Is the infancy of Christianity better documented than that of Islam?

[iCambrian]

1 hour ago, iraqi_shia said:

This is simply false.

You can believe it if you want, but factually its incorrect.

What source do you have for it being a grade school doodle book, or perhaps.similar?

[iCambrian]

Jones admits there have been 'trifling' changes made to the Uthmanic recension. Khalidi says the traditional Muslim account of the Koran's development is still more or less true. 'I haven't yet seen anything to radically alter my view,' he says. [Jones] believes that the San'a Koran could just be a bad copy that was being used by people to whom the Uthmanic text had not reached yet. 'It's not inconceivable that after the promulgation of the Uthmanic text, it took a long time to filter down.'^[24]

 

 

 

Jones being a lecturer of Quranic studies at Oxford.  Why would a community of people be using a grade school doodle book as their own copy of the Quran? O

If I used A particular set of scripture as my holy book, I would not simultaneously consider its use for children to draw cartoons in. And even if a child did doodle in it, that would not necessarily make it a doodle book, if a community used it as their holy scripture.

Unless you're contesting the suggestion that the document is a flawed copy of the Quran (or just a copy that simply didn't match Uthmans, that may not have been flawed). But again the above quote appears to suggest that it may have been.

And further, even if it were a student's work, this would not mean that what the student was copying, was not intentionally copied at the instructions of a learned teacher.

That is to say that, it could be a student's book while simultaneously being an alternate copy of a Quran that may have been used by people prior to the retrieval of an Uthmanic variant. 

But still, we are left with questions of not only who authored it, but also where the author was getting the information. Given its almost word for word comparison with the current Uthmanic text, it shares it's origins with teachings directly from the prophet Muhammad. Presumably. Or at least a companion. So there are questions of how that transmission occurred over time.

 

Edited July 29, 2018 by iCambrian

[iraqi_shia]

4 hours ago, iCambrian said:

What source do you have for it being a grade school doodle book, or perhaps.similar?

As the original article comments, there are basic spelling mistakes, they don't write straight, and have various number of lines per page, with poor handwriting. They have dots and scribbles on the pages, and it also includes much that isnt to do with the quran. The most telling thing is that it appears to have been corrected by someone with better handwriting, so its as if someone was learning, then someone writes again the same word next to it in neat writing. 

Quote

Otherwise Asma Hilali has proposed that both the upper and lower text show characteristics of being schoolroom 'exercises' in quranic writing

Quote

In places, individual readings in the lower text appear to have been corrected in a separate hand to conform better to corresponding readings in the standard Qur'an. Elizabeth Puin has termed this hand the 'lower modifier'; and proposes that these correction were undertaken before the whole lower text was erased or washed off.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana'a_manuscript#Lower_text

I think for people like Andres, they will see what they want to see, even when the truth is completely different. 

[andres]

1 hour ago, iraqi_shia said:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana'a_manuscript#Lower_text

I think for people like Andres, they will see what they want to see, even when the truth is completely different. 

I have no reason to question anything that the link you refer to is wrong. Do you?

[iraqi_shia]

1 hour ago, andres said:

I have no reason to question anything that the link you refer to is wrong. Do you?

You claimed earlier this was a variant of the quran and some kind of conspiracy. The evidence and the experts suggested otherwise.

[iCambrian]

3 hours ago, iraqi_shia said:

As the original article comments, there are basic spelling mistakes, they don't write straight, and have various number of lines per page, with poor handwriting. They have dots and scribbles on the pages, and it also includes much that isnt to do with the quran. The most telling thing is that it appears to have been corrected by someone with better handwriting, so its as if someone was learning, then someone writes again the same word next to it in neat writing. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana'a_manuscript#Lower_text

I think for people like Andres, they will see what they want to see, even when the truth is completely different. 

I dont think that this means that the document is not necessarily a copy of a slightly different Quranic variant.

You have experts who have suggested that this document may have been used, or may have been a copy of what was used, as a Quran, prior to Uthmans version. Regardless of if it has grammatical errors or if the words arent straight.

[iraqi_shia]

1 minute ago, iCambrian said:

I dont think that this means that the document is not necessarily a copy of a slightly different Quranic variant.

You have experts who have suggested that this document may have been used, or may have been a copy of what was used, as a Quran, prior to Uthmans version. Regardless of if it has grammatical errors or if the words arent straight.

In the lower text, it has corrections to the standard version in different handwriting, so even at the point of writing of the lower text there was no different quran, but one of the scribes clearly didnt know how to write it. Hence why it appears they were learning. 

[andres]

23 minutes ago, iraqi_shia said:

You claimed earlier this was a variant of the quran and some kind of conspiracy. The evidence and the experts suggested otherwise.

??? Where did I say it was conspiracy??

Possibly dfferent Qurans circulated until Uthman forbade them all, except the one of his choise. No conspiracy. 

[iCambrian]

1 minute ago, iraqi_shia said:

In the lower text, it has corrections to the standard version in different handwriting, so even at the point of writing of the lower text there was no different quran, but one of the scribes clearly didnt know how to write it. Hence why it appears they were learning. 

Are you suggesting that the lower text is actually identical to the upper text? Assuming we only read this, corrected lower text?

[iraqi_shia]

Just now, andres said:

??? Where did I say it was conspiracy??

Possibly dfferent Qurans circulated until Uthman forbade them all, except the one of his choise. No conspiracy. 

Even that theory of yours does not fit the evidence.

both of these qurans are more than likely to be dated prior to uthmans rule. 

[iraqi_shia]

1 minute ago, iCambrian said:

Are you suggesting that the lower text is actually identical to the upper text? Assuming we only read this, corrected lower text?

No, its not identical at all. It does have lots of mistakes and corrections. The corrections are in a different , much neater handwriting and to the standard version. 

[iCambrian]

2 minutes ago, iraqi_shia said:

No, its not identical at all. It does have lots of mistakes and corrections. The corrections are in a different , much neater handwriting and to the standard version. 

"so even at the point of writing of the lower text there was no different quran"

 

So what did you mean by this?

 

I am saying that, just because a document has spelling errors, that doesnt make the document, not a Quranic variant or a copy of such.

[andres]

1 minute ago, iraqi_shia said:

Even that theory of yours does not fit the evidence.

both of these qurans are more than likely to be dated prior to uthmans rule. 

I find it very likely that both Sanaa and Birmingham Qurans are prior to Uthmans. After Uthman no other versions than his were allowed. 

Is there any information that the experts give according your wikipedialink that you disagree with? You did not answer this

 

[iraqi_shia]

Just now, iCambrian said:

"so even at the point of writing of the lower text there was no different quran"

 

So what did you mean by this?

 

I am saying that, just because a document has spelling errors, that doesnt make the document, not a Quranic variant or a copy of such.

The corrections were to the standard version. So if this was a variant that was seen as valid or correct, why was it correct at the time to to the standard version?

So its very likely we can see a scenario were we probably have a young lad, learning to write the Quran, hes makes a few mistakes, gets corrected, and as he goes along, he improves, he washes his parchment and does it for "best". 

[iCambrian]

Just now, iraqi_shia said:

The corrections were to the standard version. So if this was a variant that was seen as valid or correct, why was it correct at the time to to the standard version?

So its very likely we can see a scenario were we probably have a young lad, learning to write the Quran, hes makes a few mistakes, gets corrected, and as he goes along, he improves, he washes his parchment and does it for "best". 

 

. Are you saying that, the lower text, has corrections, in which the lower text after its corrections, appear to be identical to Uthmans? version? Or are you suggesting that the upper text are the corrections?

[iraqi_shia]

4 minutes ago, andres said:

I find it very likely that both Sanaa and Birmingham Qurans are prior to Uthmans. After Uthman no other versions than his were allowed. 

Is there any information that the experts give according your wikipedialink that you disagree with? You did not answer this

 

So why are you calling them uthmans when you admit these are likely to predate him?

Also, why do you think there were other versions, when these older ones match uthmans?

[iraqi_shia]

1 minute ago, iCambrian said:

 

. Are you saying that, the lower text, has corrections, in which the lower text after its corrections, appear to be identical to Uthmans? version? Or are you suggesting that the upper text are the corrections?

Yes thats what the experts are suggesting, I mentioned it on the previous page : 

Quote

In places, individual readings in the lower text appear to have been corrected in a separate hand to conform better to corresponding readings in the standard Qur'an. Elizabeth Puin has termed this hand the 'lower modifier'; and proposes that these correction were undertaken before the whole lower text was erased or washed off.

So the corrections on the lower text, and the upper text match the Quran.

[iCambrian]

6 minutes ago, iraqi_shia said:

Yes thats what the experts are suggesting, I mentioned it on the previous page : 

So the corrections on the lower text, and the upper text match the Quran.

 

From what I am reading, this is unknown to anyone. The idea that the lower text was erased, and the upper text was immediately written after as a correction, both the lower and upper text pre-dating the retrieval of Uthmans version. 

 

What I am reading from some experts, is that the lower text may predate the reception of the Uthmanic version, while the upper text may post date this. But ultimately, the parchment will remain the age that it is, and as far as I am aware, there is no way to know the age of the upper text.

 

Which pulls me back to the original statement that, when people go and destroy history, it results in mysteries and unknowns.

 

As far as I am aware, someone could have very well written the upper text 100 years later, or more, than the lower text. And i believe this is what has been suggested by the professor at oxford, sourced earlier.

Edited July 29, 2018 by iCambrian

[iraqi_shia]

1 minute ago, iCambrian said:

 

From what I am reading, this is unknown to anyone. The idea that the lower text was erased, and the upper text was immediately written after as a correction, both the lower and upper text pre-dating the retrieval of Uthmans version. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana'a_manuscript#Lower_text

Quote

In places, individual readings in the lower text appear to have been corrected in a separate hand to conform better to corresponding readings in the standard Qur'an. Elizabeth Puin has termed this hand the 'lower modifier'; and proposes that these correction were undertaken before the whole lower text was erased or washed off.

 

So to clarify for you, 

person A writes on the parchment. Person A is not very good, makes numerous mistakes and is untidy. (lower text)

Person B is correcting Person A, Person B corrects mistakes to the standard Quran. (lower text modified)

The parchment is then washed.

Then a Person, not sure who, then writes the standard quran on the parchment. (UPPER TEXT)

If this isnt clear enough for you, then I cant help. 

 

[andres]

7 minutes ago, iraqi_shia said:

So why are you calling them uthmans when you admit these are likely to predate him?

Also, why do you think there were other versions, when these older ones match uthmans?

You are far out now. The Sanaa lower text is not identical to Uthmans canon. Uthmans Quran may very well also be older than when it was made Canon 

You still have not anwered if you agree with the wikipedia site you linked to. If you do not answer this third time I now ask, I will be certain you do not dare to answer and I will not ask again.

[iraqi_shia]

Just now, andres said:

You are far out now. The Sanaa lower text is not identical to Uthmans canon. Uthmans Quran may very well also be older than when it was made Canon 

You still have not anwered if you agree with the wikipedia site you linked to. If you do not answer this third time I now ask, I will be certain you do not dare to answer and I will not ask again.

Andres, simply scroll up about 5 cm and read. I cant make it any clearer.

I never said the lower text is identical to quran. I said it was full of mistakes, with corrections to the real quran in neater hand writing. 

I want you to go back and read what I have written before you post again, as its very annoying saying the same thing 100 times.

[iCambrian]

So, it sounds like, Iraqi_shia, that you are suggesting that in the lower text, with it's corrections, it is identical to the modern day Uthmanic version. Completely independent of the upper text.

 

Is this what you are suggesting?

Edited July 29, 2018 by iCambrian

[andres]

5 minutes ago, iraqi_shia said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana'a_manuscript#Lower_text

 

So to clarify for you, 

person A writes on the parchment. Person A is not very good, makes numerous mistakes and is untidy. (lower text)

Person B is correcting Person A, Person B corrects mistakes to the standard Quran. (lower text modified)

The parchment is then washed.

Then a Person, not sure who, then writes the standard quran on the parchment. (UPPER TEXT)

If this isnt clear enough for you, then I cant help. 

 

So what you are saying is that the lower text is a result of scribal errors. Read your link again. Experts say it is not likely to be svribal errors. ( Awaiting your answer to my question)

[andres]

3 minutes ago, iraqi_shia said:

Andres, simply scroll up about 5 cm and read. I cant make it any clearer.

I never said the lower text is identical to quran. I said it was full of mistakes, with corrections to the real quran in neater hand writing. 

I want you to go back and read what I have written before you post again, as its very annoying saying the same thing 100 times.

And it is very annoying you dont dare to answer my question.

[iraqi_shia]

Just now, iCambrian said:

So, it sounds like, Iraqi_shia, that you are suggesting that in the lower text, with it's corrections, it is identical to the modern day Uthmanic version. Completely independent of the upper text.

No, im not saying that.

Im saying it lower text has mistakes, with some corrections in different hand writing,  to the correct quran.

Then its washed, and then its the correct quran.

That is at least what the evidence suggests, we may never know the complete story. 

[iCambrian]

I agree with the above statement by Andres.

While there are spelling errors in the lower text, as far as I am aware, corrections or alterations to the lower text have not been made to the extent that the lower text matches the modern day Uthmanic text, when you factor in the corrections.

 

[iCambrian]

1 minute ago, iraqi_shia said:

No, im not saying that.

Im saying it lower text has mistakes, with some corrections in different hand writing,  to the correct quran.

Then its washed, and then its the correct quran.

That is at least what the evidence suggests, we may never know the complete story. 

Ok and to clarify, when you say that it was washed and then it's the correct Quran, are you referring to the upper text?

[iCambrian]

@iraqi_shia

 

It sounds like you're suggesting that the upper text was a correction that was made, likely written shortly after the writing of the lower text. Perhaps maybe even in the same day.

But I don't think anyone actually knows this.

[iraqi_shia]

2 minutes ago, iCambrian said:

I agree with the above statement by Andres.

While there are spelling errors in the lower text, as far as I am aware, corrections or alterations to the lower text have not been made to the extent that the lower text matches the modern day Uthmanic text, when you factor in the corrections.

 

Yes thats right. The lower text does not match. 

[iraqi_shia]

3 minutes ago, iCambrian said:

Ok and to clarify, when you say that it was washed and then it's the correct Quran, are you referring to the upper text?

Yes.

[iraqi_shia]

1 minute ago, iCambrian said:

@iraqi_shia

 

It sounds like you're suggesting that the upper text was a correction that was made, likely written shortly after the writing of the lower text. Perhaps maybe even in the same day.

But I don't think anyone actually knows this.

I havent said that.

However I would be interested to see if the handwriting of the corrections of the lower text matches the handwriting of the upper text. 

 

 

[iraqi_shia]

36 minutes ago, andres said:

I find it very likely that both Sanaa and Birmingham Qurans are prior to Uthmans. After Uthman no other versions than his were allowed. 

Is there any information that the experts give according your wikipedialink that you disagree with? You did not answer this

 

I think you have to take the whole thing with a pinch of salt Andres.

Firstly its a very old document, and researchers are struggling to work out whats on it, only just over 50% of all the parchments are readable, the rest is just to far gone.

I think the overall view is hat its a very old copy of the Quran that appears to be consistent with what we have today. The experts have theories about the rest, but ultimately they are just theories. 

[iCambrian]

@iraqi_shiaok,

 

To conclude, we don't know when the upper text was written. Some scholars have suggested that it was not written immediately after the lower text.

Not only that but some suggest that the corrections (or the upper text) may or likely have been made after the retrieval of the Uthmanic text.

The lower text may have spelling errors, but that doesn't make it, not a copy of an alternate version of Quranic scripture. It would just mean that it is a copy of an alternate version that has spelling errors.

Corrections of the lower text are not present in the lower text, to the extent that the lower text matches the upper text. 

Given the points above, we cannot suggest that the upper text is a correction of the lower text in addition to both written in pre Uthmanic text times.

 

Edited July 29, 2018 by iCambrian

[iraqi_shia]

4 minutes ago, iCambrian said:

@iraqi_shiaok,

 

To conclude, we don't know when the upper text was written. Some scholars have suggested that it was not written immediately after the lower text.

Not only that but some suggest that the corrections may or likely have been made after the retrieval of the Uthmanic text.

The lower text may have spelling errors, but that doesn't make it, not a copy of an alternate version of Quranic scripture. It would just mean that it is a copy of an alternate version that has spelling errors.

Corrections of the lower text are not present in the lower text, to the extent that the lower text matches the upper text. 

Given the points above, we cannot suggest that the upper text is a correction of the lower text, both written in pre Uthmanic text times.

 

Not really.

We arent sure when any of it is written Icambrian. However, it is written in a font and type of Arabic that was used at the time of the Prophet SAW and before the later kufan style.

Both the lower, lower corrections and upper text are written in hejazi script, so it suggests its all very early, by 685ish arabic was written generally with the vowel marks in place.

The person that was doing the corrections/teaching knew the standard quran, as they were correcting the mistakes to the standard version. Its seems unlikely someone would correct just parts of a document in neat hand writing, leaving other parts in messy writing, then wash it off and do it all in neat. 

To me, its very likely this could be a local printing business with an apprentice. One of the experts analysing the text has put forward that :

Quote

Asma Hilali has proposed that both the upper and lower text show characteristics of being schoolroom 'exercises' in quranic writing

Beyond that, its all speculation. Like I said, perhaps its actually the original Bible written by Jesus AS the son of Mary himself !

 

 

[iCambrian]

11 minutes ago, iraqi_shia said:

I think you have to take the whole thing with a pinch of salt Andres.

Firstly its a very old document, and researchers are struggling to work out whats on it, only just over 50% of all the parchments are readable, the rest is just to far gone.

I think the overall view is hat its a very old copy of the Quran that appears to be consistent with what we have today. The experts have theories about the rest, but ultimately they are just theories. 

Based on what im seeing, the upper text, does appear to be consistent.  Regarding the lower text, it does not appear to be consistent. The message appears to be similar. Similar enough that non-experts likely wouldnt be able to distinguish between the two without having them side-by-side.  But still different enough in that, there are added words, subtracted words, differing words and a differing order of Surah. It looks like close to 90 changes are also identified on the wiki page.  

 

I agree beyond that, that it seems to be speculative, what the origins of the document are, or how it came to be altered. Along with who wrote either text, why they were written, and even who those authors acquired their knowledge from.