Quran parchment among oldest

[Jan2017]

Quran parchment among oldest
A British university disclosed on Wednesday, July 22, 2015 that scientific tests prove a Quran manuscript
in its collection at the university's Cadbury Reseach Library had been bound improperly attached
to a similar document not as old as it turns out the fragment of goat (or is it sheep) parchment.

An Italian doctoral research student, Alba Fedeli of Milan, noticed a difference in the bounded manuscript writings,
and she states those discrepancies, and the documentation for the bounded works - gave her the clue
to question whether the works bounded together were one and the same documents. They are NOT.

In trying to downplay the attention that has naturally followed her astute discovery, Ms. Fedell said that
the development was just as wonderful as the rest of her work.

David Thomas, Professor of Christianity and Islam, University of Birmingham believes
"This could well have been written just after the Islamic prophet Muhammad's death,
who is believed to have lived between 570 and 632 AD.

The administrator of the local central mosque in Birmingham believes "It is very much unique"
and that the carbon dating that was undertaken on the two leaves of parchment leaves
containing parts of suras 18 to 20 makes it not only among the oldest,
but that this could be from the prophet's life.

A public showing for October 2015 is being planned.

We'll assume Ms. Fedeli will be getting her Ph.D.

source: Associated Press by D.K.

[RJB]

Quran parchment among oldest
A British university disclosed on Wednesday, July

Is this a poem similar to a haiku?

[Suzanimal]

Last edited by Jan2017; Today at 10:26 AM. Reason: NSA problems

NSA problems or Tourette's syndrome?

[RJB]

(one letter at a time only -sorry - by noon Pacific Time should get there patience is a virtue)

No problem. I'll give you + rep for putting up the the heckling in my last post.

[Jan2017]

What can an old Quranic parchment really show ?
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/fir...nt-really-show

[Eagles' Wings]

What can an old Quranic parchment really show ?
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/fir...nt-really-show

Do you typically refer to First Things, Jan2017? I have not seen this magazine for years. It was the go-to magazine for Roman Catholics dedicated to the Magisterium.

[Jan2017]

Do you typically refer to First Things, Jan2017? I have not seen this magazine for years. It was the go-to magazine for Roman Catholics dedicated to the Magisterium.

Never have - please discuss, when you get a chance.

[Muwahid]

What can an old Quranic parchment really show ?
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/fir...nt-really-show

That's an incredibly inaccurate article.

[OReich]

That's an incredibly inaccurate article.

Do you still support Sharia law?

[Muwahid]

Do you still support Sharia law?

Yes, and I always will.

[Sola_Fide]

Yes, and I always will.

This is what I try to explain to people. Islam is an all-encompassing political worldview. You can't be a Muslim be against the implementation of Sharia. People in America are ignorant about Islam.

Islam is different than Christianity, because Christianity is not a political worldview.

[Muwahid]

This is what I try to explain to people. Islam is an all-encompassing political worldview. You can't be a Muslim be against the implementation of Sharia. People in America are ignorant about Islam.

Islam is different than Christianity, because Christianity is not a political worldview.

There is a governmental structure in Islam, to establish the laws of Allah over the laws of men (which have historically been selective and discriminatory). I often wonder what reason the Christians rejected their own Mosaic law for.

[ClydeCoulter]

That's an incredibly inaccurate article.

What do you find inaccurate in the article?

[Muwahid]

What do you find inaccurate in the article?

Christian apologists have a way of misconstruing the Uthamanic codex. For example:

Sunni Muslims believe that these revelations were never collected in a final book form until the third Muslim successor of Muhammad, Uthman (r. 644-656). This caliph, almost two decades after the Prophet’s death, gathered carefully all divine authentic texts, which were scattered in various places, examined them carefully, burnt what he considered inauthentic, and thus closed the corpus of the divine revealed canon. This, according to Muslims, is the exact copy of the celestial tablet and the exact copy we possess in our hands today.

The reality is, after the prophet ص died, hundreds of companions had memorized the Qur'an in its entirety. Soon after the Battle of Yamama, many Hafidh (people who memorized the Qur'an completely), had died. Abu Bakr decided it would be best to compile a master copy of the Qur'an, so that people could still learn to memorize it all, even if there were not hundreds of Hafidh around to teach.

Despite the companions already knowing the Qur'an by heart, they still wanted extra assurity so people would not doubt it. Abu Bakr tasked Zayd ibn Thaabit (a scribe of the Qur'an, and Hafidh) to collect all the places where the Quran was written. The Qur'an was written in it's entirety probably a few times over, but it was never put into one copy, just used as reference and passed so people could memorize it.

The strict criteria Zayd used, was each fragment of the Qur'an had to have two independent witnesses to confirm it was written during the time of the prophet ص and only then it was allowed to be entered into the codex. Bear in mind, the battle of Yamama happened the same year Muhammad died, so this was in rapid succession to his death.

What happened after is what people get confused on. When the Muslim conquered the Levant and Mesopotamia, they would send codices of the Qur'an. One thing I haven't mentioned yet, is the Qur'an came in 7 harfs, which for simplicity let's call "dialects". The original dialect of the Qur'an in Arabic, was most familiar to the Quraysh tribe. People from other tribes would come to the prophet and say we do not understand all of this Qur'an, and the prophet is said to have asked the angel Gabriel to make it easier, so each verse eventually came down in 7 dialects (this is something I find amazing for the people who doubt the divinity of the Qur'an, Muhammad being a simple Qurayshi, being able to give the Qur'an in seven distinct dialects).

These harfs however caused confusion in the conquered territory, the new Muslims would begin arguing on who had the correct Quran (ignorant to the fact they were all correct), so to make it simpler Uthman decided we're going to use the first and original harf, he recalled the other codices and replaced them with the original harf.

That in essence sums up the compilation of the Qur'an. I've seen Christian apologists try to portray the compilation of the Quran as something largely in dispute, and somewhat scandalous (i.e., Uthman burning the Qurans and dictating what he deems authentic!), I believe they do this because one of the Muslims strongest claims to validity is their Qur'an and its revelation. But we cannot smudge facts we must strive for the truth over falsehood.

[Sola_Fide]

There is a governmental structure in Islam, to establish the laws of Allah over the laws of men (which have historically been selective and discriminatory).

Yes, that's true. This is what many western people do not understand. Islam is not just a religion, it is a system of government.

I often wonder what reason the Christians rejected their own Mosaic law for.

No Christian rejects Mosaic law. The moral equity of those civil laws remain as a standard for Christian ethics.

But Christianity is not a political system and it is not a system of government. This is one of the differences between Islam and Christianity as it relates to what we all talk about on this website.

[Muwahid]

Yes, that's true. This is what many western people do not understand. Islam is not just a religion, it is a system of government.




No Christian rejects Mosaic law. The moral equity of those civil laws remain as a standard for Christian ethics.

But Christianity is not a political system and it is not a system of government. This is one of the differences between Islam and Christianity as it relates to what we all talk about on this website.

But Islam can be practiced without a governmental structure associated with it. Islam can be practiced in foreign lands not under Shariah law, however if Muslims are in the position to impose God's laws on earth, then they should.

It seems like what you're saying is, those laws from the Torah, are personal obligations on the Christian, but does that mean it's not permissible for a Christian to rule by the laws dictated in the Bible?

[wizardwatson]

There is a governmental structure in Islam, to establish the laws of Allah over the laws of men (which have historically been selective and discriminatory). I often wonder what reason the Christians rejected their own Mosaic law for.

Better question. Why would God have two separate sets of laws? One for the sons of Isaac and one for the sons of Ishmael?

Is God the servant of men that he should give his law in two different ways to please them?

[Muwahid]

Better question. Why would God have two separate sets of laws? One for the sons of Isaac and one for the sons of Ishmael?

Is God the servant of men that he should give his law in two different ways to please them?

God gave many sets of laws and religions because mankind changed and evolved with the times. If you read the Torah, why does it seem so divisive? Why is there such emphasis on the Jewish tribes, rather than spreading the word of God?

There's wisdom in what God does. We believe God revealed a messenger or prophet to every nation. Some took heed, others rejected it. The religions revealed to each nation may not have been identical but may have reflected the culture and ideals of the people it was revealed to but the underlying principle would remain the same (monotheism, and accepting God's messengers, prophets, angels, etc.).

[wizardwatson]

God gave many sets of laws and religions because mankind changed and evolved with the times. If you read the Torah, why does it seem so divisive? Why is there such emphasis on the Jewish tribes, rather than spreading the word of God?

There's wisdom in what God does. We believe God revealed a messenger or prophet to every nation. Some took heed, others rejected it. The religions revealed to each nation may not have been identical but may have reflected the culture and ideals of the people it was revealed to but the underlying principle would remain the same (monotheism, and accepting God's messengers, prophets, angels, etc.).

Where is there a written record that God gave His law to anyone other than Moses? You can I suppose claim that "all laws are from Him" in an indirect sense, but the Torah was revealed directly to Moses by God on the mountain. Mohammed does not even claim this. Mohammed said he got his revelation from Gabriel if I understand the story correctly.

And if you understood Christianity you would know that the Jews laws and ceremonies and worship all culminated in the revelation of Messiah, Jesus Christ. Indeed it is about spreading the "Word", the Living Word. And the command to spread the Word was given by Christ himself in his commandment to preach the gospel. So until Christ existed and fulfilled the law there wasn't any Word to spread in the technical sense.

Sure there is wisdom in what God does, but unless He SAID He's doing or did something it isn't wise to assume on His behalf. A lot of people, Muslim and Christian alike, take this liberty with the Lord at their own peril.

[Muwahid]

Where is there a written record that God gave His law to anyone other than Moses? You can I suppose claim that "all laws are from Him" in an indirect sense, but the Torah was revealed directly to Moses by God on the mountain. Mohammed does not even claim this. Mohammed said he got his revelation from Gabriel if I understand the story correctly.

And if you understood Christianity you would know that the Jews laws and ceremonies and worship all culminated in the revelation of Messiah, Jesus Christ. Indeed it is about spreading the "Word", the Living Word. And the command to spread the Word was given by Christ himself in his commandment to preach the gospel. So until Christ existed and fulfilled the law there wasn't any Word to spread in the technical sense.

Sure there is wisdom in what God does, but unless He SAID He's doing or did something it isn't wise to assume on His behalf. A lot of people, Muslim and Christian alike, take this liberty with the Lord at their own peril.

Why do you believe the Law was only given and revealed to Moses? It predates Moses, and the previous prophets obeyed them and judged by them. Why would Sodom and Gomorrah be destroyed unless they were violated the laws of God?

What do you mean there wasn't any word to spread before Jesus? So the idea of monotheism, and believing in the one true God wasn't something that should be spread? What would happen to the souls of those who were not invited to Judaism because they were not of the Hebrews, and died before Jesus came?

Furthermore, Islam does not conflict with the ten commandments in the first place.

[wizardwatson]

Why do you believe the Law was only given and revealed to Moses? It predates Moses, and the previous prophets obeyed them and judged by them. Why would Sodom and Gomorrah be destroyed unless they were violated the laws of God?

What do you mean there wasn't any word to spread before Jesus? So the idea of monotheism, and believing in the one true God wasn't something that should be spread? What would happen to the souls of those who were not invited to Judaism because they were not of the Hebrews, and died before Jesus came?

Furthermore, Islam does not conflict with the ten commandments in the first place.

Are we setting up Sharia Law based on "natural law"? Or are we setting up Sharia based on what's in the Koran. That's where I jumped into this discussion. I wasn't getting into the finer points of which religion is more universally applicable to the plight of man that you seem to be fishing for.

No, my question is related to Sharia Law that you brought up. If a group of Muslims "ought" to institute Sharia Law if it's in their power, then by what "right" or power do they get this authority if the same God has given another group the same power and the same authority in same land with a different set of laws?

Now, by the tone of assertions you seem to be of the opinion that we should gravitate towards that which makes the "most sense". I'm also of that opinion, but what makes the most sense to me is not Islam, it's Christianity. Christianity and Islam are fundamentally incompatible. That doesn't mean that adherents can't live in peace (it does for some adherents) but to deny they are incompatible is to deny that they speak the truth. Muslims believe that God having a Son is preposterous, and Jesus said the prophets ended with John the Baptist. That's just two things.

So my question is pretty specific. What is the reason God would give two sets of conflicting laws and edicts for two sets of people fighting over pretty much the same land?

I'm just curious as a Muslim how you've overcome this. Most of what I've read is each side assumes the other side is wrong. Since you seem to have chosen the religion that is more "universally appealing" I'm curious what was involved in this choice and how you reconciled conflicting revelations of God.

[Muwahid]

Are we setting up Sharia Law based on "natural law"? Or are we setting up Sharia based on what's in the Koran. That's where I jumped into this discussion. I wasn't getting into the finer points of which religion is more universally applicable to the plight of man that you seem to be fishing for.

No, my question is related to Sharia Law that you brought up. If a group of Muslims "ought" to institute Sharia Law if it's in their power, then by what "right" or power do they get this authority if the same God has given another group the same power and the same authority in same land with a different set of laws?

Now, by the tone of assertions you seem to be of the opinion that we should gravitate towards that which makes the "most sense". I'm also of that opinion, but what makes the most sense to me is not Islam, it's Christianity. Christianity and Islam are fundamentally incompatible. That doesn't mean that adherents can't live in peace (it does for some adherents) but to deny they are incompatible is to deny that they speak the truth. Muslims believe that God having a Son is preposterous, and Jesus said the prophets ended with John the Baptist. That's just two things.

So my question is pretty specific. What is the reason God would give two sets of conflicting laws and edicts for two sets of people fighting over pretty much the same land?

I'm just curious as a Muslim how you've overcome this. Most of what I've read is each side assumes the other side is wrong. Since you seem to have chosen the religion that is more "universally appealing" I'm curious what was involved in this choice and how you reconciled conflicting revelations of God.

One religion can abrogate the other if we're talking in terms of a theological sense. Meaning we believe that the final version of Shariah law as found in the Qur'an and practiced by the prophet is the final form which can be applied to all of mankind.

This does not mean we do away with Christian or Jewish law. Islam allows for Christians to practice their own laws, even when they're under the authority of Muslims. Historically the Christians under the Muslim caliphates could choose to judge their Christian peers under Christian laws, and not by Islamic laws in civil matters. In criminal matters, if the victim was a Muslim, it would be possible for Shariah to be applied to the Christian otherwise it could be deferred to Christian courts.

[Terry1]

There is a governmental structure in Islam, to establish the laws of Allah over the laws of men (which have historically been selective and discriminatory). I often wonder what reason the Christians rejected their own Mosaic law for.

Muwahid, the entire reason for Christians rejecting the Mosaic Law is because it was always designed by God to be a temporal Law to prove to mankind that the only one who could fulfill that Mosaic Law perfectly and to the letter was Jesus Christ. The entire Old Testament was about mankind's failure to carry out those ceremonial rituals and rites perfectly. The Old testament in s a type and shadow of what was old and now what is new since the Promise was fulfilled in Jesus Christ on the cross.

The Promise was always Jesus through the line of Isaac (being the son of promise to Abraham), while the son of disobedience (Ishmael) was born through Sarah's disbelief and disobedience to God. Hence God saying that because of Sarah's disbelief and disobedience, Ishmael's line would always be a thorn in the side of Isaac's line--hence the world history of disputes between these two half brothers.

Genesis 16:11-12King James Version (KJV)¹¹ And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Behold, thou art with child and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the Lord hath heard thy affliction.
¹² And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.






Deuteronomy 31:

25That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying, 26Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee. 27For I know thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck: behold, while I am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against the LORD; and how much more after my death?

~Genesis 17:19-21King James Version (KJV)¹⁹ And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.
²⁰ And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.
²¹ But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.

[Jamesiv1]

//

[Jan2017]

Muwahid, the entire reason for Christians rejecting the Mosaic Law is . . .

I gotta go get some grub right now first but . . .
I have always seemed to think alot more respect of the 21% of the world Muslim population (old National Geographic stat)
comes from the "non-evangelical Christians" (whatever that is) - especially Catholics, and United Methodists and Lutherans that I know.
Jus' sayin.

Hard core western Iowa evangelicals have alot of holes in their arguments/preachins' . . . I've heard some doozies in my day

[Jan2017]

That's an incredibly inaccurate article.

my bad . . . I do read good and bad both - thanks for the lead.

[Jan2017]

I gotta go get some grub right now first but . . .
I have always seemed to think alot more respect of the 21% of the world Muslim population (old National Geographic stat)
comes from the "non-evangelical Christians" (whatever that is) - especially Catholics, and United Methodists and Lutherans that I know.
Jus' sayin.

Hard core western Iowa evangelicals have alot of holes in their arguments/preachins' . . . I've heard some doozies in my day

Anyway back to what I was saying . . .

I am not so sure that the non-sola scriptura fanatics always tend to look at other writings and tradition in establishing what is tru
(honest that does make some sense with very multiple negatives)