Birmingham Quran fragments older than Muhammad...lol

[Minimalist]

I'm not sure why it would be a fraud. Can you elaborate? I'm confused.

Even before this new, earlier, date the Quran fragments were still older than Uthman. Funnily enough, I saw comments of people claiming they could read the text just by looking at the photographs and that it was exactly like the Quran today. This new date will expose a lot of hypocrites and speed up the death of yet another religion.

Good question.  Actually a very good question but there is no quick answer.  One of the most common methods of forgery in the antiquities market is to take an actual ancient but mundane artifact and add an inscription to it.  Hence the "James Ossuary" which was a simple limestone bone box which had an inscription.  The original inscription said "James son of Joseph."  To this someone added, "brother of jesus" at a later date.  Israeli expert Yuval Goren has demonstrated the difference in the patinas of the two halves of the inscription.  Modern forgers understand that they are now up against forensic science techniques so creating an artifact from scratch will be detected.  Thus the use of actual objects which have been given a little help has become the way to do it.  Adding the words "brother of jesus" to the ossuary took something that was probably worth $1,000 on the antiquities market and made it priceless.  Xtians, ever eager to be fooled, came in their pants over it.  They are easily fooled.

Now, if there were a few pages of ancient blank parchment laying around the library someone with a little knowledge of chemistry could easily scrape some ink from a less valued document, mix it up and create ancient ink.  Then, assuming they had a knowledge of ancient arabic, write something to discredit the koran's claims.  Before you say, who would go to that much trouble, look up Piltdown Man.

Now remember what the man said in the article.

Keith Small, from the University of Oxford’s Bodleian Library, said that carbon dating was not always reliable and the dates announced last month applied not to the ink but to the parchment. The provenance of the text is also unclear and its calligraphic script is characteristic of later inscriptions.

You have 4 potential anomalies.  That's a lot.

[ReptilianPeon]

The Quran had been lying for many decades in Birmingham, forgotten. Forensics has moved on from the time this Quran was taken to Birmingham. I don't think it's a clever forgery. The forger could not have known about the future direction of forensics. Expect to see Hamza Tzortis and others tell their lackeys to "put their fingers in their ears and make the la-la sound".

I am reminded of the Topaki manuscript, I think it was (or was it the Sana'a manuscript), where earlier text of the Quran had been erased in favour of later text. Just because the fragments may contain "calligraphic script is characteristic of later inscriptions" does not mean they are from a later date. Further testing will determine if there was any prior writing on the fragment.

[Minimalist]

The Quran had been lying for many decades in Birmingham, forgotten.

That does not explain the anomalies and we have not yet had anything more that C14 testing done.  The script is already under question by experts.  But science does not move quickly because you wish it to.  Give it some time.

[ReptilianPeon]

Hopefully we can finally put an end to another religion. I can't wait for the results. Or we could simply go by the logic of this comment on the Daily Mail article:

"this is nonsense because there are verses that are related to Prophet Muhamamd(PBUH) so if the QUran predated him it, he wouldnt be in it, or events in life wouldnt be in it , so nice try but we aint as stupid as you think "

[Minimalist]

I take it that we can agree that no fucking "angel" chatted up "mohammed" in a cave and dictated the fucking koran to him, right?  That's as utterly improbable as a dead jew coming back to life after being crucified!  History does not need miracles to work.

So what was going on historically on the Arabian Peninsula in the late 6th century.  Essentially the answer was war.  But it is not the simplistic tale that modern muslims tell.  Learn about the Ghassanids.

http://www.royalhouseofghassan.org/history/

The Ghassanids were a group of South Arabian Christian tribes that emigrated in the early 3rd century from Yemen to the Hauran in southern Syria, Jordan and the Holy Land where some intermarried with Hellenized Roman settlers and Greek-speaking Early Christian communities. The term Ghassan refers to the kingdom of the Ghassanids. The Sabean Prince Jafna bin 'Amr emigrated with his family and retinue north and settled in Hauran (south of Damascus, present Syria), where the first Ghassanid state was founded. From him the Ghassanid line is also sometimes known as the Jafnids. It is assumed that the Ghassanids adopted the religion of Christianity after they reached their new home. The Romans found a powerful ally in the new coming Arabs of Southern Syria. The Ghassanids were defenders of the buffer zone against the other Bedouins penetrating Roman territory. The capital was at Jabiyah in the Golan Heights. Geographically, it occupied much of Syria, Mount Hermon (Lebanon), Jordan and Israel, part of present Iraq, Saudi Arabia and its authority extended via tribal alliances with other Azdi tribes all the way to the northern Hijaz as far south as Yathrib (Medina).

The Byzantine Empire was focused more on the East and a long war with the Persians was always their main concern. The Ghassanids maintained their rule as the guardian of trade routes, policed Bedouin tribes and was a source of troops for the Byzantine army. The Ghassanid king al-Harith ibn Jabalah (reigned 529-569) supported the Byzantines against Sassanid Persia and was given the title "Basileus" (Augustus or 'Imperial Majesty') and 'Patricius' (Noble of the Byzantine Empire) in 529 by the emperor Justinian I. Al-Harith was a Miaphysite Christian; he helped to revive the Syrian Miaphysite (Jacobite) Church and supported Miaphysite development despite Orthodox Byzantium regarding it as heretical. The Ghassanids, who had successfully opposed the Persian, allied Lakhmids of al-Hirah (Southern Iraq and Northern Arabia), prospered economically and engaged in much religious and public building; they also patronized the arts and at one time entertained the poets Nabighah adh-Dhubyani and Hassan ibn Thabit at their courts. The Ghassanid Kings were masters of the wars but 'addicted to poetry'.

They were monophysite xtians and, as far as the Byzantines were concerned, heretics.  BUT.  They performed a useful function holding the southern flank against the Persians.  The heresy here is a dispute about the single or dual nature of jesus so, if you are interested in such shit, a fairly major point of doctrinal difference.  Still, religion only goes so far when you need allies.  The thing is that the notion of a heretical xtian force is consistent with the ideas of Luxenberg that the koran was a re-hash of heretical xtian writings and here we have an army of xtian heretics which suddenly finds itself the last man standing after the Byzantines and Persians tore each other to shreds in the early 7th century.

Again, history is about probabilities not fucking miracles.  Which is more probable is the question you need to ask yourself.

[ReptilianPeon]

The Ghassanids explain what was happening in northern Arabia. I certainly wouldn't describe them as southern Arabian. Yemen in southern Arabia and this nowhere near Tabuk, the most southerly of the Ghassanid controlled cities. Tabuk is in northern Hejaz. When people talk about Jahiliyyah, or the Age of Ignorance, they are principally referring to Hejaz.

[Minimalist]

Yeah, that's the story.  The question is, is it true?

http://isaalmasih.net/archaeology-isa/qu...ology.html

According to the Quran, Mecca was the first and most important city in the world. Adam placed the black stone in the original Kaba (sanctuary) there, while Abraham and Ishmael rebuilt the Meccan Kaba centuries later (Sura 2:125-127). Mecca was allegedly the centre of Arabian trading routes before Muhammads time.

Yet there is no archeological corroboration for this. Such a great ancient city would surely have received a mention in ancient history. However, the earliest reference to Mecca as a city is in the Continuato Byzantia Arabica, an 8th century document. Mecca is certainly not on the natural overland trade routes- it is a barren valley requiring a one hundred mile detour. Moreover, there was only maritime Graeco-Roman trade with India after the first century, controlled by the Ethiopian Red Sea port Adulis, not by the Arabs. If Mecca was not even a viable city, let alone a great commercial centre until after Muhammads time, the Quran is seriously in doubt.

Once you begin to look at claims with a critical eye you must expand to every claim they make.

[vorlon13]

Gasp !!

Doubts have arisen about the book of Abraham, and now this Koran kerfuffle ??

{wringing hands frantically while perspiring nervously as world view changes abruptly}

[ReptilianPeon]

I've been saying Mecca is far younger than the Quran claims for many years now. Only a really ignorant person would think Mecca has ever been a center for trade - because trade is faster, cheaper and safer by water. Trade by land means protecting the slower camel trains from bandits and feeding the camels.

On the one hand, people like Hamza Tzortis and Adnan Rashid want us to believe there was a force field protecting people living in Mecca from acquiring scientific knowledge and yet they also claim Mecca was this really important city. Can't have it both ways. Either Mecca was really important or the Meccans were super ignorant.

Quran 3:96 is a similar verse to the passage you quoted from chapter two. It basically makes the same obviously false claim that Mecca is far older than it actually is. My money is on Mecca being founded somewhere around 400A.D.

[Minimalist]

Good.  So we have a book which tells a story of a miraculous hero in a fictional setting.

Why should anyone give credence to anything else in it?

(I have the same problem with the bible, btw.)