Talk:Birmingham Quran manuscript: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 19:17, 17 February 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Birmingham Quran manuscript article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 28 days

Birmingham Quran manuscript was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 12, 2015	Good article nominee	Not listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 31, 2015.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the newly discovered Birmingham Quran manuscript (pictured) comprises fragments of an ancient Quran that may date to near Muhammad's lifetime?

Islam: Religious texts Low‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Religious texts.

Religious texts (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts

West Midlands

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject West Midlands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of West Midlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.West MidlandsWikipedia:WikiProject West MidlandsTemplate:WikiProject West MidlandsWest Midlands
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Hahaha typical biased

t alif (ألف). Arabic script at the time tended to not write out the silent alif.for non arabic speakers to read easier Allah hu Akbar you can stop Islam 82.20.80.153 (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the contents

The contents are important. This manuscript contains what is possibly the earliest attestation of full basmala. What do the sections talk about? Simply referring to ayat doesn’t help because of the need to go to non-Wikipedia sources to find out.74.96.7.2 (talk) 23:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Need to understand dating

This article states, “They determined the radiocarbon date of the parchment to be 1465±21 years BP (before 1950), which corresponds with 95.4% confidence to the calendar years CE 568–645 when calibrated.”

Im quite a bit confused here and would appreciate clarification. If the radiocarbon is dating parchment to 1465 years BP (before 1950, + or - 21 years), that would give the parchment a date of 485CE (1950-1465 = 485CE, NOT 568), + or - 21 years.

Could someone help me out? What am I missing?? D2west26 (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@D2west26: The "radiocarbon date" is determined solely by the carbon isotope ratio in the sample. In order to determine an actual range of years, it has to be adjusted by the known variations in the atmospheric isotope ratio in past years. This is explained at Radiocarbon calibration. Zero^talk 04:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Talk Header}}
+{{Article history
-{{WikiProject banner shell|1=
+|action1=GAN
-{{WikiProject Islam|class=C|importance=low|religious-texts=yes}}
+|action1date=12:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
-{{WikiProject Religious texts|class=C|importance=low}}
+|action1link=/GA1
-{{WikiProject West Midlands|class=C}}
+|action1result=failed
+|currentstatus=FGAN
+|dykdate=31 August 2015|dykentry=... that the newly discovered '''[[Birmingham Quran manuscript]]''' ''(pictured)'' comprises fragments of an ancient [[Quran]] that may date to near Muhammad's lifetime?|dyknom=Template:Did you know nominations/Birmingham Quran manuscript
+|topic=Philosophy and religion
 }}
+{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1=
-{{DYK talk|31 August|2015|entry= ... that the newly discovered '''[[Birmingham Quran manuscript]]''' ''(pictured)'' comprises fragments of an ancient [[Quran]] that may date to near Muhammad's lifetime?|nompage=Template:Did you know nominations/Birmingham Quran manuscript}}
+{{WikiProject Islam|importance=low|religious-texts=yes}}
-{{FailedGA|12:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)|topic=Philosophy and religion|page=1}}
+{{WikiProject Religious texts|importance=low}}
+{{WikiProject West Midlands}}
+}}
 {{User:MiszaBot/config
 |archiveheader       = {{talkarchivenav}}
@@ Line 18: / Line 27: @@
 {{archives|search=yes}}
-== Dissenting Voices ==
+== Hahaha typical biased ==
-As may be expected, opinions are appearing in blog-posts taking a different stance to that expressed by the authorities quoted in the Birmingham University announcement:
-Robert Spencer
-http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/259561/bbc-really-wants-you-believe-quran-authentic-robert-spencer
-Joseph Hoffman
-https://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2015/07/23/the-bbc-birmingham-quran-facts-fiasco/
-The common feature of both these articles is that they take issue with the BBC report (and with the odd speculation of the Guardian reporter, that, ''the verses are incomplete, and believed to have been an aide memoire for an imam who already knew the Qur’an by heart, but the text is very close to the accepted authorized version.'') but do not respond to the official announcement, or to the information on the Mingana Collection website.  Accordingly, they entirely miss the identification of these leaves with those of BnF Arabe 328(c), with the consequence that most of their contrary arguments fall at the first hurdle.  I don't see either of these as having the notability yet to merit inclusion. [[User:TomHennell|TomHennell]] ([[User talk:TomHennell|talk]]) 00:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
-: This does beg the question of what a substantial critique of the Birmingham dating - taking into account the evidence of BnF Arabe 328(c)- might consist of. It is no criticism of the Birmingham study, that they tested only the parchment, not the ink; as this is standard scholarly practice - radiocarbon dating is destructive, and you don't want to lose any of the textual evidence.  But the argument being presented by Waley, that it is unlikely that the hides used for the parchment would have been stockpiled for years, presents an all-or-nothing case.  It is much less unlikely that the dealer supplying the hides could have had one or two in store - and that the tested Birmingham leaves simply hit on one of the odd ones.  What is now needed now to be sure of the dating, would be counterpart radiocarbon dating of two or three of the Paris leaves - taken from sites that are codicolgically 'distant' from the Birmingham leaves. If a notable scholar comes up with that, or similar, suggestion, then I think their critique should be taken seriously [[User:TomHennell|TomHennell]] ([[User talk:TomHennell|talk]]) 09:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
-=== Rich Swier ===
-a blog post from a conservative Christian apologist.  But including a scholarly assessment from an academic in contact with the Corpus Coranicum project - which is most interesting, but frustratingly anonymous. http://drrichswier.com/2015/07/25/how-should-we-respond-to-the-birmingham-quranic-folios/ [[User:TomHennell|TomHennell]] ([[User talk:TomHennell|talk]]) 11:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
-=== Saud al-Sarhan ===
-I have re-edited the account, as the former phrasing did not pick up on Dr Saud's points very well.  The dotted verse endings and decorated chapter separators may well be regarded as problematic, the assumption up till now being that these features will have been introduced into the Quran, from non-Quranic practice, rather later.  Diacritical dots over consonants (as on Mingana 1572a) are found on all surviving mid 7th century Arabic documents and inscriptions; whereas 8th century Qurans are written without diacritical dots. So it is an open question whether we would expect 7th century Qurans to be dotted or undotted. Dr Saud, I am sure, is well aware of this. [[User:TomHennell|TomHennell]] ([[User talk:TomHennell|talk]]) 12:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
-=== Süleyman Berk ===
-Assistant Professor in the Islamic Studies faculty of [[Yalova University]]. Points out that the possibility of very early Quran texts surviving was examined for the 2010 exhibition in Istanbul '''The Quran in its 1,400th Year''' whose catalogue included a specfic study of the issue by François Déroche, assessing and dating a number of early Qurans in Istanbul with a Hejazi Arabic script.  In Prof. Berk's view, the Birmingham leaves clearly have similar characteristics and handwriting, and accordingly should be dated to the Umayyad era (661 to 750). http://www.dailysabah.com/history/2015/07/27/oldest-quran-still-a-matter-of-controversy   [[User:TomHennell|TomHennell]] ([[User talk:TomHennell|talk]]) 09:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
-: Déroche's study, referred to above, apppears to have been reworked into his 'Quran's of the Umayyads"; Brill(2013), in which he discusses Arabe 328(c), alongside the Istanbul Hijazi Qurans (most of which are from the cache rescued from the fire of the Great Mosque of Damascus in 1893).  As I understand Déroche's findings he observes similar distinction of orthography between the Paris and Istanbul Hijazi Qurans.  In respect of the issue of surah divisions and verse endings, Déroche appears to find that all early Quran's in his study have verse end markers, but that the insertion of chapter division decoration tends to be later. However, as the chapter decorations are commonly in a different ink, there is always the possibility that they could be later than the text; and some he finds, clearly are later insertions. The chapter separator decorations in the early Sana'a palimpsest are original. [[User:TomHennell|TomHennell]] ([[User talk:TomHennell|talk]]) 11:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
-=== Saudi Experts ===
-A range of experts quoted here.  I am not sure which should be regarded as notable for inclusion in the article.  But the burden of their critique fills-out that of Saud al-Sarhan above; specifically relating to the red-colour chapter separation indicators, and the dotted verse ending markers.  They assert that traditional Islamic historiography has always maintained that these features were absent from written Qurans during the lifetime of Muhammad - and so, contrary to many media reports, the Birmingham/Paris Quran cannot have been written until after his death.  (Which is not a claim that the Birmingham researchers made, but is rife in journalistic reports)  They also assert that the traditional order of the surahs (which is clearly witnessed in the Birmingham/Paris Quran) was not established during the lifetime of the prophet.  But they do not dispute that the Birmingham/Paris Quran could be dated to Caliphate of Uthman and written in [[Mecca]].  http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentid=20150727251595  [[User:TomHennell|TomHennell]] ([[User talk:TomHennell|talk]]) 09:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
-: The issue of the red-colour chapter separators appears to be one that debate is likely to focus on.  By comparison, in the [[Sana'a manuscript]] palimpsest, there are no decorative chapter separators in the over-writing (which must be later); surah divisions are indicated by a blank space. The BnF Arabe 328 (ab) Quran is similar.  The earlier under-writing in the Sana'a palimpsest does have both decorated chapter separators and consistent verse end dottings. So it is certainly true that, in accordance with traditional historiography, some early Qurans were without chapter decoration; but it is not clear that the presence of such decorations always indicates a later date. [[User:TomHennell|TomHennell]] ([[User talk:TomHennell|talk]]) 10:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
-=== Joseph E. B. Lumbard ===
-A longish assessment from the Huffington Post.  Picks up on the degree to which recent radiocarbon datings of Quranic manuscripts have led to a scholarly consensus that the 'revisionist' paradigm of Quranic scholarship is no longer tenable; and that traditional Islamic historiography is proving to be much more stable in its ability to accommodate emerging scientific findings, that have the various western text-critical approaches that have aspired to supercede them.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-e-b-lumbard/new-light-on-the-history-_b_7864930.html [[User:TomHennell|TomHennell]] ([[User talk:TomHennell|talk]]) 11:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
-=== Prof. Qasim Al-Samarrai ===
-[[Special:Contributions/79.66.54.19|79.66.54.19]] ([[User talk:79.66.54.19|talk]]) 21:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
-<s>The first scholar to examine these parchments,  </s>Prof. Qasim Al-Samarrai, who has himself examined the parchments at length, has contested these findings, arguing that the documents are in fact, palimpsests, albeit having been subjected to a thoroughgoing cleansing prior to re-usage. Indeed, the earlier cleaning and the subsequent coating of the document with a form of gum is his explanation for the unreliability of the carbon dating. For Al-Samarrai the manuscripts belong to the close of the 2nd century and the start of the 3rd AH (after Hijrah), if not, quite possibly, later. Certain features of script also suggest a later date, these include the presence of dotting, the utilizing of red and gold inc, and, most importantly, the presence of a separation of verses (Ayat) and chapters (Suwar), something only characteristic in Qu'rans of a later era.<ref>Qasim Al-Samarrai, Palaeographical Aspects of Qur'anic Manuscripts and the Qur'anic Fragments of the University of Birmingham (Lectures), Published by London : Al-Furqan Islamic Heritage Foundation (2017)</ref>[[Special:Contributions/79.66.54.19|79.66.54.19]] ([[User talk:79.66.54.19|talk]]) 21:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
-{{Reflist-talk}}
-: I have removed this edit from the section on 'description'; as it is not apparent that Prof, Al-Samarri does contest any of the assertions of this section - other than the definitive finding from ultraviolet examination that the leaves cannot be a palimpsest. https://www.al-furqan.com/event/id/2488.   Moreover, his book appears to be self-published; see http://www.muslimheritage.com/article/professor-qasim-al-samarrai-lecture-edition-arabic-manuscripts, where the Al-Furqan Islamic Heritage Foundation is founded by Prof, Al-Samarri and disseminates only lectures and books by himself.   This seems to be original research. [[User:TomHennell|TomHennell]] ([[User talk:TomHennell|talk]]) 11:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC) [[Special:Contributions/79.66.54.19|79.66.54.19]] ([[User talk:79.66.54.19|talk]]) 22:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC)I have looked at this website and I cannot see what you are referring to, there is no mention of Qasim as the founder.... I cannot see that. He is not on the board of directors. [[Special:Contributions/79.66.54.19|79.66.54.19]] ([[User talk:79.66.54.19|talk]]) 22:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
-[[Special:Contributions/79.66.54.19|79.66.54.19]] ([[User talk:79.66.54.19|talk]]) 21:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Ignatius[[Special:Contributions/79.66.54.19|79.66.54.19]] ([[User talk:79.66.54.19|talk]]) 21:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
-You can read a blurb of the book here.
-https://www.abebooks.co.uk/book-search/author/qasim-al-samarrai/ He clearly is arguing all the points I have mentioned in my edit. I have re-typed the proposed addition to meet copyright requirements.
-He has a number of lecture videos on youtube which make the same points, for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utZbIXk85Ww
-He is Professor Emeritus of Palaeography and Codicology, Leiden - Holland. [[Special:Contributions/79.66.54.19|79.66.54.19]] ([[User talk:79.66.54.19|talk]]) 21:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
-:Why is Al-Samarri being described in the proposed text as "the first scholar to examine these parchments"? Surely that would be Alba Fedeli and others at the Cadbury Research Library, as described at [[Birmingham Quran manuscript#Identification]]? [[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry]] ([[User talk:Cordless Larry|talk]]) 11:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
-:: See the Birmingham FAQ link at the bottom of the article talk page.  This states absolutely that the leaves are not a palimpsest.  Since Alba Fedeli is acknowledged to be the world's most notable authority on the detection and imaging of Islamic palimpsests, this particular issue is clearly resolved for the purposes of the article.
-::  My interpretation of  Prof, Al-Samarri's lecture as self-published was associated with the absence of citations in his account to the notable scholars in the field; not only Alba Fedeli, but also and especially not to  [[:fr:François Déroche|François Déroche]].  This especially applies to Déroche; 'Qur'ans of the Umayyads'; which established the current scholarly consensus that considerable numbers of qur'ans  can be identified palaeographically from the 1st and 2nd centuries A.H.  In so far as Prof, Al-Samarri is still maintaining the (once widespread) view that this is not the case; his opinions on the matter fall within the category of  [[WP:FRINGE]].
-:: There are clearly a range of opinions on the dating of the Birmingham Qur'an fragments (along with the other surviving leaves of the same qur'an in Paris); and the article should include notable contributions to that debate.  These include issues of the reliability of carbon dating, and the relevance for dating purposes of the inclusion in a manuscript qur'an of verse and chapter divisions.  Which are points where Prof, Al-Samarri supports views already noted in the article.  But his overall thesis that the Birmingham leaves must be dated to the 2nd or 3rd century A.H on the basis of the inclusion of diacritical dots differentiating consonants, is no longer tenable.  There are numerous surviving dated Arabic manuscripts and inscriptions from the 1st century A.H. and selective consonant diacritics are found on almost all of them. [[User:TomHennell|TomHennell]] ([[User talk:TomHennell|talk]]) 11:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
-:::[[Special:Contributions/79.66.54.19|79.66.54.19]] ([[User talk:79.66.54.19|talk]]) 21:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)No, the parchments were not discovered by Alba Fedeli and her colleagues
-::::But they examined them before Al-Samarri, right? [[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry]] ([[User talk:Cordless Larry|talk]]) 21:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
-:::[[Special:Contributions/79.66.54.19|79.66.54.19]] ([[User talk:79.66.54.19|talk]]) 21:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)(which at present it fails to do quite considerably)[[Special:Contributions/79.66.54.19|79.66.54.19]] ([[User talk:79.66.54.19|talk]]) 21:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
+t alif (ألف). Arabic script at the time tended to not write out the silent alif.for non arabic speakers to read easier Allah hu Akbar you can stop Islam [[Special:Contributions/82.20.80.153|82.20.80.153]] ([[User talk:82.20.80.153|talk]]) 18:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
+== Where are the contents  ==
-:::[[Special:Contributions/79.66.54.19|79.66.54.19]] ([[User talk:79.66.54.19|talk]]) 21:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)This is a cumulative point, you are right, on its own it is not significant but when considered when considered alongside the other elements of script analysis it is a factor. The article needs to be re-ordered to bring out more clearly that the dating is contested not simply as a result of rejecting the carbon dating but as a result of considering elements of the script. At present this does not come across at all.
+The contents are important. This manuscript contains what is possibly the earliest attestation of full basmala. What do the sections talk about? Simply referring to ayat doesn’t help because of the need to go to non-Wikipedia sources to find out.[[Special:Contributions/74.96.7.2|74.96.7.2]] ([[User talk:74.96.7.2|talk]]) 23:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
-:: The history of the rediscovery of these leaves has been written up by Alba Fedeli in 'Marginalia' https://marginalia.lareviewofbooks.org/collective-enthusiasm/  They were originally in the Mosque at [[Fustat]], and, along with many other qur'an fragments, were sold by dealers to western European collectors - in this case Alphonse Mingana.  It seems that the two leaves in question were first recognised as being likely of 7th/1st century date in 2009 by Gerd Puin; and Alba Fedeli encountered them originally on-line. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:TomHennell|TomHennell]] ([[User talk:TomHennell#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TomHennell|contribs]]) 21:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)</small>
+== Need to understand dating ==
-:: There is always scope for improving the article, through the addition of published opinions by notable scholars in the field. Unfortunatley,  Prof. Qasim Al-Samarrai does not seem to have that quality. Asma Hilali is editing a collection of articles for forthcoming publication under the title; '‘Isolated Qur’ānic fragments: the case of the three papyri from the Mingana Collection’, in Hilali, A & Burge, S. eds., The Fragment and The Whole. The Making of Religious Texts in Islam, forthcoming in Oxford University Press in collaboration with the Institute of Ismaili Studies, UK, 2018.  Alba Fedeli is working up her PhD thesis into a chapter for that book; but no doubt other perspectives will also be accessible there . [[User:TomHennell|TomHennell]] ([[User talk:TomHennell|talk]]) 22:04, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
+This article states, “They determined the radiocarbon date of the parchment to be 1465±21 years BP (before 1950), which corresponds with 95.4% confidence to the calendar years CE 568–645 when calibrated.”
-== Wiki should not work this way ==
+Im quite a bit confused here and would appreciate clarification.  If the radiocarbon is dating parchment to 1465 years BP (before 1950, + or - 21 years), that would give the parchment a date of 485CE (1950-1465 = 485CE, NOT 568), + or - 21 years.
-You must not just remove anyone's opinion.  This person claims that he made an observation under UV. You can only say, "there is a controversy by such and such". If you just take that out, I would get the impression that manuscripts are really fake. Because. C14 can only be done on the parchments, not on the ink. You can get similar one and write again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utZbIXk85Ww  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/107.199.62.126|107.199.62.126]] ([[User talk:107.199.62.126#top|talk]]) 09:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+Could someone help me out? What am I missing?? [[User:D2west26|D2west26]] ([[User talk:D2west26|talk]]) 00:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
-== Radiocarbon date ==
-"which corresponds with 95.4% confidence to the calendar years CE 568–645 when calibrated". I just want to note that the new calibration curve INTCAL20 released this year changes the range a little: CE 577–646. The most likely ranges (in total 68.3%) are 597–611 and 616–641.  I'm not adding this as it can be considered OR until it is published. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 01:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
+: {{Re|D2west26}} The "radiocarbon date" is determined solely by the carbon isotope ratio in the sample. In order to determine an actual range of years, it has to be adjusted by the known variations in the atmospheric isotope ratio in past years. This is explained at [[Radiocarbon calibration]]. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 04:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)