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."
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @12:46AM
Kows saw moo. Moo-ham-mad. Moooo-ham-mad.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @01:12PM
Now you're just mbacon it up.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @12:50AM
BOOM!
(Score: 4, Funny) by isostatic on Tuesday September 01 2015, @08:47AM
I'd bring a "yo momma so fatwa" joke but I'm afraid of being beheaded.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @02:26PM
I knew it! Bomb Bird is a Muslim. And he must be the token ethnic character in the cast...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by frojack on Tuesday September 01 2015, @12:50AM
Some scholars believe, however, that Muhammad did not receive the Quran from heaven, as he claimed
Seriously? So there are other scholars that actually believe it was from heaven?
We seem to be working from a very different definition of scholar.
Since when did carbon dating get so precise that we could be bickering about 2 years?
You could pick up that much carbon sitting in a room full of candles or by a fire.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Tuesday September 01 2015, @12:57AM
Setting aside whether the dating even means anything, and presuming for a moment that it does, when has evidence of anything led to the demise of a _faith_. Faiths are after all, inherently irrational, with many considering belief in the absence of evidence a great achievement.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @01:03AM
> Faiths are after all, inherently irrational,
No. Faith is about choosing to believe something which you can neither prove nor disprove, something that is not falsifiable.
Do some people set the bar for falsifiability too low? Absolutely. But that's not inherently irrational, that's just laziness. In the face of clear-cut proof one way or the other such faith eventually fades.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @01:15AM
No. Faith is about choosing to believe something which you can neither prove nor disprove, something that is not falsifiable.
Which is irrational.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @01:22AM
> Which is irrational.
It is neither rational nor irrational, it is outside of rationality.
Furthermore there are plenty of rational reasons to hold such beliefs - they help organize social structure, for one. If the foundations of your society can't be disproven then that's one less weakness in the social fabric. Build it on top of something that might change, like scarcity economics, and everything collapses if it does change.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @02:07AM
It is neither rational nor irrational, it is outside of rationality.
Yes, claiming that random nonsense is true when you have zero actual reason to believe so transcends rationality. Somehow.
If you care about truth, it is quite irrational. If you're mostly concerned with what makes you feel good, maybe it's okay for you to believe in some nonsense, but keep away from me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @05:05AM
> Yes, claiming that random nonsense is true
Versus random sense? Or ordered nonsense?
If you think believing in something you can't prove is the same thing as claiming it is true, then you are no better than the religious fundamentalist declaring that anyone who doesn't think like they do will go to hell.
Faith and fact are orthogonal, not opposed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @08:56AM
Of course you think it's true if you believe it, that's what it means to believe something. That there's no evidential or logical reason to think it's true is why it's irrational.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @12:58PM
uhm...I think you are wrong though:
When I have an hypothesis I tend to believe its like that (otherwise I would not coin it). Then I test it.
Sometimes it turns to be false.
Religious beliefs are just stuck in the hypothetical phase for ever, as they are (mostly) not testable.
Its not irrational. Perhaps futile though in a scientific sense. But people may have valid and useful reasons to believe in something, independent of whether it is either falsifiable or true.
I think people here are to quick to think that irrational things have no worth. You might as well ban all music just because you cannot find a rational reason why I believe a certain song is good.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Tuesday September 01 2015, @02:13AM
Invisible Pink unicorns then. Those are exactly as falsifiable as any god in that they have the same basic property, which is a lack of evidence in favor of existence. Which is easily explained away -- they have magical hiding capabilities that no sensors can defeat.
We have developed a way of thinking on top of language that is imperfect in some way. For example, that sentence I just wrote is ambiguous -- is it language, thinking, or both which are imperfect? I could fix it to make it clearer, but as is it is, it's pretty malleable. There are harder things to fix though, and it is in these stings of words or thoughts or both, that we can find religion. We can stuff all kinds of garbage into the gaps we have in our ability to express things accurately, like pink unicorns -- that our language makes it possible to for such phantasms to spring into existence from a lack of evidence, seems rather rather strange to say the least. That such formulations should be the guiding light of billions seems even stranger still. I don't know how to fix language, or thought, or whatever it is that makes the ludicrous seem possible or even a certainty, but the fact that such insanity can be derived from our language systems suggests a fundamental flaw in our ability to communicate, maybe even think.
(Score: 3, Funny) by kurenai.tsubasa on Tuesday September 01 2015, @02:27AM
Invisible Pink unicorns then.
Here you go! [deviantart.com]
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday September 01 2015, @02:39AM
Hot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @04:12AM
> Invisible Pink unicorns then.
Yes, and if it suits you, so what?
> That such formulations should be the guiding light of billions seems even stranger still.
That's reductive. It isn't the pink unicorns that are the guiding light, it is all the of the mythology built up around them that is the guiding light. The thing about all that mythology is that just like the pink unicorns it is all man made consensus and will be discarded if it is no longer useful.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Tuesday September 01 2015, @05:44AM
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @06:33AM
> The problem with this premise is that is that it presupposes rational action by people who are willing to set rationality aside.
Again with the reductive analysis. Do you refuse to read fiction? Do you think there is nothing of value to be learned from fiction because its not fact?
> How much more slowly has our knowledge advanced because of faith?
All that presupposes that
(a) all that effort directed by the religious impulse didn't bring any benefits
(b) all that effort directed by the religious impulse would have been applied 'rationally'
> I would suggest it is vast and that the "man made consensus", far from being a positive force in human history, has only served to retard our understanding of the world.
Man made consensus is all that there is in the world. Well, at least as far as man is concerned. You are just deluding yourself by thinking everything is neatly separated between fact and faith. I was that way as a teenager once too, but then I asked myself - why is there such a universal human impulse towards religion, so much so that even atheists spend the majority of their lives taking things on faith? Why would a species evolve such a defining characteristic if it wasn't a useful survival trait? Come to grips with that question - don't even bother trying answer it here, I'm not asking for myself - and you will start to understand the human condition much better than you do now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @12:56PM
Do you think there is nothing of value to be learned from fiction because its not fact?
What have you learned from fiction that you could not have learned from fact?
All that presupposes that
(a) all that effort directed by the religious impulse didn't bring any benefits
(b) all that effort directed by the religious impulse would have been applied 'rationally'
If any of that effort had been applied rationally we would be at a net positive compared to right now.
why is there such a universal human impulse towards religion, so much so that even atheists spend the majority of their lives taking things on faith? Why would a species evolve such a defining characteristic if it wasn't a useful survival trait?
Just because it is a useful survival trait does not mean it is necessary. Personally I believe that faith is a side effect of the human condition. Humans are inquisitive and seek to learn more about themselves and their surroundings, this leads us to ask questions and to do our best to answer them. Religion sprang from a time where there were many questions and very few answers. In short, I think we made up religions to make us feel better about questions we cannot answer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @02:38PM
> What have you learned from fiction that you could not have learned from fact?
A hell of lot about the nature of people. The kind of stuff that would have taken lifetimes of living to learn in person.
> If any of that effort had been applied rationally we would be at a net positive compared to right now.
Really? Any? Here we are having an argument about being rational and you are resorting to hyperbole. Funny that.
> Just because it is a useful survival trait does not mean it is necessary
Strawman. The stripes on a zebra are not necessary, blue eyes are not necessary.
What I am getting from your post is denial of your own irrationality.
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Tuesday September 01 2015, @05:51PM
I sense there's a lacuna in our modern culture, because children are no longer told the old-fashioned fairytales (not the modern sappy bowdlerized versions), nor the morality tales from the holy books e.g. the Bible. Instead, they get to position themselves in society, and find their own path in life, with Disney and a US$ 900 flamethrower, apparently. Goodluckwiththat...
I've inherited a "Reader's Digest" fairytale book from my grandfather, with translations fairly true to the original, and beautiful illustrations of beheadings, battles, children left to die from hunger etc.; somehow I think many modern *parents* would find it too scary to read aloud.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Tuesday September 01 2015, @02:36AM
How about something rational and good for the human race in the long term, like the straightforward "Don't be a Dick". Pretty much anything that just tends towards "Be nice to people" better than any organized religion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @04:14AM
It is super appealing to the unsophisticated mind, but don't be a dick is insufficient whenever there is a conflict between two groups of people. Its great a as guideline, but it is woefully inadequate for dealing with real problems.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday September 01 2015, @03:16AM
It is neither rational nor irrational, it is outside of rationality.
And yet, you just spent an entire post rationalizing it...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @04:16AM
By that logic, anyone who studies religion must be religious.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday September 01 2015, @04:24PM
By that logic, anyone who studies religion must be religious.
Nope. Those people realize they are studying something irrational.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by kanweg on Tuesday September 01 2015, @05:11AM
"Furthermore there are plenty of rational reasons to hold such beliefs - they help organize social structure, for one. "
Why not build a society on something that is true?
Bert
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @01:13PM
Because those things which we can have evidence on are not sufficient to build a society on them?
(Score: 2) by turgid on Tuesday September 01 2015, @09:01AM
Man goes on to prove that black is white and promptly gets himself killed on the next level crossing. -- Adams.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by turgid on Tuesday September 01 2015, @09:04AM
Zebra crossing. Darned autocorrect...
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 01 2015, @02:51PM
It is neither rational nor irrational, it is outside of rationality.
I have to agree with with the other guy. Any such choice is inherently quite irrational. After all, you could be using your brain cells instead for something that matters rather than something that doesn't.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Tuesday September 01 2015, @01:38AM
Believing literally in something that has been falsified is irrational.
Otherwise, if a belief is helpful and hasn't been falsified, why not. Science does that as well (it's called a model).
But if you really don't like change, believe in something that is helpful and cannot be falsified.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @02:14AM
Believing literally in something that has been falsified is irrational.
So is believing something you have no actual reason to believe is true, if you care about truth and well-being. I think that most people would claim to care about both, would you not?
Otherwise, if a belief is helpful and hasn't been falsified, why not.
You assume that believing something that you don't know to be true can be helpful. Who is more likely to succeed in life (in terms of well-being, for instance): Someone who strives to believe in true things, or someone who is willing to believe false things if it makes them feel good? I value truth in and of itself, but I would still say that people who don't realize that drinking poison is a bad idea will likely meet their end quite quickly. Even if a false belief seems innocuous, it can affect your thinking in ways you might not even perceive, and make you willing to do harmful things you otherwise wouldn't.
Where are all these religious people who claim to believe something merely because it benefits them in some secondary way? Almost all would claim to believe it because they think it is the truth, not because it makes them feel good or something such as that.
Science does that as well (it's called a model).
Science has no beliefs, as it is not a thinking being.
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Tuesday September 01 2015, @03:40AM
The ones that are able to believe false things which bring profit to them and make others happy.
At least by some very current definitions of success.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Insightful) by sjames on Tuesday September 01 2015, @04:01AM
Science has no beliefs, as it is not a thinking being.
Naturally, I meant scientists in the course of practicing science, but you knew that, didn't you?
So do you have iron clad proof for everything you believe? Do you believe that when you get to work in the morning that the building will still be there? It's a useful belief since it will keep you from being fired, but can you PROVE it?
At the most fundamental level, you cannot prove that any of your sensory experiences are real. You cannot prove that your memories are real. In fact, the former are likely distorted and not exactly what others (if they exist) perceive and the latter is well known to distort over time. But you choose to act as if it's all true.
In times of danger, many people have found that believing someone or some thing they can't see watching out for them has allowed them to calm down enough to think their way out of the situation. That seems pretty useful to me.
There is evidence that believing or even just imagining that someone is watching helps people to act in accordance with their morals and ethics. That, in turn protects their self esteem and protects them from harmful consequences.
Sincere belief in a placebo can cure real diseases, even ones we have no actual medication for.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @04:21AM
> Someone who strives to believe in true things, or someone who is willing to believe false things if it makes them feel good?
Name one thing that you think is true that you can prove to be true.
Think carefully. Because you will have to start with proving that you aren't just a brain in a jar being fed neural stimulus to simulate the world you think exists.
More explicitly - we all operate on faith. Some people have just deluded themselves into thinking otherwise.
PS - not falsified does not equal false.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @01:06PM
We all operate on assumption, not faith. We assume that what we see and hear is reality, we don't have faith that it is.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by q.kontinuum on Tuesday September 01 2015, @05:23AM
Believing literally in something that has been falsified is irrational.
So is believing something you have no actual reason to believe is true, if you care about truth and well-being.
There is a difference between believing and expecting others to believe, as well as there is a difference between defending religion as an efficient mechanism to strengthen societies by creating an internal bonding-effect while also generating a differentiator from other cultures. Imagine two societies, one with strong believes about paradise in afterlife, imagined rewards for sacrifices etc. and the other without those treats. Whose soldiers will fight more fiercely?
I'm not saying this is the best concept in the long run. Critical thinking leads to better science and therefore to better weapons, thus to a stronger (in military terms) society, and for the non-believers (because of their rational approach and therefore better results) to a better position within the society.
But consider that by evolution, for millions of years religious beliefs were rewarded (by stronger societies, better standings within the societies, etc.). Therefore, the potential and desire to beliefs is basically built in to all of us. (Well, most of us. There will be mutants where this trait was disabled.) So, imagine you are faced with the choice to believe (and get sheltered, pampered, live a purposeful life of hope) or not to believe (and lose one of the biggest [imagined] purposes in life, lose some of your hold in society, and some of your hope). There is no evidence against the existence of god, and there is no evidence in favour of gods existence. Now tell me, which cause of action is more rational?
To me it looks as if the distinction of what is rational and what isn't is not always that clear; it's only a bit difficult accept from the outside.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 1) by nekomata on Tuesday September 01 2015, @02:00PM
Imagine two societies, one with strong believes about paradise in afterlife, imagined rewards for sacrifices etc. and the other without those treats. Whose soldiers will fight more fiercely?
I would assume the ones that don't believe in an afterlife, since for them dying is more final. To quote Bender: "Afterlife? Pfft. If I'd thought I had to go through a whole 'nother life, I'd kill myself right now."
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Tuesday September 01 2015, @02:11PM
I would assume the religious one, because for the non-believers there is less incentive to sacrifice themselves by jumping on the grenade or volunteering for an important suicide mission. Most people are somehow selfish, and sacreficing themselves without any hope for a great afterlife is not very self-serving.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @01:49AM
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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @02:19AM
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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @01:08PM
You cannot prove there is a world independent of you. So according to your logic, the only rational position would be solipsism.
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Tuesday September 01 2015, @11:16AM
Exactly. Which is why I worship the giant invisible space goat. The good thing about something you can't prove or disprove is that my claim is just as valid as anyone else's. By the way, the space goat tells me I must now chop off your head. Nothing personal you see, it's just religion.
(Score: 3, Funny) by TheGratefulNet on Tuesday September 01 2015, @01:30AM
Setting aside whether the dating even means anything
this is a tech geek forum.
we think we know that word, but are still waiting to confirm.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 3, Informative) by moondoctor on Tuesday September 01 2015, @01:15AM
Yeah, the whole tone/approach is really weird. Feels much more political/philosophical than scientifically motivated.
Their date range of 545 to 568 just smells like manipulated numbers. Moreover, as you say - Claiming fact on 2 years margin of error over 1500 also seems super contrived.
Part that's really fucked up is that this is presented effectively as the inverse of ISIS saying "Jesus is a liar and The Bible is just some old stories."
I'm not saying that the research is wrong, or that we (by which I mean westerners, excuse the assumption) shouldn't say anything that might hurt ISIS' feelings. However, ignoring the almost literally earth-shattering potential of how this research is handled with the public and in the press is disturbing. Feels more like the opposite, as purposefully inflammatory.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @01:27AM
Part that's really fucked up is that this is presented effectively as the inverse of ISIS saying "Jesus is a liar and The Bible is just some old stories."
What? Jesus is the #2 prophet in Islam. They call him Issa, which is a very popular name in the middle-east. The only thing muslims really disbelieve about Jesus is that he was divine rather than mortal. His mom, Mary, is super important too. Arguably more important than she is to Christians.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Tuesday September 01 2015, @01:51AM
Jesus is the #2 prophet in Islam.
This has always been a WTF for me when reading Islamophobe writings. In discussions about spirituality, metaphysics, and the reason we're all here I've had with a friend who is spiritual but not in the conventional sense, we've recognized Gautama Buddha as the #1 prophet (in this kalpa [wikipedia.org]), Jesus as the #2 prophet, and Muhammed as having a wibbly-wobbly status as the #3 prophet while also recognizing that writings about their enlightenments and teachings may be skewed to fit the political whims of the MotU of the day. The evidence seems lacking for the journalistic capabilities of the time that Joseph Smith would be a #4 prophet. Instead we wonder when the Maitreya Buddha [wikipedia.org] will manifest, perhaps (and this may be the alcohol talking) reigning in a Silver Millennium [wikimoon.org], which aligns with certain predictions in the book of Revelation. (Don't hold your breath! It's probably a few hundred thousand years off at minimum. Make sure to balance your reincarnations with fates of poverty and indescribable wealth to find the middle way!)
Arguably more important than she is to Christians
As I understand it, you're referring to Protestants here. Catholicism seems to have a healthy tradition of exaltation of the Virgin Mary. My observation has been that Catholicism is more similar to Pagan traditions that worship a god and goddess in that respect. Protestantism greatly diminishes the role of the virgin mother and immaculate conception (almost leading me to lend some sympathy to Dianist rejections of Protestantism, but that's the pendulum swinging way too far in the other direction). I'm not familiar enough with Eastern Orthodox to comment on that faith, but if we have any Eastern Orthodox readers, I'm all ears!
(Score: 3, Informative) by Whoever on Tuesday September 01 2015, @03:35AM
Which is a denial of the first and central tenet of Christianity (or at least the Catholics). That's not some minor doctrinal issue.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @04:23AM
That is a problem for christians, but not for muslims or anyone else.
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Tuesday September 01 2015, @05:57PM
Hah, some Belgians are officially Catholics, so they're supposed to believe in the Trinity (God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, in case you didn't know this cultural ref). But instead, in their sorrows they pray to Mary full of Mercy, because she's a bit more "down-to-earth" and "approachable", so to speak. Not as abstract and aloof as God. They wouldn't dare to pray to God directly.
Bunch of Gaia-worshippers ;-)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @10:00PM
See, there's this university in Egypt. But we can't be politically incorrect.
(Score: 2) by VortexCortex on Wednesday September 02 2015, @01:58AM
You could pick up that much carbon sitting in a room full of candles or by a fire.
Inter-carbon dating?! Burn the heretic!
wait...
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @12:52AM
This is a non-story. The postulated dates of production for the parchment (568-645 A.D) [rawstory.com] cover Mo's entire lifetime (570-623 A.D). Carbon dating is imprecise, news at 11! Islamafoe bait, nothing more.
(Score: 2) by gman003 on Tuesday September 01 2015, @01:02AM
Looks like it was a misprint in the source linked. Cross-checking several other articles, it looks like the 645 figure is more common, but I'm unable to find the original study to be certain.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Tuesday September 01 2015, @01:26AM
cover Mo's entire lifetime
"he's just a victim of soicomstance!"
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday September 01 2015, @06:44PM
Why I oughta... woop woop-woop woop-woop!
Nggggah.
Three Stooges... three major Abrahamic religions...
What's Jim Carrey doing these days?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Tuesday September 01 2015, @02:31PM
I'm also not getting how the book could have been produced before Muhammad and then talk about him. I haven't studied Islam in depth since high school, but I read about half the Qur'an if I remember correctly. I don't remember very many details, but I'm pretty sure Muhammad was mentioned explicitly.
Although maybe it just called him "God's prophet" and the book was originally about someone else. But an intact or mostly intact copy of the Qur'an that dates to before Muhammad is quite a bit different than the postulation that Muhammad collected and assembled the Qur'an from many different sources.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @06:36PM
FWIW, this isn't an entire koran. Just some pages. Maybe those pages do mention old Mo, maybe they don't. The reporting hasn't been very specific.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Tuesday September 01 2015, @06:52PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 02 2015, @08:12PM
The Islam version of Goldstein's book is Why I Am Not a Muslim [wikipedia.org]. There's enough in the first couple of dozen pages to demolish Islam, without any radiocarbon dating. It's just as much fiction as Judaism and Christianity. In fact, it draws on both and throws in some pagan Arab superstition for good measure.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by kurenai.tsubasa on Tuesday September 01 2015, @01:17AM
Is anybody doubting that various holy books aren't human creations and exercises in philosophy? (When they're not documentation of ancient legal systems.) (Don't answer that.)
Good grief! Reconcile the Book of Mormon with the Koran and then we'll be talking about an actual monotheistic metaphysical science. In b4 mikeeusa.
I recently read about Theosophy [wikipedia.org], and mind = blown. Apparently somebody took a Dragon Ball Z approach to metaphysics. (Centuries before that selfsame reinterpretation of part of the old Chinese story Journey to the West [wikipedia.org], thus proving time travel!)
Math goes west, I tell you! Circles are evil! The US president's eye is a circle! (Why can't I find the link?!) Instead you get Timecube!
When the Sun shines upon Earth, 2 – major Time points are created on opposite sides of Earth – known as Midday and Midnight. Where the 2 major Time forces join, synergy creates 2 new minor Time points we recognize as Sunup and Sundown.
The 4-equidistant Time points can be considered as Time Square imprinted upon the circle of Earth. In a single rotation of the Earth sphere, each Time corner point rotates through the other 3-corner Time points, thus creating 16 corners, 96 hours and 4-simultaneous 24-hour Days within a single rotation of Earth – equated to a Higher Order of Life Time Cube.
Ah, these humans. What a creative bunch! Always innovating new reasons to kill each other!
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Tuesday September 01 2015, @01:21AM
Derp!
Is anybody doubting that various holy books aren't human creations and exercises in philosophy?
I derpa'ed my negative modifiers! Of course they're exercises in philosophy (when not documenting ancient events).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @01:23AM
Too late, show us your birth certificate.
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Tuesday September 01 2015, @02:05AM
Here it is! Honest! Even with that M category I can't get rid of! I will not be running for US president! Otherwise my eye would be a circle! Copper is made of circles!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03 2015, @12:13PM
Stupid SJW fuck.
Yea, the OT is all about your gibberish.
Hahaha you're so superior.
Hope you are kildt.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 05 2015, @12:43AM
Who the fuck is mikeeusa?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @01:24AM
So, it's just another bullshit clickbait site, eh.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @01:30AM
Even a total non-scholar like me knows that the holy texts of all religions are written in the cultural and literary context of the time. Buddhist texts relate ideas from the older Vedic tradition. The Talmud and Torah contain some ideas that originated with the Hittites and Babylonians. The Christian New Testament includes ideas from Greece and Egypt. Not only am I not surprised to hear they found older documents containing ideas also found in the Koran, I would have expected it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @02:09AM
That's a good point. The great texts of any religion are preservations of tribal history, geneology, poetry and wisdom handed down from generation to generation, with the spark of the new teachings and relevations from the great man in who gave the name to the collection.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @01:09PM
Yes, you would have expected it had it not been reputedly written by one man in his lifetime. What we have here is the suggestion that the writings of one man may simply be a collection of writings, copied by one man. That's the difference, and the point.
(Score: 3, Informative) by looorg on Tuesday September 01 2015, @02:09AM
So they only tested the parchment and not the ink. OK, I can't find anything about them examining what type of parchment it is. Unless otherwise stated or disproved I'm going to guess that it's a palimpsest (reused parchment) then.
Even if it turns out to be older I doubt it would really change things, after all we already know that the work is heavily influenced by the other two abrahamic religions and it didn't just pop into existence out of nowhere. A decade here or there won't really change much. It's not like this discovery even if true is going to change the believes of the 1.5 billion muslims in the world.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @04:50PM
I don't think parchment age even says much. It's well known parchment was very hard to come by at the time, and they wrote on whatever random things they had available to them.
(Score: 4, Funny) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday September 01 2015, @07:42AM
Some scholars believe, however, that Muhammad did not receive the Quran from heaven
Ya don't say.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 3, Insightful) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday September 01 2015, @07:46AM
between 545 AD and 568 [takyon: 568 and 645 AD, with 95.4% accuracy]
With the "545 AD and 568" (in bold above, because I can't strike out in a comment) struck out as it is in the article, it kinda negates the entire point of the story.
Why was this struck out? One of the articles does indeed say between 545 and 568. The other linked to by takyon is a few months old.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2015, @02:40PM
> Why was this struck out?
Because the one and only one article with those numbers is a typo and takyon corrected it after it was posted.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday September 01 2015, @06:38PM
Not being funny, but how do you know it's a typo? There's nothing on that one-and-only article about any errors, and the article it links to on those very numbers is paywalled. One of the other articles mentions different dates, but how do we know which are typos, if any?
What I can see of the paywalled article says:
At the time the discovery was hailed as confirmation that the Koran had faithfully preserved the words passed on by Muhammad for more than 1,350 years. Now, several historians think the parchment abouts to be so old that it contradicts most accounts of the Prophet's...
And that's all I can see. But the bits in bold do suggest that there is something contradictory about the dates - whereas there is nothing outright contradictory about the dates in takyon's quote.
As I said, it pretty much undermines the whole point of the story if you're going to strike out the main pertinent fact.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 5, Informative) by kbahey on Tuesday September 01 2015, @02:42PM
The article and summary are bogus.
The parchment carbon dating gives a range on when the animal (sheep, goat, camel) died, not when the actual writing was done. But it does establishe an "parchment made no later than X" and a "writing can't be earlier than Y" scenario.
Muhammed died in 632 AD, and the parchment is dated to 645 AD (latest). So it is most likely a copy written by a companion of Muhammed, possibly in his lifetime, or shortly after.
What this dating refutes beyond a doubt are the now discredited theories about Muhammed being a mythical figure, and the Quran invented in the late 7th century. For example, the Hagarene theory by Crone and Cook [wikipedia.org] and the Nevo-Koren Crossroads to Islam theory [wikipedia.org] are untenable now. This manuscript is earlier than all these theories claim.
It is written in the Hijazi script [wikipedia.org] with no dots or diacritics. This script originated in Hijaz (Arabian Peninsula west coast), and was dominant in the few decades following the death of Muhammed, before the Kufic script dominated (from Iraq). The amazing thing is that I can read most of it, almost 14 centuries later!
By the way, I contacted Dr. David Thomas, one of the researchers, to ask if the ink was carbon dated, or just the parchment. He said just the parchment, so as not to affect the writing. I also asked if this was a palimpsest [wikipedia.org] (older parchment that was washed and written over at a later date), and he said that it is not, since there are markings that show in that case.
So, this is as early a written copy as can be.
The interesting part is that the 645 AD date pre-dates the standardization of the Quran that was done around 650 AD by the 3rd successor to Muhammed, Caliph Uthman. Research shows minor variations, but nothing significant.
Here is his full reply:
In later emails he says that Fedeli's thesis is due to be published soon.
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning [2bits.com].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 02 2015, @06:56AM
I wouldn't like to admit to desecrating the Koran, certainly not in public.
(Score: 2) by zeigerpuppy on Wednesday September 02 2015, @09:43AM
Thanks for sharing that,
It's a good sign of the health of the Soylentnews community when we can have a relatively congenial conversation with original sources and informed debate,
Bravo!
(Score: 4, Funny) by iWantToKeepAnon on Tuesday September 01 2015, @04:08PM
If genuine it belongs at the beginning of the Bible and is believed to read "To my darling Candy. All characters portrayed within this book are fictitous and any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental." The page has been universally condemned by church leaders.
"Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." -- Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy