
'Oldest' Koran fragments found in Birmingham University - sjclemmy
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33436021
======
lingben
as already mentioned in the article[1], the velum may be much older than the
text written on it since it was very valuable and regularly reused:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palimpsest](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palimpsest)

really surprised that they did not test for any previous washed text
underneath since this is both common and the test quite simple and easy to
perform

EDIT: [1] my mistake, it was in the NYT article on the same topic:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/23/world/europe/quran-
fragmen...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/23/world/europe/quran-fragments-
university-birmingham.html)

Saud al-Sarhan, the director of research at the King Faisal Center for
Research and Islamic Studies in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, said he doubted that the
manuscript found in Birmingham was as old as the researchers claimed, noting
that its Arabic script included dots and separated chapters — features that
were introduced later.

He also said that dating the skin on which the text was written did not prove
when it was written. Manuscript skins were sometimes washed clean and reused
later for new writings, he said.

~~~
aerodog
I didn't see that mentioned in the article - can you paste the precise line
you mean?

~~~
lingben
ah, my mistake, I read it in the NYT article:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/23/world/europe/quran-
fragmen...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/23/world/europe/quran-fragments-
university-birmingham.html)

"Saud al-Sarhan, the director of research at the King Faisal Center for
Research and Islamic Studies in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, said he doubted that the
manuscript found in Birmingham was as old as the researchers claimed, noting
that its Arabic script included dots and separated chapters — features that
were introduced later.

He also said that dating the skin on which the text was written did not prove
when it was written. Manuscript skins were sometimes washed clean and reused
later for new writings, he said."

~~~
HillRat
Parenthetically, the "dots" mentioned were a later diacritical feature added
to Qur'anic texts to mark the placement of short vowels; since Arabic, like
Hebrew, elides short vowel sounds in the written text, Muslims without Arabic
fluency need markers to show them how to verbalize the Qur'an. (Arabic is seen
in Islam as a particularly holy _language_ , and while the Qur'an is widely
translated, it is considered especially pious to recite and memorize the text
in the original Arabic, even if one does not know the language.) I believe
diacritics were introduced some 250 years after Muhammad, as they were only
needed as Islam expanded beyond the Arabic-speaking world.

~~~
lingben
Yes, it would seem so. Not an expert but my guess is the earliest use of
diacritics appeared around 100 years after Mohammad's death. So even, being
generous the claims they make in the article don't hold water.

The probability is fairly high that this is a very old piece of animal skin
with some Quranic text written about 100 years or so after his death (being
generous).

It should also be noted that there is absolutely zero contemporary historical
evidence for the existence of Mohammad. Zero.

We have piles and piles of contemporary historical evidence in multiple forms
(statues, tablets, pottery, artwork, etc.) for many important and lesser
important persons in history both much more ancient and equally ancient, but
for him, nothing. It is only after a significant time gap after his death that
we find a trickle of evidence and then a torrent. Exact same thing for Jesus.

If anyone is interested, Tom Holland's "Islam the untold story" is a
fascinating introduction to this sacrilegious line of thought.

~~~
oever
"It should also be noted that there is absolutely zero contemporary historical
evidence for the existence of Mohammad. Zero."

Yes there is.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad#Non-
Mu...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad#Non-
Muslim_sources)

~~~
acqq
Thanks. Still, on the same page:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad#Views_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad#Views_of_historians)

"It is not possible to write a historical biography of the Prophet without
being accused of using the sources uncritically, while on the other hand, when
using the sources critically, it is simply not possible to write such a
biography."

I believe both Jesus and Mụhammad existed and both were just humans, the
former just a prophet who managed to be ingloriously killed, the later just a
military leader who invented a surprisingly effective ideology for his bloody
conquests (or the prophet who had the "luck" to live his bloody character,
whatever). How these things develop can be easily seen on the more recent and
good documented example of

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith)

One of the most interesting parallels:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad%27s_wives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad%27s_wives)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Joseph_Smith%27s_wives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Joseph_Smith%27s_wives)

------
rikkus
Perhaps coincidentally, on BBC Four tonight a programme was shown which
describes vellum (the material on which this manuscript was written) and the
process behind creating it.

A clip is here:
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01pr4ty](http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01pr4ty)

A slightly longer clip on the same subject:
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00n3rdf](http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00n3rdf)

------
cmscmscms
I would also like to point out amongst Muslims there is a concept of multiple
Qira'aat(readings) where there are multiple dialects in which the Quran is
read. These readings may differ by a couple of letters for a specific word
every so often. This was the reason the Quran was compiled into one form
during the time of 'Uthmaan, to prevent confusion amongst the common Muslims.

Nevertheless these "readings" did not die, but rather continue to thrive to
this day. This allows for a broader range of meanings, so it is not something
avoided by Muslims rather accepted openly as a part of what they believe was
revealed.

------
duaneb
What does this even mean to find it in the University? This is almost more
interesting to me than the text itself, which has been remarkably well
attested through the ages (or at least, versions of it have been independently
attested).

~~~
jasimq
People collect old manuscripts and books. People donate old manuscripts and
books. Not that surprising

~~~
duaneb
There's a story here. Not implying anything special, no da Vinci code here.

------
INTPenis
My interest was piqued so I googled the oldest complete copy of the koran and
found this[1].

[1] [http://www.commdiginews.com/world-news/middle-east/worlds-
ol...](http://www.commdiginews.com/world-news/middle-east/worlds-oldest-quran-
discovered-and-may-be-linked-to-imam-ali-30011/)

------
jay_kyburz
Is it just me or is there something strange about the way this piece is
written. Feels like it is written by an bot or somehow optimized for search.

    
    
        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.
    

Oldest, Oldest Oldest. Ok, I get the picture.

------
cies
No mention of what chapters/verses? And no digitized images so we can compare
it to current mainstream versions...

Too bad.

~~~
Nemant
3rd image from the top. The verses are highlighted and a translation is
presented

Here's the digitized version:
[http://vmr.bham.ac.uk/Collections/Mingana/Islamic_Arabic_157...](http://vmr.bham.ac.uk/Collections/Mingana/Islamic_Arabic_1572a/Page_1r/viewer/)

In case you know how to read arabic:
[https://www.facebook.com/yasir.qadhi/photos/a.10150091939643...](https://www.facebook.com/yasir.qadhi/photos/a.10150091939643300.277936.19667888299/10153217261258300/?type=1&theater)

~~~
cies
Thanks!

------
msoad
It's funny how Muslims claim it's a "miracle" of Koran that it hasn't changed
since it was published. Of course it hasn't changed, technology was at a point
that it was possible to keep a book from forgers but publishing it heavily and
also, there were many muslims trying to protect Koran from day one.

P.S. I born Muslim so I get to be critical about Islam and I think everyone
should be able to do so.

~~~
x5n1
There was no day one Quran. It was compiled many year's after Muhammad's
death. There were many versions of the Quran that were destroyed.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Quran#Uthman_ib...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Quran#Uthman_ibn_Affan_and_the_canonization)

"When the task was finished Uthman kept one copy in Medina and sent others to
Kufa, Baṣra, Damascus, and, according to some accounts, Mecca, and ordered
that all other variant copies of the Quran to be destroyed. This was done
everywhere except in Kufa, where some scholars argue that, Ibn Masʿūd and his
followers refused."

Thousands of people claim below:

The famous ten People who form the chains of narration regarding the Quran are
as follows.

    
    
        Umar ibn al Khattab [26]
        Uthman bin Affan[27]
        Ali ibn abi Talib[28]
        Abu Musa al Ash'ari[29]
        Ubay Ibn Ka'b[30]
        Abdullah ibn Masood[31]
        Zayd Ibn Thabit[32]
        Abu Hurairah[33]
        Abdullah Ibn Abbas[34]
        Abu al-Darda[35]
    

Amongst those ten the two most important people were zayd ibn thabit the
personal scribe of Muhammad and Ubay ibn Ka'b who was the foremost authority
on the Quran after zaid.[36][37]

So 12 people were essentially responsible for Quran, mostly through hearsay.

~~~
the_rosentotter
Thousands of people had the entire Quran committed to memory during the
lifetime of Mohammad. The standardization of the written Quran, and the many
"versions" you speak of, deal essentially with dialect and the addition of
symbols that guide pronunciation. As far as I know it is generally agreed that
the standardization process was carried out in an unbiased mechanical way.

By the way, it is relatively easy to memorize the Quran, because it is in
verse form. You can go to any mosque and find children from the age of ten who
has it memorized.

~~~
keedot
This is absurd, where did you learn this?

~~~
igammarays
Common knowledge among Muslims. I memorized the entire Quran word-for-word
when I was 12 years old myself, as did many of my friends.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>Thousands of people had the entire Quran committed to memory during the
lifetime of Mohammad. //

Your comment doesn't address the claim.

Once the canonical written version of the Koran had been established
memorising the entire text is relatively easy. Prior to that you would have
had to be present when Mohammed revealed the narrations or had a precise
rendition of that oration conveyed to you. At times Mohammed only spoke to one
or two people when revealing surah. Having thousands of people memorise a
number of separate orations exactly without any problem of conflicting
versions is really impossible. Conveying the general meaning is within the
realms of possibility; surahs revealed to large groups might even allow the
preservation of some of the actual wording too.

Take an example - Armstrong's speech when stepping on to the moon, was it "one
small step for a man" or was the "a" not spoken? This is probably the most
pored over of all speeches ever, millions of witnesses. Did no camel ever brae
in the tents of the Qureshi tribe in Mohammed's time?

Abrogation causes further problems to this claim as not only do all
"thousands" have to remember the exact wording used but the exact order too,
and they have only a couple of months from the end of Mohammed's narrations to
learn the last of them. Not only do they need to know the order, for
abrogation purposes (to learn the way to act) but they have to remember the
narrations in the same non-temporal order as everyone else. I can believe even
that many of Mohammed's followers remembered surah, mostly that they agreed on
wording, but not at all that they remembered it in the "wrong" (ie not the
delivered order) and that the order it was remembered in was identical (ie was
"the entire Quran").

Doesn't 2:106 say that Allah causes ayats to be forgotten, those ayats must
have been in the original - else they wouldn't have been narrated by Mohammed
- but aren't now remembered and so are not in the "entire Quran".

Of course if surah 25:32
([http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=25&verse=32](http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=25&verse=32))
that says the Koran was revealed piecemeal is wrong and surah 2:185 is right
then the whole Koran was passed on in one month (including future
conversations) which makes it easier to attain unanimous agreement but also
means that [if tradition that the Koran was passed on in 10 days is correct]
the hearers were remembering > 600 ayats of prose each day for 10 days in a
row; quite a feat for illiterate desert tribesmen regardless of whether they
had a tradition of oral history or not.

I'm very interested in the Muqatta'at too - how were written character
variations conveyed by the "thousands"?

~~~
igammarays
Very fair argument. However there also existed a consistent, full-time effort
by significant numbers of people, around 70 in number, (known as Ashab as
Suffa or People of The Platform) whose sole job was to memorize the Koran (and
learn its interpretations) during the lifetime of Mohammed. They lived in the
mosque pretty much all day, and did nothing else. Their learning was regularly
checked, and presumably feedback given by Mohammed, until his death. It is not
impossible to imagine that they were able to memorize and organize the current
canonical text in the right order, even though it was revealed piecemeal.
After Mohammed's death, these people went on to travel all over the Islamic
world and teach students, giving rise to the "thousands" of memorizers within
the 2nd generation of Islam, with no recorded incidents of version conflicts
among the 7 established dialects.

However even with that, it is understandably difficult to believe that no
mistakes were made in transmission. That's why the Quran calls it a miracle,
and calls it Allah's job, to safeguard the integrity the Quran. That fact
there is an established canonical version today with zero conflicts among all
major prints in all countries is somewhat of a miracle, considering the fact
that Muslims across cultures argue and disagree about a lot of other things
within the religion.

As for the Muqatta'at, they are a part of regular recitation - they are not
simply written characters.

~~~
millstone
There is an established canonical version today because Uthman set about the
task of destroying all texts except the one he preferred. It's obvious why
Muslims would wish a standardized text, but from a secular perspective, this
was no miracle, but a tragic loss of historical sources and artifacts.

------
Nemant
"If it had been from anyone other than God, they would have found much
inconsistency in it." (The Holy Qur'an, An-Nisa'; 4:82)

"Truly, We have revealed this remembrance, and We shall, for sure, preserve
it." (The Holy Qur'an, Al-Hijr; 15:9)

Digitized version:
[http://vmr.bham.ac.uk/Collections/Mingana/Islamic_Arabic_157...](http://vmr.bham.ac.uk/Collections/Mingana/Islamic_Arabic_1572a/Page_1r/viewer/)

In case you know how to read arabic:
[http://tinyurl.com/nr5gvz9](http://tinyurl.com/nr5gvz9)

------
scottshea
Not really an insightful comment but I first read that as Brigham Young
University which makes it all that more impactful... and funny

