Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Tuesday September 01 2015, @12:43AM   Printer-friendly
from the don't-just-date-get-married dept.

Brian Booker writes at Digital Journal that carbon dating suggests that the Koran, or at least portions of it, may actually be older than the prophet Muhammad himself, a finding that if confirmed could rewrite early Islamic history and shed doubt on the "heavenly" origins of the holy text. Scholars believe that a copy Koran held by the Birmingham Library was actually written sometime between 545 AD and 568 [takyon: 568 and 645 AD, with 95.4% accuracy], while the Prophet Mohammad was believed to have been born in 570 AD and to have died in 632 AD. It should be noted, however, that the dating was only conducted on the parchment, rather than the ink, so it is possible that the quran was simply written on old paper. Some scholars believe, however, that Muhammad did not receive the Quran from heaven, as he claimed during his lifetime, but instead collected texts and scripts that fit his political agenda.

"This gives more ground to what have been peripheral views of the Koran's genesis, like that Muhammad and his early followers used a text that was already in existence and shaped it to fit their own political and theological agenda, rather than Muhammad receiving a revelation from heaven," says Keith Small, from the University of Oxford's Bodleian Library. "'It destabilises, to put it mildly, the idea that we can know anything with certainty about how the Koran emerged," says Historian Tom Holland. "and that in turn has implications for the history of Muhammad and the Companions."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @01:49AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @01:49AM (#230596)

    No more irrational than believing that if something can't be proven then it can't be true. Truth isn't found in theories and [inherently subjective] attempts at objectivity.

    Many (perhaps most) people have *faith* in the power of God to effect change in their lives without believing in a literal God who *exists* or is capable of any action whatsoever. If this faith subjectively enriches their lives it is irrational to abandon it.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Disagree=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Disagree' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @02:19AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @02:19AM (#230607)

    No more irrational than believing that if something can't be proven then it can't be true.

    Where did I say such a thing was rational?

    If this faith subjectively enriches their lives it is irrational to abandon it.

    Most of these theists would claim to believe it because it is the truth, not merely because it subjectively enriches their lives.

    And enriches their lives in what ways? Beliefs can affect your thinking in ways you cannot perceive. Sometimes the result is negative. False beliefs are more likely to result in negative outcomes. I see no reason to make an exception for theism.