ancient qur'an fragments found in birmingham

i quickly assembled a comparison from taha beginning and mariyam ending
 

Attachments

  • old quran MS.jpeg
    old quran MS.jpeg
    931.1 KB · Views: 406
  • maryam last.jpg
    maryam last.jpg
    631.4 KB · Views: 401
  • taha first.jpg
    taha first.jpg
    878.1 KB · Views: 426
as a muslim, i believe that it should be thus and not surprised.

but i wonder if someone can plant this to get good review and then produce "similar" leaves that could have anti-islamic writings, thereby creating confusion ("if you believed that, why reject this?"). the reason that my skeptic-sense tingles (skeptic NOT of the qur'an, al-iyadhubillah, but of the 'discovery') is because it sounds too good. indeed, i do not deny that it could be true and in which case, we muslims stand vindicated.

curiously, the leaf that is found is from surah maryam includes the ayat that refutes that Allah ta'ala has a son.
the other leaf is a mention of aS'Hab kahf, who were a sign for people of that time who had begun to deny resurrection.

---
and of course, it could be genuine. if it is, then alHamdulillah, a sign to further strengthen our iman and that refutes orientalist drivel that qur'an is a post-dated work put together and transmitted by the conspiracy of hundreds of thousands of people of the first three centuries.

Allah ta'ala knows best.
 
abu Hasan said:
but i wonder if someone can plant this to get good review and then produce "similar" leaves that could have anti-islamic writings, thereby creating confusion ("if you believed that, why reject this?").
Click to expand...

A relevant and useful post from one of Shaykh Yaqoubi's* Facebook pages (full post can be found at the link below, I've copied a few points only below):

https://www.facebook.com/permalink....578834007&id=302237123133693&substory_index=0

"Therefore when a copy of the Quran reaches us like this truncated the way they found in Sana University or Birminghim University or any other place in the world; it doesnt shake us. I know that some orientalists have taken advantage of this to try and shake the beliefs of the Muslims in their holy book. They said a copy has been found which ages back to the first century etc and it is different from what the Muslims have today and this could review the status of the principles of Islam. None of what they said holds any value.

Our system is based on who wrote and from where. This is how we verify. We ask who wrote it so that we can be sure that he was righteous, protecting of his deen and upheld its rules. We ask from where did he copy so that we can be certain that it was copied from a reliable copy and not from the top his head or from an unreliable copy.

I wanted to draw your attention to this so that if the news reaches you on back of pamphlets or copies of Quran which are old and go back to prophetic times according examinations: if it agrees and matches what we already have as the Quran then we say welcome. However if it differs from what we have then the realiable is the Quran we have."

-----

* Not sure if the message is Shaykh Yaqoubi's words itself or someone else's; also am somewhat aware of the issues surrounding the Shaykh, but thought the post is relevant and useful and should be shared
 
looking at these Qur'an Kareem fragments brings tears to my eyes. the whole of islamic history, i see it in front glaring as the sun in the sky
 
they can't give up on their mischief making:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/22/oldest-quran-fragments-found-at-birmingham-university

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.

David Thomas, professor of Christianity and Islam, and the Nadir Dinshaw professor of interreligious relations at the university, called the discovery “one of the most surprising secrets of the university’s collections”. He said it supported the view that the version of the Qur’an in use today had hardly changed from the earliest recorded version, and the Muslim belief that the text represented an exact record of the revelations delivered to the Prophet.
Click to expand...

----

unless they are referring to the inclusion of diacritic marks and ayah numbers etc in the present copies.
 
Comment about the Birmingham Quran Manuscript

By Sayyid Shaykh Muhammad Abul Huda al-Yaqoubi

Correction of the message of Shaykh Dr. Ayman Suwayd

The Holy Qur'an is proven authenticate by verbal narration of group of narrators who took it from the mouth of Prophet Salla Allah-u 'alayhi wasallam, and memorised it, not by writing and leaves.

Writing it down in the seven copies during the time of our master Uthman ibn 'Affān in seven copies was not for authentication, because authentication relied on memorisation, and mutawaatir, i.e. large group narration was the proof of its validity.

Some Sahabahs' Mus'hafs (and they are all trustworthy) had extra words which were rejected by consensus of the Sahaba and considered Tafsir, i.e. commentary, not Qur'an.

Therefore, we do not have any consideration for any leaves or parchments discovered from the first century even if written by a companion of the Prophet, if they have different or extra words. So, the question posed in Dr. Ayman's comment about "who wrote it" is irrelevant and has no impact on the authentication of the Holy Qur'an, even no matter who the writer is; because the Holy Qur'an was proven via mutawātir oral narration. So is the other question which he posed about, "Where did the writer copied it from"; it is irrelevant to the authenticity of the Holy Qur'an. SO, when the good doctor says, "Our System (rather he meant, our method, is based on who wrote and where from" is wrong. Our method for the authenticity of the Qur'an was based on Mutawātir oral narration.

It is upon this tawātur i.e. large group narration, the seven copies, which were ordered to be copied by Sayyiduna Uthman, may Allah be pleased with him, relied.

The seven copies were later on narrated by Mutawātir way and were considered source of the authentication of the various Qirā'āt, ie.e readings, of the Holy Qur'an. So, the condition of Mutawatir narration to prove any was later on replaced by finding the verse in one of the seven copies.

Finally, narration from books and papers is the weakest method of narration, it is called amongst the scholars of the methodology of hadith "Wijādah وجادة". It is not prove any Qur'an nor the soundness of any hadith.

There is a lot more to say but we tried to be brief in these remarks as it is important to draw the attention of Muslims around the world the main method of the authentication fo the Qur'an which Allah guaranteed is "Memorisation and oral narration" Not "Writing".
 
Indeed the transmission of the Qur'an Shareef is mutawatir bil tabaqa; the highest form of transmitted knowledge. However, the argument of shaykh yaqubi sahib suffers from an inconsistency. Hazrat usman's compilation and the reports about it are ahaad so to rely on akhbar al-aahad to prove a mutawatir bil tabaqa does not make sense to me or perhaps someone can clarify for me.
 
That would contradict most accounts of his life and legacy and may “radically alter the edifice of Islamic tradition”.
Click to expand...

yes, these fussaq expect us to take their word - these wine-drinking swine-eating lying, cheating, philandering fussaq - rather than the millions of true, pious, upright muslims from the saHabah's time!

dream on offspring of shayateen - and try all the schemes your grandmaster teaches you.

but the qur'an has remained and shall remain:

41_42.png
 
Historian Tom Holland said evidence was mounting that traditional accounts of Islam’s origins were unreliable or wrong.
Click to expand...
it is us, muslims who invented the science of corroboration - no nation before us and after us has the elaborate and complex system of verifying and source-authentication.

yet this "historian" will teach us authentication. his own testimony will be rejected outright as he is a kafir which is the biggest fisq. he will die and be forgotten like the goldizhers and rest of the rotten orientalists and christian missionaries.

He said: “It destabilises, to put it mildly, the idea that we can know anything with certainty about how the Koran emerged.
Click to expand...
gaddafi (or someone) theorised that shakespeare was an arab, shaykh zubayr - which is not as outlandish as this claim. they tried to prove grammar 'mistakes' in the qur'an etc. and expect that arabic scholars are as immature and incompetent as their own scholars? when it was rebutted roundly, they resort to all kinds of fake theories.

their entire history is based on accounts of one or two lechers with probably no character at all - and they so wisely propound theories etc. based on accounts of philanderers and crooks. the ignorant - juhala - probably expect our histories to be as shaky as their own.


“That in turn has implications for the historicity of Muhammad and the Companions (his followers).”
Click to expand...
after the sun rises from the west.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
that shakespeare wrote those works...or not is still a controversy; they probably think that our histories and documents are also as hypotheses-conjecture-induction-speculation laden as their own.

---
thousands of narrators, histories of each narrator, works by major narrators/scholars, testimonies of those who met them, saw them, heard them, narrated from them... all of this is fiction and unreliable to according to these fussaq, who are merely working on conjecture and hypotheses.

----
to muslims, i say: would anyone treat you with any respect if you told them: modern computers and internet were actually invented by muslim students in palestine and all these capitalists jews/christians appropriated these inventions and just to safeguard this secret (which is a global conspiracy) - they are trying to eliminate palestinians. imagine the reaction?

we treat their opinion concerning our histories and documents, with even more contempt.

----
look at the primary sources of ANY history - it will be just a handful of people if it not only a cicero or a hippocrates.

yet islamic history is narrations of thousands upon thousands of narrators. so if you just take bukhari or muslim, it is not just ONE book, but thousands of narrators - all known - and reports corroborated, compared, analysed; plausibility questioned - to the point that even if contemporaries narrate from each other, it is not taken for granted until it is proven that they had indeed met (even that their meeting is possible is questioned!) and they indeed have narrated from the other person.

and our gradation of reports is not just true/false, black/white. we have a nuanced gradation system the equivalent of which is not found in any civilisation.

not just the text, but we also have additional attributes to reports such as the manner in which it was conveyed. so if one gets a report, the manner in which it was conveyed is also known. did the narrator recite it? or did you read it in is presence? or did you find it written?

---
yet according to these cheap* historians and fussaq all of these people were either foolish, or ignorant or false and only 1400 years later, some immoral character has discovered the 'truth'.


--------------------------
*i don't care how 'respectable' that fasiq kazzab historian is in western mythology - to me he is unclean filth, whose opinion is fit to be discarded without a second thought. has anyone heard of accepting a kafir's opinion in diyaanaat? ridiculous.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top