Ancient Koran found at Birmingham University may have belonged to Prophet Mohammed’s friend Abu Bakr

  • Thread starter Thread starter Athanasiy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Radiocarbon dating carried out in July found the fragments to be at least 1,370-years-old, raising the possibility it could be the oldest copy of the Islamic holy book in existence.
Click to expand...
Could it be the first compilation of the book?
 
Yeah, I heard about this a little while ago. Very awesome! 😃

Abu Bakr [may Allah be pleased with him] was Muhammad’s best friend and arguably his most devout follower. They were like brothers. Abu Bakr and Muhammad [peace be upon him] were friends even before Muhammad got his first revelation. Unfortunately, Shi’a muslims are not so fond of Abu Bakr. They believe he was an apostate.
 
What the heck is Abu Bakr’s Qu’ran doing in Birmingham though?
 
Padres1969 said:
What the heck is Abu Bakr’s Qu’ran doing in Birmingham though?
Click to expand...
This article gives that inquiry a little thought, but it’s not very fulfilling:
The Birmingham Koran was found at the city’s university earlier this year after being lost for more than a century.
Click to expand...
It is widely considered the most important discovery of an Islamic text for hundreds of years.
Click to expand...
 
Padres1969 said:
Yes I understand that. The Question still stands. What is it doing there, and how’d they “lose it” for a century?
Click to expand...
It was probably in the archived section of their records and it was forgotten because no research was done on it. That has happened many times.
 
Padres1969 said:
Yes I understand that. The Question still stands. What is it doing there, and how’d they “lose it” for a century?
Click to expand...
considering how large the British Empire was at one time, it probably was not hard to acquire it.
 
Even more interesting to note is how much of text lines up with the current Koran. After they destroyed all other copies so they could have one copy only to follow.
 
ichabode said:
Even more interesting to note is how much of text lines up with the current Koran. After they destroyed all other copies so they could have one copy only to follow.
Click to expand...
Where does the article mention a comparison?

Must have missed that part.

Funny how Christianity gets heavily scrutinized because the NT ancient manuscripts arent exactly the same. Not like the church couldn’t have done the same thing Islam did and just burn all but one, memorizing it in the process.🤷
 
Lenten_ashes said:
Where does the article mention a comparison?

Must have missed that part.

Funny how Christianity gets heavily scrutinized because the NT ancient manuscripts arent exactly the same. Not like the church couldn’t have done the same thing Islam did and just burn all but one, memorizing it in the process.🤷
Click to expand...
Well it helps that the Quran was largely a single source and was transcribed much quicker and codified much quicker than the New Testament was. The New Testament was originally from multiple sources, written in multiple languages, transcribed over a much longer period, and finally codified much later.
 
Padres1969,

The implication was just that it is a common argument from Muslims that the Quran is pure because there is one copy. Of course it was not for Umar that would not be the case. We do not know what the other writing and fragments contain because after what was chosen to be in the “official” collection the originals and copies were destroyed. I think it would of academic importance if this happened to be a surviving fragments not contained in the actual writings.

I do not believe the Quran is scared - venerated sure and ancient, but not composed by God’s prophet.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ichabode forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Even more interesting to note is how much of text lines up with the current Koran. After they destroyed all other copies so they could have one copy only to follow.

Implication being?
forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/quote.gif
The implication clearly being, and essentially recognized by any scholars of the subject, that the Koran (Qu’ran) went through a deliberate “bottleneck” of transmission 25 years after Muhammad’s death. Unlike the NT transmission which was spread out far and wide with multiple “streams” of descent.
 
Padres1969 said:
Well it helps that the Quran was largely a single source and was transcribed much quicker and codified much quicker than the New Testament was. The New Testament was originally from multiple sources, written in multiple languages, transcribed over a much longer period, and finally codified much later.
Click to expand...
Right, but even so, it would still be the senior text over the Koran.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top