'Oldest' Koran fragments found in Birmingham University

There is, of course, controversy on this as described here:

http://vladtepesblog.com/2015/07/22/ten ... y-22-2015/

One thing he doesn't mention is the theory of the possibility that Mohammed might not have even existed.

It's a fun one, but one of the main evidences it relies on is the fact that no Koran turns up for, I forget exactly, but I think it's over a hundred years.

So if this one turns out to be the real deal and not just a few older pages of who knows what stuffed into a later version Koran, there goes that theory.

What Vlad mentions is also important. People will want to know if the content matches up with later versions, because if it doesn't it conflicts with what the big names in Islam have been saying about an immutable Koran over the centuries.

Well the first Muslims were from a preliterate society so it wouldn't surprise me that it took a long time to write a book. Most religion's books are written centuries after they events they describe.

But of course someone founded and led Islamic conquest of the Arabian peninsula and beyond, and we know from the writings of other peoples that this leader went by the name of Mohammad.

I don't understand what your blogger link is on about or why he cares. And I feel like I have to take as shower after clicking one of your slimy links against my better judgment.

Aside from Scientology and Mormonism do you have any other examples?

The bible. Most of the gospels were only written a generation or two after the fact. And the earliest copy we have is 200 years after the death of Christ. It's called the codex sinaiticus (or something like that) and its online if you're interested.

Well then, continue to listen only to those biased and opinion based, leftist links you've been posting lately from digital slop buckets like Salon and remain ignorant of what they won't tell you. Call that clean, if you like. I call it ignorant.

Or you could do what I and others do and read both sides of an issue then look for the more rational, and better supported argument.



Actually no. Mohammed conquered a section of the Arabian peninsula, but when you talk about "beyond" you're talking about the later Caliphs.



Now as to the controversy. There's a video below from Bill Warner PHD.

You don't need to watch the whole thing. If one starts at about the 17:15 mark Dr. Warner answers the question : "Is there any archeological evidence that answers the question that corroborates early Islam as per the Surah?"

I'll give you a spoiler and tell you, "not so much". In fact, more exactly the answer is "No".

But this is why this current finding, half-assed explained by the BBC matters. If this Koran turns out to be the real deal that answer will have to change.

The next question to Dr. Warner is also interesting. Somebody states: "We are told that the Koran is the perfect word of God and has no variation and is therefore not corrupt."

Apparently there are already Korans with variations, but if these new pages turn out to belong to an actual Koran, and have variation with the current accepted texts, it will add to the evidence.

Start at 17:15

Right. Not even Wiki says any different.

But that's not "centuries" after the fact.

In the Old Testament it's only Genesis that was written centuries after the fact. Exodus and the rest were written by people approximately contemporary to the events they described.

The Koran was purportedly written in its entirety by Mohammed so it was contemporary with its time as well.

The only two holy books I can think of that were written long after the events they describe are the Scientology stuff and The Book of Mormon. I'm just curious if there are any others.

Right. Not even Wiki says any different.

But that's not "centuries" after the fact.

In the Old Testament it's only Genesis that was written centuries after the fact. Exodus and the rest were written by people approximately contemporary to the events they described.

The Koran was purportedly written in its entirety by Mohammed so it was contemporary with its time as well.

The only two holy books I can think of that were written long after the events they describe are the Scientology stuff and The Book of Mormon. I'm just curious if there are any others.

No! Literacy was virtually 0 in the time of Exodus beyond palace scribes and there are mo Jewish texts written in Egyptian hieroglyphics anyways. The first Jewish texts don't come until much later, 6th century BCR, during Babylonian captivity which is the period literary begins for the Jewish people.

Similarly Arabs at the time of Mohammad were almost entirely illiterate. In fact the supposed miracle of Mohammad is that he memorized the Koran in a single night after it was supposedly recited to him by the angel Gabriel. The earliest written Koran comes later.

There's a claim by Robert Spencer that I haven't heard reliably countered.

It says the peoples being conquered by the Caliphs following the death of Mohammed don't start talking about a religion equating to Islam or a book called the Koran for hundreds of years.

In fact the better argument seems to say that included Mohammed.

And an interesting bit of trivia is Muslim illiteracy continued into relatively recent times. During the Ottoman empire for example...



http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statis ... Employment

I don't know if that's true because it still would have been observed by outsiders and anyway doesn't that undermine your evil muslum conquerors theory?

In fact the better argument seems to say that included Mohammed.

And an interesting bit of trivia is Muslim illiteracy continued into relatively recent times. During the Ottoman empire for example...



http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statis ... Employment


Of course but that's true for the general populations if the world right up to the 1800s and early 1900s. Depending on when formal schooling came to your ancestors town, your family was probably illiterate until about 3 or 4 generations ago Except for aristocracy and certain skilled trades such as engineers.

Why would Jewish texts of any sort be written in hieroglyphics when the Hebrew and Aramaic lettering systems were much easier to use anyway?



I corrected an unfounded assumption for you. Just because we do not know of something is not evidence that it never existed or doesn't exist. All you need is for some farmer to dig up a clay jar full of scrolls and your assumption would be falsified. Better to just say that we only know of Jewish texts back to a certain period.



Not all Arabs were illiterate. The Arabs who built Mecca and Medina were accomplished engineers and they had vibrant cultures that were stomped out by Mohammed and his ignorant Bedouin goat herding supporters who joined Islam for the opportunity to rape, pillage, and enslave the other Arabs.



That is not a fact. It's a statement of faith.



Again, this is corrected for the unfounded assumption. Maybe there are or were earlier copies of the Koran. All we can say is that this fragment in question is the oldest known part of the Koran for the moment.

Since Exodus didn't happen, guess those contemporaries were bullshitters.