This BBC article is circulating widely, but it raises more questions than it answers, and reveals more about the wishful thinking of the academic and media establishments than it does about the Qur’an.
The article is riddled with academic and journalistic sloppiness. We’re told that the radiocarbon dating shows, “with a probability of more than 95%, the parchment was from between 568 and 645.” Very well, but does the ink date to that time as well? We are not told. Parchment was often reused in the ancient world, with the earlier text erased and written over, and so if a parchment dates from 645, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the text does.
However, it is impossible to discover any more details from this shoddy BBC presentation. The best photo of this manuscript that the BBC provides shows clear traces of another text underneath the main text. It is not clear from the photo whether that is the text from the other side bleeding through on the photograph, or even if there is any text on the other side; nor does the BBC tell us whether or not the parchment shows signs of having been a palimpsest — that is, a parchment that was used more than once for different texts. There is also some red ink in the top lines of the manuscript in the photo but not in the succeeding lines. Has the red ink faded from the other sections, or is it itself evidence of the ink fading? Or is it a later hand filling in areas that had faded away (and possibly altering the text)? The BBC doesn’t tell us, yet this is an extremely salient point. Another recently discovered and much-touted fragment of the Qur’an, now in Germany and dated from between 649 and 675, shows clear signs of alteration, raising the possibility that the Qur’anic text was altered over time. If this is a possibility also for the University of Birmingham manuscript, the BBC should tell us so. But it doesn’t.

What’s more, if the text along with the parchment really dates from between 568 and 645, it may not be a fragment of the Qur’an at all. The Qur’an, according to Islamic tradition, was compiled in its definitive form in the year 653 by the caliph Uthman, who ordered all variant texts burned and the canonical version distributed to all the provinces within his domains. As I show in my book Did Muhammad Exist?, however, there are numerous reasons to doubt this story. The principal one is that if the entire Islamic world had copies of the Qur’an by the mid 650’s, why is it that not until the latter part of the seventh and early part of the eighth century do mentions of the Qur’an begin to appear? The Dome of the Rock inscriptions date from 691; they are made up of many Qur’an verses, but out of their Qur’anic order and some with notable changes in wording. Who would have dared to change the words of Allah? And the first clear reference to the Qur’an as such occurred around the year 710—eighty years after the book was supposedly completed and sixty years after it was supposedly collected and distributed. During a debate with an Arab noble, a Christian monk of the monastery of Beth Hale (of which there were two, one in northern Iraq and the other in Arabia; it is not known in which one this monk lived) cited the Qur’an by name. The monk wrote, “I think that for you, too, not all your laws and commandments are in the Qur’an which Muhammad taught you; rather there are some which he taught you from the Qur’an, and some are in surat albaqrah and in gygy and in twrh.”
By this point Arab armies had conquered a huge expanse of territory, stretching from North Africa, across the Levant, Syria, and Iraq, and into Persia, and yet those eight decades of conquest had produced scarcely a mention of the book that supposedly inspired them. And when the Qur’an finally was mentioned, it appears that the book was not even in the form we now know. Surat albaqrah (or al-Baqara) is “the chapter of the Cow,” which is the second, and longest, sura of the Qur’an. The eighth-century monk thus quite clearly knew of a Qur’an that didn’t contain this sura; he considered surat albaqrah to be a stand-alone book, along with gygy (the Injil, or Gospel) and twrh (the Torah). It is unlikely that the monk simply made an error: who ever mistakes a chapter of a book for a separate book?
So if this is a fragment of the Qur’an as it now stands (and what portion of the Qur’an is it, anyway? Neither the BBC nor its quoted academics tell us), and yet it could date from as far back as 568, two years before Muhammad is supposed to have been born, it might not be a fragment of the Qur’an at all. It could instead be a portion of some source that later became part of the Qur’an, as did Surat al-Baqara.
Professor David Thomas, also without telling us what exact portions of the Qur’an this manuscript contains, raises even more questions when he says: “These portions must have been in a form that is very close to the form of the Koran read today, supporting the view that the text has undergone little or no alteration and that it can be dated to a point very close to the time it was believed to be revealed.” This is a very strange statement. The BBC, and apparently the University of Birmingham, are advertising this as an ancient fragment of the Qur’an. Presumably when Thomas says that “these portions must have been in a form that is very close to the form of the Koran read today,” he means that the larger whole of which they once formed a part was “very close” to the Qur’an. But how close is “very close”? Mainstream Muslims maintain that the Qur’anic text has undergone no alteration at all since it was first “revealed.” So when Thomas says that his fragments were once part of something “very close to the form of the Koran read today, supporting the view that the text has undergone little or no alteration,” he is already departing from the standard story of Qur’anic origins that he is claiming to support. The text has undergone “little or no alteration”? Well, which is it? Little alteration, which no matter how little would explode the Islamic claim of its divine origin and perfect protection, or no alteration, which would support that claim?
In sum, the more one looks at this curious story, the less there is to see. It seems indisputable that an ancient manuscript has been confirmed to be ancient. Has its text been altered? We aren’t told. Is it part of the Qur’an? We can’t be sure. Does it correspond to the modern standard Qur’anic text? We aren’t told. The only thing we can really be sure of about this story is the closing statement from Dr. Muhammad Isa Waley: this “is news to rejoice Muslim hearts.” That may be the primary objective all along.
UPDATE: The Guardian has this: “The significance of Birmingham’s leaves, which hold part of Suras (chapters) 18 to 20, was missed because they were bound together with another text, in a very similar hand but written almost 200 years later….The verses are incomplete, and believed to have been an aide memoire for an imam who already knew the Qur’an by heart, but the text is very close to the accepted authorised version.”
Suras 18 and 20, with their long stories of Moses (very odd ones in 18, along with material about Dhul Qarnayn, who is usually assumed to be Alexander the Great, and the Christian story of the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus), and sura 19, with its extended retelling of the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ, are some of the most obviously derivative sections of the entire Qur’an — reinforcing the impression that this could be a fragment of a source of the Qur’an, not the Qur’an itself. And indeed, it is not the Qur’an itself, we are finally told, for “the verses are incomplete, and believed to have been an aide memoire for an imam who already knew the Qur’an by heart, but the text is very close to the accepted authorised version.” Very close is how close? Any deviation could just as easily be not an aide memoire for an imam, but evidence of editing and change, as Islam was being developed in the latter part of the seventh century and the early part of the eighth.
“‘Oldest’ Koran fragments found in Birmingham University,” by Sean Coughlan, BBC, July 22, 2015:
What may be the world’s oldest fragments of the Koran have been found by the University of Birmingham.
Radiocarbon dating found the manuscript to be at least 1,370 years old, making it among the earliest in existence.
The pages of the Muslim holy text had remained unrecognised in the university library for almost a century.
The British Library’s expert on such manuscripts, Dr Muhammad Isa Waley, said this “exciting discovery” would make Muslims “rejoice”.
The manuscript had been kept with a collection of other Middle Eastern books and documents, without being identified as one of the oldest fragments of the Koran in the world.
Oldest textsWhen a PhD researcher, Alba Fedeli, looked more closely at these pages it was decided to carry out a radiocarbon dating test and the results were “startling”.
The university’s director of special collections, Susan Worrall, said researchers had not expected “in our wildest dreams” that it would be so old.
“Finding out we had one of the oldest fragments of the Koran in the whole world has been fantastically exciting.”
The fragments of the Koran are still legibleThe tests, carried out by the Oxford University Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, showed that the fragments, written on sheep or goat skin, were among the very oldest surviving texts of the Koran.
These tests provide a range of dates, showing that, with a probability of more than 95%, the parchment was from between 568 and 645.
“They could well take us back to within a few years of the actual founding of Islam,” said David Thomas, the university’s professor of Christianity and Islam.
“According to Muslim tradition, the Prophet Muhammad received the revelations that form the Koran, the scripture of Islam, between the years 610 and 632, the year of his death.”
Prof Thomas says the dating of the Birmingham folios would mean it was quite possible that the person who had written them would have been alive at the time of the Prophet Muhammad.
“The person who actually wrote it could well have known the Prophet Muhammad. He would have seen him probably, he would maybe have heard him preach. He may have known him personally – and that really is quite a thought to conjure with,” he says.
First-hand witnessProf Thomas says that some of the passages of the Koran were written down on parchment, stone, palm leaves and the shoulder blades of camels – and a final version, collected in book form, was completed in about 650.
He says that “the parts of the Koran that are written on this parchment can, with a degree of confidence, be dated to less than two decades after Muhammad’s death”.
“These portions must have been in a form that is very close to the form of the Koran read today, supporting the view that the text has undergone little or no alteration and that it can be dated to a point very close to the time it was believed to be revealed.”
The manuscript, written in “Hijazi script”, an early form of written Arabic, becomes one of the oldest known fragments of the Koran.
Because radiocarbon dating creates a range of possible ages, there is a handful of other manuscripts in public and private collections which overlap. So this makes it impossible to say that any is definitively the oldest.
But the latest possible date of the Birmingham discovery – 645 – would put it among the very oldest….
Dr Waley suggests that the manuscript found by Birmingham is a “precious survivor” of a copy from that era or could be even earlier.
“In any case, this – along with the sheer beauty of the content and the surprisingly clear Hijazi script – is news to rejoice Muslim hearts.”
Brian says
Who cares? There are many, many books older than the Koran and more beautiful. The Books of Kells in Ireland for example. Islam and the Koran are latecomers to religion and written sources. Not impressed even if it is authentic.
Marty says
Well said !
I’m tempted to say that this tedious discovery will turn Birmingham into yet another muslim “holy city” and attract more mohammedans.
Sadly, it is over run by them already & they control many schools there , usually covertly.
Bob says
I live in Birmingham and speaking on behalf of those who live in different suburbs here; we do not want any more muslims thank you! The amount of concern there is grass roots level is frightening. The government needs to listen to it’s people not the muslim community.
the renegade says
Agreed. It will end up going the Luton way and will end up being a bustling city with scary bearded guys that look and act like terrorists and women whose faces you can’t see covered in black clothing. It will be a net exporter of terror and I think will be a healthy breeding ground for ISIS.
Every person who criticises Islam will not be allowed to roam in the city freely and will get beaten up if he happens to be there or worse. It happened to Tommy of EDL whose home town was Luton and in 30 YEARS HE CANNOT RECOGNISE THE TOWN HE GREW UP IN. If you speak the truth you are either called a racist or an islamophobe.
I am not British BTW. But I am concerned for Britain’s future as these guys are multiplying like rabbits and mosques are multiplying by the dozens from Arab funds. France and Britain will be under siege in 40 years from now. Not scare mongering but people need to wake up fast. But western countries do side with Islamic causes like supporting Pakistan, supporting ISIS over lesser threats like Assad and using Islam to get even with Russia. Worst thing about Britain is that it gives asylum to know terrorists that are wanted by India – Sikh and Islamic and wanted men in middle east as well. France gave asylum to Ayatollah Khomeini.
PLEASE DON’T PLAY POLITICS WITH ISLAM – YOU WILL EVENTUALLY GET BURNT AS THEY TURN ON THE PEOPLE WHO SHOW THEM MERCY FOR THE SAKE OF THEIR GANGSTER GOD CALLED ALLAH.
bob says
in response to the renegade; Birmingham has it’s trouble spots and they are well known. i could take you myself so far into them but if two white blokes were seen together in a car it would be difficult to know if they/we would get out in one piece. having said that, there are places in Birmingham that are not predominately “muslim” that I would not want to go to but the main world issue we have today is with believers in Islam not muslims. Allah and mohammed are the problem because it’s a closed shop effectively.You cannot critisize it, you cannot question it; you have to submit to it.
gravenimage says
Bob, here’s a terrifying article about Muslim demographics in Birmingham:
“The Changing Face of Britain: A Child in Birmingham is More Likely to Be Muslim Than Christian”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2755654/The-changing-face-Britain-A-child-Birmingham-likely-Muslim-Christian.html
My mother was born in Birmingham, many years before so much of it became a Muslim cesspool.
Bob says
Just read the article concerning the population change in Birmingham, Bradford, Luton, Leicester etc and it does give a disturbing trend. These figures are from 2011, 4 years ago so I imagine it has got worse. Our schools,housing,hospitals, social services etc are collapsing under the strain. Shutting the door after the horse has bolted comes to mind. We need to do something about this before it’s too late!
john spielman says
the intact copy of the Book of Isaiah from the Old Testament 2200 years old was found with the Dead Sea scrolls. There are copies of New Testament that dates to the early 4th century AD
Kepha says
john: Actually, the Dead Sea Scrolls had every Old Testament book except for Esther; and even the Hebrew text of the apocryphal Ecclesiasticus (Jesus son of Sirach), which before its identification in the DSS material had been known only from the Septuagint Greek and another, later manuscript from the Cairo Genizah. Also, while the major 4th and 5th century uncial manuscripts of the New Testament are important, there are papyrus fragments of John and the Pauline letter that date from the early 2d century. A lot of the NT is also quoted or alluded to in other ancient Christian writings (consider that the _Didache_ and First Clement are probably late first century).
I’d also not put too much on the date of a manuscript. For instance, most modern translations of the New Testament, being based on a handful of very ancient codices of Egyptian provenance, read, “as it is written in Isaiah the prophet” at Mark 1:1; while the King James Version reads, “As it is written in the prophets”. This is because the Greek text from which the KJV was translated, compiled by Erasmus of Rotterdam and published by the Elzevier brothers of Amsterdam, was based on a groups of medieval manuscripts originating in the vicinity of Byzantium. Yet, oddly enough, when Irenaeus of Lyon (ca. 160 A.D.) quotes Mark 1:1 (and the form of the text indicates he’s quoting rather than alluding) in a form that agrees with the Medieval Byzantine text rather than the more ancient Efyptian ones.
What happened? First of all, the manuscripts used by Erasmus may well have been copied from texts even older than the Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Epharem Rescriptus which underlie the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament edited by Kurt Aland and his successors; and the famous Egyptian uncials may well have survived not only because of the dry climate of Egypt, but also because ancient users may have recognized them as faulty and shelved them, sparing them the wear and tear that better manuscripts suffered from even reverent use (how many here have ever worn out a copy of a well-loved book?).
Now, I’m writing not as a King James Only or Textus Receptus Only advocate (indeed, I used the ASV as a study Bible and also the Chinese Union Version, which are not taken from the Textus Receptus of the Elzevier brotherss), buut simply want to be honest and recognize that weighing copies of ancient texts is not as simple as it sounds (at least in the case of the New Testament, where we have thousands of scraps, leaves, codices, and fragments in various languages to sift).
The article cited here is indeed poor reportage–and also fails to recognize that, thanks to Muslim hesitancy, the textual criticism of the QUr’an remains in its infancy.
Bob says
When you get a chance to read such a rich vein of understanding from a learned person as yourself, it makes you humble. When the Bible and the koran are opened side by side and critical analysis is used on both their is only one winner. One is the truth and the other is a lie. I rest my case!
gravenimage says
This is why I love reading your posts, Kepha.
Goat Pimp says
You know this is total bullocks because as Mr. Spencer says, they would have given much more information if it was real. Instead they keep it cryptic in order not to crush the lie.
Anything to promote Islam.
Michael Copeland says
The Topkapi manuscript in Istanbul (?8th century) was examined by Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu.
It has 2,270 variations from the present accepted text.
See Jay Smith talk:
Textual Integrity of Bible and Qur’an (Jay Smith) – YouTube
Brian says
Found the video…thanks…
Doc says
The article indeed leaves us with a lot of questions. Thanks for following this up Mr. Spencer. I only hope the keepers of this manuscript will follow up their claims with proper research and papers that can be peer reviewed and challenged.
Brian says
Could old parchment be used with newly made ink to make a fake?
Joseph says
@ Brian
To make a better forgery you would need ingredients that were also made at the same time as the parchment, old ink….old parchment. But then you run into a new set of problems. Lets say you have a bottle of ink made in 650AD and you erase the old writing and put your new text on. If the erased ink is from 800AD then how did old ink get atop of the new? Also your erasure procedure will have to exactly match how they did it back then. Then there is the fact that technically an unoxidized layer of ink on old parchment.
Even if you found an old blank piece of parchment and put your old ink on it you still run into problems 1) language evolves 2) over time micro organisms grow on the parchment and now you have old ink over newer microorganisms and no microorganisms on top of your ink.
BTW The shroud of Turin was wrongly dated because of the growth of these organisms. In other words they were not dating the actual cloth itself.
DON”T trust me….do a little research and confirm what I said. I am going from memory in my dusty attic of what is called a brain.
mortimer says
Brian said: “Could old parchment be used with newly made ink”.
Indeed it could and that is a good point. A lot more scientific work needs to be done before this fragment can be confidently described. There’s no indication as yet this is forgery. The ink and handwriting script would reveal that.
Carbon dating tells only the date WHEN THE ANIMAL (used for the parchment) DIED, rather than the date of the writing.
The parchment in question is a PALIMPSEST (a reused piece of writing skin), so the date of the writing on it may be 100 years after the death that the animal dated. That could be 690 or 750AD.
The date of the writing can be determined more accurately since handwriting styles change every 25 years.
Spencer is correct in saying that ANY VARIANTS or alterations on a Koran MS contradict the ‘official story’ of mullahs who claim the Koran was never altered. Obviously, the Koran was altered by the caliphs. They said they altered it. No doubt, those amoral mass murderers altered the Koran substantially and time after time.
gravenimage says
It’s *possible* that this is a deliberate fake—far more likely, though, this is a reused manuscript. This was a common practice throughout the Middle Ages until the advent of the printed book.
IQ al Rassooli says
Further to Mr Spencer’s detailed article, I would like to add the following~
These ‘professors’ are just as clueless as others before them because:
1. A FRACTION of the Quran that matches what we have today does NOT make all of the Quran in 645 the SAME as we have today
2. How, where and under what circumstances were these fragments found in the first place?
3. I have absolutely NO doubt that these ‘professors’ are deliberately ‘fitting’ their results to please the Muslims (millions of pounds in rewards and more research!)
4. Without COMPARING them with the San’a Manuscripts that the Yemenis have stopped being investigated, I DISMISS their ‘results’ out of hand
Case CLOSED
IQal Rassooli
Kafir & Proud!
Cecilia Ellis says
IQ al Rassooli wrote: “I have absolutely NO doubt that these ‘professors’ are deliberately ‘fitting’ their results to please the Muslims (millions of pounds in rewards and more research!)”
Exactly! Sounds a lot like Cinderella’s stepsister who, while struggling to put on the glass slipper, exclaimed, “I’ll make it fit!:
Joseph says
I vote for #3 too. wherever there is money to be made lies can be found, just like global warming….or is it climate change? Who knows tomorrow it may have another name like atmospheric molecular excitation by IR reflected retention.
Theodoric says
Sean Coughlan says, “It was not until 1734 that a translation was made into English, but was littered with mistakes.”
– Well of course it was – so was the original! You can expect the translator to fix all the mistakes.
Theodoric says
Sean Coughlan says, “It was not until 1734 that a translation was made into English, but was littered with mistakes.”
– Well of course it was – so was the original! You CAN’T expect the translator to fix all the mistakes.
Voytek Gagalka says
If one is presented with “shoddy BBC presentation” one can be 100% sure that it smells with lies and the rot. That organization alone, totally nowadays controlled by the government (and we know what kind of dihmies populate it currently) lost ANY credibility and objectivity long ago. Dismiss out of hand! I am sure they have hidden agenda by promoting and propagating it. I would rather become “believer” in Tolkien’s fables than this their story.
Angemon says
Muhammad Isa? Gee, I wonder if there’s any bias or conflict of interests potentially taking place?…
jayell says
‘Muhammed Isa Waley’…..If this was April Fool’s Day, I’d say that’s a joke. It sounds just like ‘ Mohammed is a whalley’ (Just in case our transatlantic friends don’t know, ‘whalley’ is English slang for ‘idiot’). And, echoing Voytek Gagalka’s sentiments, anyone who believes anything from the BBC these days deserves the same epithet.
jayell says
Sorry, I think ‘whalley’ is normally spelt ‘wally’. Just being a bit fastidious there.
Fahim says
jesus in arabic is isa. Bad joke btw.
gravenimage says
Yes…*but*. In reality the appalling Islamic figure “Isa” has almost *nothing* in common with the Biblical Jesus. He is not a savior or a peacemaker or a healer, and his purpose in the last days is to *kill Christian*.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
Forget the validity of the artifact; let’s have an inquest into the legitimacy of the words within the artifact. Is what is set forth in the Holy Ko-Ran to be taken seriously, and, if it is to be taken seriously, in what exact way?
ECAW says
I disagree. Islam can’t bend because it’s foundational claim is that it’s the almighty speaking. But it could possibly become discredited and break if it were proved and it became widely known among the believers that there was a fair amount of human intervention involved.
Wouldn’t it be great to see Islam collapse from within. It would only be a matter of time until Allah became just a historical oddity like Baal and Odin?
Paul says
The worship of Baal is very much alive and well in the worship
of ‘Allah’. It seems Islam came along specifically to deny Christ
and reinstate the worship of this false deity. So much for the
“all believe in the same god” nonsense about Christianity,
Judaism and Islam :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehS1UaIZPco
http://www.letusreason.org/islam6.htm
voegelinian says
“Wouldn’t it be great to see Islam collapse from within.”
Sure; and it would also be great to see all those wishes & hopes of various Miss America Pageant winners come true (not to mention Jiminy Cricket…).
Bob says
It’s already happening.Perhaps not as quick as we would like but more and more muslims are finding the true Jesus Christ; not the one they read in the koran but the Jesus of the Bible.
Goat Pimp says
@Alarmed Pig Farmer
If you research thoroughly the Koran, hadith and surah, and you still believe it is from “God”, you are dumb as a box of rox.
Qur'an is Haram says
Correct GP. Because if you believed that you would believe that what ISIS is doing is absolutely correct and moral. Anyone who believes that is a horrible person.
Qur'an is Haram says
And stupid.
JIMM says
I fail to understand why YOU or anybody else in this world, including the so called scholars & ordinary muslims call the koran as ‘HOLY’. This is NOT TRUE, even the cover of every koran is clearly NOT calling it HOLY. It is called the (shareef) NOBLE koran, there is nothing HOLY about that book, and all that they are doing is tagging it to the level of the HOLY Bible, Which is clearly called & is a HOLY book.
Everyone should stop calling the koran HOLY, & just call it koran, a book like any other of so many books written or supposed to have been expressed by so many so called self proclaimed prophets.
Similarly, everyone should also stop calling the so called ‘angel’ who appeared/whispered in the ears of mohamed as GABRIEL, as several muslims like to claim. This is just not true. The ‘jinn’ who appeared to mohamed is called JIBREEL, and everyone should call him as JIBREEL ONLY and not the real arc angel GABRIEL of the ONE God the Father YAHWEH, our Trinity GOD Almighty!
gravenimage says
Goat Pimp and JIMM, Alarmed Pig Farmer is being facetious here. No actual Mohammedan would refer to this baleful book as the “Ko-ran”.
ECAW says
Some more detail here:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/22/oldest-quran-fragments-found-at-birmingham-university
1. Part of sura 18-20.
2. This struck me as very odd indeed:
“The verses are incomplete, and believed to have been an aide memoire for an imam who already knew the Qur’an by heart, but the text is very close to the accepted authorised version.”
So the text is only “very close” to the accepted version AND there are verses or parts of verses missing.
The only possible explanation is obviously that it’s not actually part of a Koran but only some imam’s crib notes. Can you imagine any imam producing such a thing? Wouldn’t that be tountamount to desecrating the sacred text? (especially after Uthman went to all that trouble to destroy all but his authorised version).
Seems to me a little real scholarship is needed here but perhaps that will be prevented for the same reasons as for the Yemen fragments.
gravenimage says
*Especially* back then. Parchment and vellum were far too valuable to use as notepaper. People used various sorts of slates for this, or just relied on their memories. You couldn’t just jot things as you would today.
Lookmann says
Holes in BBC story:
1.Carbon dating is known for accuracy, not the widest ever margin to assume,.ie 568—650
2. Two years before even Mo was born ie 568 AD ! LOL !
3. Parchment only tested, not the ink.
4.clear signs of over-writing
5.Not much info on the content or its closeness to the presently used book.
A con job, in a nutshell.
Thanks Mr.Spencer .
Catherine says
Assuming it is authentic, I find it extremely ironic that this document was reportedly brought to Birmingham from Mosul in 1920 by a Chaldean priest! Had he not done so, it would most likely have been destroyed by ISIS, along with the other ancient artefacts in the Mosul Museum! Even more ironic is the fact that Chaldeans, along with other Christians in the Middle East, are now being slaughtered by ISIS, in accordance with the very Qur’an rescued by this priest!
Paul says
Even if the damn thing is genuine, I don’t see the point in celebrating
something, whatever its supposed authenticity, which has inspired the
butchering of millions upon millions of Christians, Jews, Atheists, Buddhists,
Hindus, Sikhs, Baha’is etc. Not to mention the unspeakable treatment of
women and girls, Yazidi sex slaves, Muhammadan rape gangs across the
world, the appalling treatment of animals just to accommodate the stupid
traditions and superstitions of some 7th century child rapist warlord.
I’d have thought all of the above would have been repeated ad nauseam
by now, but oh no! – the mentally ill BBC are determined to spread their
mental illness to us. They can rot in hell with their Muhammadan chums.
Don’t watch the BBC!
Donovan Nuera says
Exactly….it is like being excited in finding a first edition of ‘Mein Kampf’. (not an ubiquitous 92nd printing in Turkish, Farsi, or Arabic in a local bookstore). Whoopee frickin’ doo!
mortimer says
Spencer wrote: ” Another recently discovered and much-touted fragment of the Qur’an, now in Germany and dated from between 649 and 675, shows clear signs of alteration, raising the possibility that the Qur’anic text was altered over time. If this is a possibility also for the University of Birmingham manuscript, the BBC should tell us so. But it doesn’t.”
The super-Bozzos at the BBC don’t realize what they’re discussing. If the Koran MS in question shows a series of alterations, that will demolish the theory touted by the mullahs that Allah preserved the Koran. It will show the opposite…that the caliphs had a free hand in changing the Koran repeatedly. This will demolish the faith of many Muslims.
JIMM says
It is a catch 22 for the muslims. Either the koran is a preserved in heavens of allah & a unchanged book, or the parchment is a authentic proof of the authenticity of the present day koran. Both ways it actually DISPROVES the claims of the koran made by IGNORANT muslims who have SWALLOWED the doo dished out by their mullas & imams conversant in READING the arabic script of the IGNOBLE koran.
Prophets are U.S. says
Does this mean that Great Britain WAS an Islamic state now that this holy book has been found? Do you think that ISIS will stake their claim on GB or just settle for Birmingham?
Angemon says
Prophets are U.S. posted:
“Do you think that ISIS will stake their claim on GB or just settle for Birmingham?”
Does a crackhead want a little crack or all the crack?
RG says
Looks to me like one more attempt to put lipstick on a PIG! Nice try, BBC!!!
Goat Pimp says
Or a goat.
JIMM says
You mean the goat that ate part of the HEAVENLY PRESERVED koran kept by the child bride aisha of the self proclaimed PROFIT seeking mohammed?
John spielman says
the CBC always talks about ‘the prophet muhammed” but he is NOT someone I consider a prophet but rather was a DEMON POSSESSED MASS MURDERER THIEF ADULTERER MISOGYNIST AND PEDOPHILE PERVERT and FALSE PROPHET
Charli Main says
Found in Birmingham, Britainistan—-Mohammed of Mecca flew over Britain on a winged pig and scattered fragments of the Koran over the Midlands. There you go then, conclusive proof of what muslims have been claiming for decades—Britainistan is muslim land and us kaffirs are living in their country.
mortimer says
Reaction to the ‘UPDATE’…
“UPDATE: (leaves) ” were bound together with another text, in a very similar hand but written almost 200 years later….The verses are INCOMPLETE, and believed to have been an aide memoire for an imam who already knew the Qur’an by heart, but the text is very close to the accepted authorised version.”
As the saying goes: “close, but no cigar”.
A text like this merely embarrasses the mullahs. The text is an unfinished Koran or a predecessor of the Koran or even another document quoted and fleshed out in a later Koran.
It shows that the Koran HAS A HISTORY and did not come out of nothing. Some of the text may even predate Islam…disastrous for the fanciful story of early Islam.
This document seems to say that THE KORAN HAS A HISTORY AND A DEVELOPMENT.
Champ says
They found more satanic verses, how lovely …
I delight in knowing that one day — at the return of our LORD and Savior Jesus Christ — islam and all of its evil writings and crimes against humanity will be done away with!
mortimer says
This UPDATE starts to sound more like it: “part of Suras (chapters) 18 to 20, was missed because they were bound together with another text, in a very similar hand but written almost 200 years later”
A similar hand? 200 years later? How do we know the two hands weren’t close to simultaneous?
PARTS? How do you get PARTS of a book sewn into another book? Is that crazy? It’s certainly odd.
The Koran itself is extremely disjointed, leaping from topic to topic as if parts of various books have been thrown together by someone in a hurry. The style of the Koran is frequently poor, fragmentary, unfinished thoughts, leaps from first person to second person to third person, and much of the grammar is incorrect.
The fact that a few leaves from an early fragmentary version of the Koran have been sewn into another book, shows the process of developing the Koran. This a deep embarrassment to the mullahs.
This MS confirms what the Revisionist scholars have been insisting: ISLAM DEVELOPED OVER A PERIOD OF TWO HUNDRED YEARS. The evidence for that theory is growing with MSS like this.
hadda says
“PARTS? How do you get PARTS of a book sewn into another book? Is that crazy? It’s certainly odd.”
it’s not uncommon with rebound ancient MSS: it could have been reused as binding for something else, or accidentally rebound together with something unrelated. Either is possible, though it does suggest a level of irreverence that most Muslims would find pretty horrifying.
the renegade says
Need of the hour is less Islam and not more of it. The mind of the sane Muslim is beginning to carve out niche of doubt about Islam being the truth with all the mindless blood shed being done by this peaceful and beautiful religion.
Mean while western media lapping up more Islam and saying oh beautiful islam and diverting attention from real truth of the matter which needs to be said – that regardless of the find using carbon dating or whatever, Islam’s daily death will far exceed body count in the most violent of holly wood make believe movies – rambo to expendables.
At the rate in which western world is bowing down to Islam, it won’t be long before the sword of the peaceful religion comes down on the neck of the ignorant west who cannot differentiate between friend or foe. For Britain the chickens will come home to roost, they fiddled with Islam and caused millions to die during colonial days may be one day Britain will be faced with its own partition.
Farid Khan says
Robert Spencer is an ignorant and a pompous polemic fool. Not a single scrap or shred of the New Testament has ever been handed over for carbon-dating. And here, they carbon-dated immediately.
Champ says
Get lost!
IQ al Rassooli says
Farid Khan
WRONG! Robert Spencer is one of a few FOREMOST authorities on Muhammadan Islam in the world!
The ONLY Ignorant Polemicists are the followers of Muhammad who cannot EVER defend their indefensible CULT belief system through intelligent debate
Not a single Christian says that the Gospels are the words of God
Muhammadans assert that the Quran was revealed by Allah to Muhammad through Gabriel
Really? Can you please tell us who from among his wives and intimate companions EVER heard or saw Muhammad & Gabriel together?
Since there is NO such report in the whole of Quran & Hadiths then on what basis are you sure that Muhammad is telling the TRUTH when there are NO Witnesses to
any of the events mentioned in Muhammad’s Quran?
In NO court of law (except Sharia of course) would the unverified testimony of one individual be considered valid!
My question to you is this: Is Allah the SAME as the God of the Bible?
IQ al Rassooli
Kafir & Proud!
Western Canadian says
And I am supposed to believe the lies of a muslim, as he attacks a loving religion, having spent his entire life rotting in a hate filled religion??
Zimriel says
“Not a single scrap or shred of the New Testament has ever been handed over for carbon-dating.”
This is untrue. A search of Wikipedia shows that carbon-dating *has* been attempted on several NT manuscripts. Maybe on most of them.
But your whole argument amounts to “look, squirrel”, given that we’re not even discussing the NT here.
mortimer says
Farid Khan,
Come back and fight like a man. Bring an intellectual argument if you have one. Your ad hominem fallacy holds no water.
There is a general scholarly conclusion that the early Islamic texts are not supported by archeology. That means they are suspected to be forgeries. The internal evidence in the Koran and hadiths reveal political agendas that didn’t yet exist at the time Mohammed supposedly lived. Robert Spencer’s book ‘Did Muhammad Exist?’ is a superb popularization for literate people who haven’t the ability to read the specialist literature about the very obscure origins of Islam.
No doubt, Farid Khan hasn’t any idea of the literature referred to and would consider it heresy to educate himself!
JIMM says
Robert Spencer is an ignorant and a pompous polemic fool. Not a single scrap or shred of the New Testament has ever been handed over for carbon-dating. And here, they carbon-dated immediately.
Farid ya habibi, Robert Spencer has proved his indepth knowledge of islam, far more than any islamic scholar. The real question is WHO is a FOOL? The one who authentically disproves all the myths surrounding the IGNOBLE koran?? or the one who believes the koran to be a UNALTERED book PRESERVED in heavens of allah, while it is documented in the islamic books that a GOAT has eaten parts of the koran that was being kept by aisha the child bride of the paedophile PROFIT seeker mohamad??
Kepha says
Sorry, Farid, but there are thousands of manuscript fragments, leaves, and almost whole codices of the NT in various institutions and museums around the world, and many have been tested for age. They’ve even been looked at for style of writing (this discipline is called paleography, and it seems to be a method used with the Qur’an leaves mentioned in the article). Even bindings will tell a tale of when something was probably put together.
Even to leave our nexus of Middle Eastern religions, they’ve also done work on copies of the Buddhist sutras.
The only thing that the genuineness of an ancient manuscript text proves empirically is that someone took a bit of time and effort to carefully copy something he thought was important.
Angemon says
Farid gives a quintessential muslim-esque response: ad-hominems and a red herring.
gravenimage says
What utter tripe. New Testament manuscripts are subjected to various techniques for dating all the time.
G.Deckzeijl says
Subject: oldest quran fragments
Date: Wednesday, 22 Jul 2015 15:55
From: G.Deckzeijl
To: d.r.thomas.1@bham.ac.uk
Dear mr Thomas,
Just saw this article:
http://www.thenews.com.pk/article-191852-Oldest-fragments-of-Holy-Quran-found-
NO mistake: centuries ago all religions have been MADE UP by people.
So is the quran. Gods don’t write books!
There has never been a god like allah, so it is impossible that there has been a prophet Muhammad.
NO mistake: islam is NO religion but a very dangerous ideology of conquest.
Ever heard of THE (muslim brotherhood) PROJECT, in short: THE PROJECT?
This system was discovered by the Swiss authorities in november 2001.
All the details from Frontpage Magazine via the following links:
Page 1: http://tinyurl.com/37qx6wc
Page 2: http://tinyurl.com/38khck6
Suggestion: ask Dr. Muhammad Isa Waley about THE PROJECT…
Know any muslims in Birmingham? Ask them about THE PROJECT…
I’ll bet they will deny everything. When they do, they make use of TAQIYYA.
Tip: don’t look away.
Love to hear from you,
Regards, Mr. G.Deckzeijl
Jayke says
Beauty? “…the sheer beauty of the content” … Well, I don’t see any beauty in it at all. It’s more of a monstrosity.
Saki says
It should be reformed.
Zimriel says
Sura 18 is based on the Alexander Neshana, which was written to support Emperor Heraclius after his victory over the Sasanians. This is VERY well known in scholarship; it was proven by Kevin van Bladel in G.S. Reynolds, The Qur’an in its Historical Context, (Routledge, 2008), 8.175f.
Sura 19 is tied in with the Kathisma church near Jerusalem, as was shown even earlier by Stephen Shoemaker in “Christmas in the Koran” (2003). That would be the 70s / 690s or later.
The photo has an ornamental split between 19/20, which is found in late Umayyad Qur’ans, as described by Deroche in his book on Umayyad Qur’ans. As for the 18-19-20 sequence itself, this is also an Umayyad sequence, not found in the Qur’anic palimpsests in Sanaa, as have been documented by Gerd R Puin and also Behnam Sadeghi.
The story is bunk; purest bunk, and based on what I’m seeing in G S Reynolds’ Twitter, the scholars aren’t swallowing it either.
Larry A. Singleton says
Comment on Yahoo referring to article about Koran fragments discovered.
“Muslims believe that the Qur’an they read today is the same text that was standardized under Uthman and regard it as the exact record of the revelations that were delivered to Muhammad,” the professors wrote.
This is like finding a rat in your cellar.
I’m reading in Andrew Bostom’s book Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism how Imam al-Mahdi in 1679-1680 acted on the well-known statement from the canonical hadith, attributed to a death bed wish of Muhammad himself (4:288 Sahiha Al-Bukhari): “Two religions shall not remain together in the peninsula of the Arabs”. So he exiled the entire Jewish population—men, women and children to a hell on earth called the plain of Tihama. A place where even the Bedouins feared to go. In addition to the expulsion they destroyed synagogues, Torah scrolls and “induced” conversion to Islam.
Of the major Yemenite Jewish community in San’a for example, which numbered about ten thousand, only about one-tenth-one thousand-survived this catastrophic exile.
This is just one example of genocide, mass murder and pogroms that Muslims practice, (and can be found in Bostom’s Legacy books), and to this day emulated in places like the London Central Mosque where they sell DVDs of a sermon given by sheikh Feiz who, imitated the sound of a pig when referring to Jews and 5:60 (apes and swine) of the Koran, who he says will be killed in a mass extermination on judgment day. By Jesus himself no less.
The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From the Sacred Texts to Solemn History by Andrew G. Bostom (Read the “Note on the Cover Art-Execution of a Moroccan Jewess” or this book Review/article by Benjamin District; “Jewess Heroine-Sol Hachuel”.
Supplemental Article “The First and Last Enemy: Jew Hatred in Islam.” by Bostom
Subscribe to Jihad Watch and Campus Watch and the Middle East Forum/Quarterly, Family Security Matters, Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), Gatestone Institute, FrontPage Magazine, American Thinker, The Clarion Project, NGO Monitor, Cross Muslims, Palestinian Media Watch, Muhammad unveiled, Religion of Peace and read Raymond Ibrahim, Andrew Harrod, Efraim Karsh, Andrew G. Bostom, Frank Gaffney, Patrick Poole, Caroline Glick, Bat Ye’or and others.
The Haj by Leon Uris (A Primer on the “right to return” scam)
Lessons from ‘The Haj’ A book review by Joseph Puder.
The Case for Israel by Alan Dershowitz
Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America by Brigitte Gabriel (These three books should be sold as a gift set.)
Amb. Prosor addresses UNGA debate on the Question of Palestine (You Tube)
BDS: The Attempt to Strangle Israel (You Tube)
NGO Monitor: “WATER”
Myths vs. Facts: NGOs and the Destructive Water Campaign Against Israel March 22, 2015
Islam as a Vehicle for Arab Supremacism by Hugh Fitzgerald.
Why Does the Muslim World Lag in Science by Aaron Segal
The Myth of Islamic Science by Dr. N.S. Rajaram.
Time to Call Obama and Kerry What They Are: Traitors by Daniel Greenfield –We have met the enemy and he is in the White House
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/259466/time-call-obama-and-kerry-what-they-are-traitors-daniel-greenfield
Read This Article and Pass it Around Like a Religious Tract!
“Does Islam Have a Role in Suicide Bombings” by A.J. Caschetta.
“Hamas Web School for Suicide Bombers” by Yohanan Manor and Ido Mizrahi.
Marc says
Stop now, you’ll make us cry.
Boohoo we have been persecuted throughout history boohoo…
Well deal with it. At some stage everyone has been persecuted in Human History and most of them are not complaining. The Mongol by the Chinese, the Native Americans by the early settlers, the Black by the Whites, heck even the Blacks by the Blacks in recent events in Africa. Just because they where different.
So your sobbing story about Jews being persecuted, we heard it before and we are tired of hearing it still today. Walk it off dude! Instead of looking back at who and when you got bullied, just look today and makes “positive and meaningful” changes so that you are not bullied any more, and talking about the past blaming people is not going to help you. nobody likes people holding grudges. Especially if you are of a generation that has not been persecuted.
So stop your whining and grow up!
By the way: your reference to a passage in the Quran (5:60) is wrong and this discredits all of what you are saying; makes you look like a bigot. That’s nasty dude.
Here is what 5:60 actually says.
The paragraph talks about people who take religion for a mockery or sport, may they be people that received God’s word or people that rejected faith:
“Say ‘Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah? Those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil; -these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path!’ ”
Of course there is more to it than just this paragraph, so instead of stupidly sitting crap, get some facts straight and some context, which probably would give you more credibility.
gravenimage says
The repulsive Marc wrote, replying to Larry A. Singleton:
Stop now, you’ll make us cry.
Boohoo we have been persecuted throughout history boohoo…
Well deal with it. At some stage everyone has been persecuted in Human History and most of them are not complaining. The Mongol by the Chinese…
……………………………
Actually, one can very much question whether it was the Chinese who persecuted the conquering Mongols. But I take your point—ancient history is ancient history.
Except that this isn’t the case with Muslims murdering Jews today—indeed, seeking out and out genocide. This is true not just in Israel—as Larry notes, Muslims are eradicating the last remnant of Jews in Yemen right now.
Moreover, pious Muslims regularly refer to both the homicidal antisemtic texts of Islam and the model of the “Prophet”—they call Jews “apes and pigs”, and taunt them with chants about the massacre of Jews by Muslims at Kaybar.
More:
So your sobbing story about Jews being persecuted, we heard it before and we are tired of hearing it still today. Walk it off dude! Instead of looking back at who and when you got bullied, just look today and makes “positive and meaningful” changes so that you are not bullied any more, and talking about the past blaming people is not going to help you. nobody likes people holding grudges. Especially if you are of a generation that has not been persecuted.
So stop your whining and grow up!
……………………………
But pious Muslims *hate* the fact that Jews have indeed made “positive and meaningful” changes so they will no longer be bullied—founding the vibrant state of Israel and developing one of the finest armed forces in the world.
But pious Muslims *hate* that. They like Jews to be cringing dhimmis—or just dead.
More:
By the way: your reference to a passage in the Quran (5:60) is wrong and this discredits all of what you are saying; makes you look like a bigot. That’s nasty dude.
Here is what 5:60 actually says.
The paragraph talks about people who take religion for a mockery or sport, may they be people that received God’s word or people that rejected faith:
“Say ‘Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah? Those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil; -these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path!’ ”
Of course there is more to it than just this paragraph, so instead of stupidly sitting crap, get some facts straight and some context, which probably would give you more credibility.
……………………………
Larry in no way mischaracterized Qur’an 5:60. Jews are regularly understood to be those whom Allah “has cursed”. Muslims regularly use “apes and pigs” to refer to Jews.
Any decent person would consider *that* to be bigoted—not someone daring to point it out.
Altogether it is Marc’s disgusting apologia for genocide that is “nasty, dude”, not Larry A. Singleton’s condemnation of it.
sszorin says
This website should be renamed ‘semiticwatch.org’. The Arabs who are the originators of Islamic religion are Semites, and the Jews are also Semites. The jewish holy books ‘Torah’ and ‘Talmud’ preach supremacy of superior Jews over filthy ‘goyim’, advocate their oppression when Jews rule over them and call for mass murder of those who are not ‘chosen’ Jews. If the originators of this website are honest and not bigoted and do not push a hypocritical agenda then they should rename this website and start documenting the evil of Jews as well.
Angemon says
LOL!!! What kind of moronic *ahem*, “logic” is that? Going by that “logic”, polar bears are mammals, and blue whales are mammals, therefore one can’t talk about polar bears attacking humans without mentioning blue whales attacking humans.
Jay Boo says
Reminder to sszorin.
Muslims following the ideology founded specifically on the slave trade are butchering people in the name of Muhammad in unholy partnership with MO’s sock puppet Allah.
qedlin says
So, big Mo was originally a Brit? Has as much credibility as his ridiculous claim to be descended from Ishmael.
Mark Berlinger says
A precoursory look reveals rewritten text and reused media; therefore it is altered and by definition not a Qur’an or a part of a Qur’an. This is a hoax.
particolor says
And so far all that they have translated is “ALLAHU IKBAR”
kepha says
Actually, it makes these leaves a palimpest. A palimpest is a text written over an erased earlier text. It was a common practice back in the days when people wrote on vellum or parchment. Indeed, one of the old uncial manuscripts of the Greek Bible (a few dozen leaves of the old Testament and many more of the New Testament) was apparently a fifth century underlying text partially erased then overwritten with the sermons of Ephraem the Syrian. I can’t see why early Muslims might not have recopied their texts on previously used parchment if it was available.
BTW, much as I like and respect our esteemed blog host, I have not been convinced by his arguments against the hisotrical existence of Muhammad ibn Abdallh iAbu- Muttlaib ibn Hashim of Mecca; and I accept that Muhammad’s utterances were put down more or less accurately by his followers. However, this does not preclude my also refusing to see Muhammad as a prophet and his book as anything more than the words of a man (or worse).
Qalb-Al-Assad says
Here are the differences between the manuscript and the Quran of today (QT) on the first folio:
http://callingchristians.com/
1.) In the third line down on the left side, the second alef in (اتاك) from the QT is written too short in the manuscript as if to say “اتيك” instead. The alef also connects to the letter right after it, something the alef in standard Arabic script does not do unless the script has the little alefs like this one here:
http://quran.com/20. This could be some kind of a recension from an earlier Aramaic “אתא לך = אתיך” ? but I’m not sure. The same verb occurs in the sixth line down on the left side with the same alternative spelling: اتاها
2.) In the fourth line on the left side, the first alef maksura of the QT is missing in the manuscript.
3.) In the third line down on the right side, the third alef in (السماوات) from the QT is missing in the manuscript but this just a vowelization.
Also, some words have their last letter written on the next line down, I’ve never seen this before. What’s even weirder is that the letters ‘d’ and ‘k’ are almost identical and could easily get mixed up using this script; I’d love to go back & look at some of the more nonsensical ayats and see if they make more sense if I switch the d’s and k’s around a bit.
It’s probably not a good idea to read too much into these variations between the QT and the manuscript as they all involve vowels and do not change the meanings of any of the words. Vowels can be written in all sorts of crazy ways depending on the style of Arabic script. In sum, from looking at the first folio, the consonants are pretty much 100% the same and I’m not a believer in this Islamotardism so don’t think this is meant to be apologetic, just saying the differences are not significant.
Brian Hoff says
Ancient doc donot alway follow rule which man make up later on. Try reading some doc in old english. When this doc was written the rule in writeing in arabic wasnot fix.
gravenimage says
“Brian Hoff”—really, “DefenderofIslam”—wrote:
Ancient doc donot alway follow rule which man make up later on. Try reading some doc in old english. When this doc was written the rule in writeing in arabic wasnot fix.
………………………
And yet, the claim is that the Qur’an is unchanging, and hence there cannot be versions that differ at all.
Watch it, “DefenderofIslam”, or your pious coreligionists will be out for your blood over “blasphemy”.
shams78 says
That isn’t want he said Bozo.
He said the writing style was not fixed. However the language was definitely fixed and stayed the same.
In Arabic there are some different stylistic means of writing the exact same vowel, like alif vs dagger alif or a ya without the two dots underneath.
Some words in the Qur’an use dagger alif instead of alif whereas normally the word uses alif when Arabs write.
An inexact analogy would be how British spell colour and Americans spell color but its pronounced exactly the same.
When pronouncing Rahmaan, whether it uses dagger alif or just alif in writing form, it is pronounced the same with the long vowel alif.
Joseph says
@ Brian Hoff
When this doc was written the rule in writeing in arabic wasnot fix.
————————————————————-
So what you are saying is that now Arabic is fixed and stable therefore the Koran you now read is the “REAL DEAL”.
That only tells me that your book and your prophet comes from the pits of hell itself. Your book and prophet condone all that is unholy and evil.
Brian, you and your Moozy pals are NOT fooling anyone on this site. You insult everyone here with your posts. Go and snuggle with your goat-wife instead of bothering us with your trash.
Baucent says
Yes, sloppy journalism. Why did the reporter not think to consult with other experts? Why no mention of the fragments found in a Yemen mosque and now in Germany?
Prof.Thomas is too excited to think clearly on what he has; fragments which give no information on the bulk of the missing material. As for staying the writer probably knew Mohammed; pure guess work. In fact if these are dated earlier than the accepted date of the Koran, could it not indicate an earlier manuscript, not written by Mohammed at all? Perhaps his “revelation” he stole as well as copying bits out of the Bible.
Then there is the dating. The laboratory must have used a extremely small sample to come up with a date. The process destroys the sample, reduces the sample to carbon, literally burns it up. So they burnt a portion of the Koran to date it, they better hope news of that doesn’t leak to the streets of Pakistan!
Brian Hoff says
They most likely remove than older idol workshiping text and then wrote than Koran text, many people in Mecca who where Idiol workshipper convert to Islam later on. Robert you Are going to say sorry for writ that book saying the Prophet didnot exist at all, the evidence point to the fact he did exist.
ecosse1314 says
Mr Hoffal….how does this text prove anything about mo….does it even prove the early existence of the korant. The only thing I can see it proves is that IF it is part of the korant then it HAS been subjected to changes over the years.
Brian Hoff says
Simple it prove that Koran in it written form exist near the time of the Prophet death. Some supid Germany Proff wrote book saying the Prophet didnot exist based on his name didnot appear later on coinage. The early Islam ruler saw there was no point in issue they own coinago when they use Roman Empire and Persian Empire coinage. When the Roman Empire start to put Christ image and the cross on coinage was when the Caph order setting up muslim mint to issue Islamist coinage which was better than the Roman Empire.
ecosse1314 says
Wrong again Mr Hoffal ( though i admit your english is so bad i may not have understood your point).All it proves is that the parchment dates roughly from that period ..nothing more and perhaps even less as carbon dating is subject to so many variables.
gravenimage says
More garbage from “Brian Hoff”—really. “DefenderofIslam”:
They most likely remove than older idol workshiping text and then wrote than Koran text
………………………………..
And this is based on—what? More fine scholarship from the grammatically-challenged “DefenderofIslam”…
Really, the palimpsest could be almost anything—a medical text, correspondence, some Christian or Jewish text, or even an older version of the Qur’an.
More:
…many people in Mecca who where Idiol workshipper convert to Islam later on.
………………………………..
Of course they did—after the Muslim conquest of Mecca, many felt they had little choice, if the traditional Muslim narrative is accurate.
More:
Robert you Are going to say sorry for writ that book saying the Prophet didnot exist at all, the evidence point to the fact he did exist.
………………………………..
Where to start? Firstly, Spencer’s book is titled “Did Muhammad Exist?”, not “Muhammad Did Not Exist”. Free Infidels have the right to ask that question, even if pious Muslims believe they do not.
Then, as ecosse notes, this text, even if the ink dates from this period, says *nothing* about whether the “Prophet” existed or not—just that some Qur’anic (or proto-Qur’anic) text was circulating at the time.
There is no evidence here at all one way or the other for the historical existence of Muhammed.
More:
Simple it prove that Koran in it written form exist near the time of the Prophet death. Some supid Germany Proff wrote book saying the Prophet didnot exist based on his name didnot appear later on coinage.
The early Islam ruler saw there was no point in issue they own coinago when they use Roman Empire and Persian Empire coinage. When the Roman Empire start to put Christ image and the cross on coinage was when the Caph order setting up muslim mint to issue Islamist coinage which was better than the Roman Empire.
………………………………..
Good grief—it should come as no surprise that the semi-literate “Brian Hoff’ is as historically-challenged as he is stymied by the English language.
The Byzantine Empire used overtly Christian imagery on their coinage centuries before the supposed birth of the “Prophet”:
http://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=christian%20themes%20in%20byzantine%20coinage
Moreover, the lack of coinage is not the only paucity of proof for Muhammed’s existence that Spencer notes. There is virtually *no* reference to the “Prophet” in correspondence or in historical accounts, either by Arabs or by local Christians and Jews, or by Persians, Ethiopians, or Byzantines for about the first hundred and fifty years after his supposed demise—odd if Muslim conquest was supposed to be driven by his model.
Joseph says
@ gravenimage “Good grief—it should come as no surprise that the semi-literate “Brian Hoff’ is as historically-challenged as he is stymied by the English language.”
——————————————————————————-
I think he is stymied by Islam and the Koran too. Well I take that back, he is ignorant about both for he gobbles all that crap up and asks for seconds.
Richard says
Amazing what people will say to raise money, why Birmingham ?
The Muslim says
I can almost smell the sadness/anger coming out of Robert Spencer. The manuscript contains missing pages, that why it’s incomplete. I like how you conveniently left out these verses which are in the manuscript:
“Ta, Ha. We have not sent down to you the Qur’an that you be distressed. But only as a reminder for those who fear [ Allah ] – A revelation from he who created the earth and highest heavens, the Most Merciful [who is] above the Throne established” (Quran 20:1-5)
BTW 100 year old dry ink can NOT be dated separately from the document that it’s on, is Robert Spencer really this thick? Writing this olf is usually dated based on the style of writing.
Paul says
I don’t care if it’s genuine or not, it’s still a load of hateful nonsense
with blood on its hands.
gravenimage says
“The Muslim” wrote:
I can almost smell the sadness/anger coming out of Robert Spencer. The manuscript contains missing pages, that why it’s incomplete. I like how you conveniently left out these verses which are in the manuscript:
“Ta, Ha. We have not sent down to you the Qur’an that you be distressed. But only as a reminder for those who fear [ Allah ] – A revelation from he who created the earth and highest heavens, the Most Merciful [who is] above the Throne established” (Quran 20:1-5)
…………………………..
Actually, this article—and the update—fail to mention this particular Ayat at all. It may be included; or it may be worded quite differently.
But it hardly matters—the circular reasoning of Muslims hold Qur’anic claims of the greatness of the Qur’an to be proof of the greatness of the Qur’an.
No wonder pious Muslims find reasoning so difficult.
And why would Robert Spencer be angry or sad? He has commented on the baleful Qur’an many times—in fact, he has a book out on the subject.
More:
BTW 100 year old dry ink can NOT be dated separately from the document that it’s on, is Robert Spencer really this thick? Writing this olf is usually dated based on the style of writing.
…………………………..
Well, this is just false—of course ink can be carbon-dated, as can paint or any other substance.
Style is a factor in dating, but the fact that it is possible to fake style, as well as periodic stylistic revivals, makes it less accurate by itself than carbon-dating.
And even carbon dating, boon that it is, gives us a range of age. For instance, of the 77 year range of the estimate of the age of this manuscript, all but 35 years *preceded* the “revelation” of the Qur’an. This means that this text could certainly be *pre-Qur’anic*, if the ink dates to the same period as the manuscript itself.
The Muslim says
Ink that has dried on another material for over a 1000 years can not be carbon dates SEPERATELY. I’ve looked into this, the carbon in the ink becomes contaminated with the carbon on the material. There is absolutely no way to separate them.
Champ says
“The Muslim” is just another lost cause serving an evil cause: islam.
duh_swami says
I don’t care if this is a fragment of Adam and Eve’s copy, or something written last week….It’s still a piece of crap.
particolor says
And I’m getting sick of seeing Arabic Graffiti on things !! 🙁 It looks like a Monkey got loose with a Texta Colour ? 🙁
Denis MacEoin says
Given that you have not presumably seen these pages, cannot read Hijazi Arabic script (which even I as an Arabist would find difficult), that whatever issues suras 18-20 raise, they are not ‘crap’ (as you so elegantly put it), I think you should look at a dictionary and read what it says under the word ‘bigot’.
ECAW says
Maybe not crap but not exactly friendly either:
18:29 “…Lo! We have prepared for disbelievers Fire. Its tent encloseth them. If they ask for showers, they will be showered with water like to molten lead which burneth the faces. Calamitous the drink and ill the resting-place!”
It always astonishes me that non-Muslim academics, churchmen, politicians and heirs to the throne are happy to discuss Islam with Muslims as though the people on the other side of the table are not looking forward to observing the above scene from the Garden. If I was having tea with someone who thought it just fine that his god intends to burn me forever with periodic changes of skin just to add a little zest to the proceedings, I’m sure it would quite put me off my scones.
duh_swami says
Mr Abu Dennis…I think you should take a flying leap off a tall bridge…
How’s that for bigotry Abu?
voegelinian says
I suspect that “Dennis McEoin” would rail against Christians when they may invoke Hellfire; though here he chides anyone who dares to condemn such Hellfire ranting in the “Holy” Koran as “bigot”ry. A typical double standard from ilk such as his.
gravenimage says
Denis MacEoin wrote:
Given that you have not presumably seen these pages, cannot read Hijazi Arabic script (which even I as an Arabist would find difficult), that whatever issues suras 18-20 raise, they are not ‘crap’ (as you so elegantly put it), I think you should look at a dictionary and read what it says under the word ‘bigot’.
………………………………
I’m not sure which Ayats of Suras 18 and 20 this manuscript contains, but here is one possibility:
18:2: “[He has made it] straight, to warn of severe punishment from Him and to give good tidings to the believers who do righteous deeds that they will have a good reward”
It goes on in this vein, excoriating and damning Infidels. Then one finds the tale of Al-Kidr, the “green man”, who murders an inoffensive young man because he *might* disappoint his parents.
This Sura, Al-Kahf, has been used to both justify the oppression and murder of unbelievers and to condone “Honor Killing” of disobedient children.
You may find this edifying and praiseworthy, but anyone concerned about the savagery of Islam *does not*.
Sura 20—”Ta Ha”—is about Muslim supremacism over Jews, and the appropriation of Jewish texts. It also relates the story of the “last days”, when Muslims will commit genocide against the Jews, with the help of rocks and trees.
Such Islamic antisemitism is used today to justify attacking and murdering Jews, and threatening the state of Israel’s survival.
These are the “issues” that Sura 18 and 20 raise.
If the claims about the manuscript prove to be accurate, there is no doubt that this will be of historic interest. But in the ethical sense, I believe that “crap” is very much on the mark.
How is it “bigoted” to make the moral judgement that violent oppression of non-believers and the murder of children to be without ethical worth?
Again, you may find such sentiments laudable, but no decent Infidel does.
ECAW says
Good point gravenimage.I took MacEoin’s advice and looked up “bigot”:
“a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.”
Clearly it has nothing to do with passing a judgment on the content of a passage from a book, particularly one filled with such cruel nonsense. I think what he really objected to was the language used. “Morally execrable” would likely have passed unremarked.
The only other time I have seen MacEoian drop in here was to call someone else a bigot. One expects no better from Guardian readers and know nothing students. Shouting “Bigot” passes for reasoned argument in their world but there was a time when better was expected from professors.
saeroji says
This is proof of the truth and purity Al Qur-an. who had never experienced a change from the revelation of the Qur-an by Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta’ala to the destruction of this world in the future. no new agreements or ot. no revisions. and will always be in accordance with the times. This is proof that Islam is a religion that is most true if you want to think and want in depth
ecosse1314 says
Wrong idiot. All it proves at the moment is they have found an old parchment.
Paul says
You’re just on here to annoy people. You’re ‘prophet’ married a 6
year old girl and consummated the marriage when she was just 9.
To you, this mass murderer and child rapist is the “perfect man”.
You’re sick as well you pedophile loving idiot.
Kepha says
No, these leaves prove only that someone copied what he read or heard carefully. The Christians can also point our that the New Testament is the best-attested of any collection of ancient writings; they and the Jews can also point out the marvelous preservation of the Old Testament text from the Dead sea Scrolls and that of the Aaronic Bendiction (Numbers 6:23-27) from an 8th century B.C. medallion dug up in Jerusalem. Large portions of the Sanskrit of the Mahayana Buddhist scriptures (although admitted even by Buddhists to have been written centuries after Gautama himself) have also been preserved–and it is possible to check the originals with Middle Chinese translations.
The only thing I would say about this is that it is further evidence that people will be careful in copying texts that they think are important. If these are words of God or man depends on a whole other set of circumstances.
shams78 says
The ancient israelites used a different script. The Paleo-Hebrew script. Modern Jews use a different Hebrew script. There is a reference to the shape of a modern Hebrew letter in the Torah that does not match up with the Paleo-Hebrew letters. Somebody changed the text.
Samartian Pentateuch shows differences with the Jewish Pentateuch. Someone clearly changed the text in one or both of them. And they use different scripts.
And nobody can find the exact definite version New Testament Gospels and other texts were written in by the original author in his own handwriting to make sure there have been no changes.
gravenimage says
saeroji wrote:
This is proof of the truth and purity Al Qur-an. who had never experienced a change from the revelation of the Qur-an by Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta’ala to the destruction of this world in the future. no new agreements or ot. no revisions. and will always be in accordance with the times. This is proof that Islam is a religion that is most true if you want to think and want in depth
…………………………………………..
No, it’s not. Firstly, even assuming that the text itself dates from this period, this is only a fragment of two Suras, not the entire Qur’an.
Secondly, even apologist David Thomas just says, “portions must have been in a form that is very close to the form of the Koran read today”—this is hardly in line with the Islamic claims of the “Unchanging Qur’an”.
Thirdly, Jewish and Christian texts—with the exception of inclusion or rejection of assorted Apocrypha—have remained unchanged for a much longer period, but pious Muslims hardly that *that* as proof of their verity.
I could go on, but why bother? More proof, were any needed, that pious Muslims are incapable of reason. The idea that this mental slurry indicates thinking in depth is just sad.
Will says
I really do doubt that ANY academic in the UK, even one who contributes to JW , would have the nerve to and the permission to publish any article that disagreed with current Islamic dogma. So IMO this , even if true, will not help at any level as any really useful truths will be omitted in the dhimmi UK state..
mortimer says
Dating such a palimpsest (a re-used piece of parchment) involved finding the date when the sheep or goat died, rather than the date of the writing on it. But many more significant questions haven’t been answered.
What was previously written on the palimpsest? Will the MS be put under UV light to find underlying text?
Has the handwriting been analyzed for its time period? (Handwriting-style changes every 25 years.) If the Koranic text is indeed a ‘memory-aid’, how do they know that? An equally valid (and more credible) supposition is that the text is a different version of the Koran.
The scholars are orthodox Muslims who are slanting the research to make conclusions that support Islam, rather than reading what is there. Birmingham should call in Gerd-R. Puin who analyzed the Saana fragments for an independent and more scientific approach.
ninetyninepct says
Even the present day koran says to change and update the koran to adapt to the current radical way of thinking. That is why parts of this document have been erased and rewritten. Muzzies change the koran to whatever they want it to say. Don’t be surprised to hear in the near future that mo ham med and alla approved the use of nuclear weapons, missiles and centrifuges to obtain weapons grade nuclear material. I wonder how the words missile and nuclear look in worm writing? We will soon have Windows 10. What is today’s version of the koran, 68,582? The most recent declaration by an imam was that anal sex with little boys was approved in order to enlarge their anuses so they could pack in more explosives. Homosexuality is banned except when it is approved.
duh_swami says
I’m sorry, I don’t trust anything that half baked angel named Gabriel said or wrote. Drunk and incoherent, spouting drivel babble for Mahound’s ears. That’s if you believe Mahound actually had ears…