5 ms·

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.wik

by lingben 11y ago

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-fragments-university-birmingham.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/23/world/europe/quran-fragmen... 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 11y ago
I didn't see that mentioned in the article - can you paste the precise line you mean?
- lingben 11y ago
  ah, my mistake, I read it in the NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/23/world/europe/quran-fragments-university-birmingham.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/23/world/europe/quran-fragmen... "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 11y ago
    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 11y ago
      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 11y ago
        "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-Muslim_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad#Non-Mu...
        acqq 11y ago

by lingben 11y ago

aerodog 11y ago

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

lingben 11y ago
ah, my mistake, I read it in the NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/23/world/europe/quran-fragments-university-birmingham.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/23/world/europe/quran-fragmen... "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 11y ago
  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 11y ago
    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 11y ago
      "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-Muslim_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad#Non-Mu...
      - acqq 11y ago