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This discussion has been archived.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: 4, Insightful) by sjames on Tuesday September 01 2015, @04:01AM

    by sjames (2882) on Tuesday September 01 2015, @04:01AM (#230644) Journal

    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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4