spirit, sent down those verses that was known by the other prophets while Mikaal, the Holy Spirit, sent down verses that are to be subsituted.
-
- From the Quranic perspective, Gabriel is RUHUL AMIN
Interesting. Thank you.
Salaam
0297 - Say, "Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel - IT IS HE WHO SENT DOWN THE QURAN UPON YOUR HEAART, by permission of ALLAH, confirming what was in between, support it and as guidance and good tidings for the believers."
Cross-referencing with 26193-194
Sent down by the Truthful Spirit
UPON YOUR HEART, that you may be of the warners,
- From the Quranic perspective, Mikaal is the RUHUL QUDDUS
0287 - And We gave to Moses the Book, and after him sent succeeding Messengers; and We gave Esa son of Mary the clear signs, and confirmed him with the Holy Spirit...
Cross-referencing with...
16102 - Say 'The Holy Spirit sent it down from thy Lord in truth, and to confirm those who believe, and to be a guidance and good tidings to those who surrender.'
Now, if you read the verse 101, you will notice that it mention verses that were substituted was sent down by the Holy Spirit. So from hear we safely conclude that Jibril, the Truthful Spirit, sent down those verses that was known by the other prophets while Mikaal, the Holy Spirit, sent down verses that are to be subsituted.
-
The oldest inferior scripts of the Sanaa psalimpsests do state ?ar-rh al-qudus?.
EM Gallez writes
What is for us of interest in verse 102 is its formula ar-rh al-qudus if it is to designate the angel Gabriel, we must accordingly delete the first article to prevent it from meaning ?the Holy Spirit? and mean instead ?the spirit of the Holy one? ? by which is meant ?an angel of God?. This change is radical it is linked to the idea that the angel Gabriel dictated the Koran to Muhammad. It can also be dated the idea in itself is posterior to AD 735, year around which John of Damascus simply wrote that Muhammad received the Koran in his sleep. Arguably, then, the case can be made that the scriptio superior or the last text from the manuscript of an??? (including its second scriptio inferior, namely the most recent) does postdate 735.
Furthermore, if you are claiming Quranic standards, you will have to admit 0297 nowhere mentions Muhammad. Only with hadith and tafsir indoctrination would the reader understand it as relating to Muhammad. Reading the verses preceding it, one can easily find out Moses is being referred to here (worship of the calf, ascension on the mount, etc). Similarily 287 does not mention Mikaal at all. This is complete conjecture, based on tafsir and hadith. Still you are claiming to be using a Quranic perspective. Next to this 287 explicitly mentions Moses and Jesus, nowhere does it mention Muhammad!
As far as I'm concerned this is a pretty good illustration how this text manipulation was intended. To make a divine revelation by Gabriel to Muhammad fit the Quranic text (which it originally did not state).
This post by Hizbullah shows how much hadith and tafsir so called "quranists" are still applying. Distorting words, transfer of identification (interchanging Moses, Jesus with Muhammad where they feel like it).
The challenge is still open show me a clear single verse in quran that states "Gabriel brought the message to Muhammad". If you can't, you'd better reanalyze your assumptions.
