Talk:Birmingham Quran manuscript

Dissenting Voices

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. 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 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/ 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. 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 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. 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 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. 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 TomHennell (talk) 11:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Prof. Qasim Al-Samarrai

79.66.54.19 (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC) The first scholar to examine these parchments, Prof. Qasim Al-Samarrai, 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.79.66.54.19 (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

References

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. TomHennell (talk) 11:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC) 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. 79.66.54.19 (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

79.66.54.19 (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Ignatius79.66.54.19 (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. 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? 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 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 that Prof, Al-Samarri makes too. 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 vowel sounds, is no longer tenable. There are numerous surviving dated Arabic manuscripts and inscriptions from the 1st century A.H. and selective vocalised diacritics are found on almost all of them. TomHennell (talk) 11:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Explanation of confidence limits

I see that Tabiibnafsanii has twice tried to add an explanation of "between AD 568 and 645, within a 95.4% (2σ) confidence interval", and twice been reverted. His additions were helpful, correct, and straightforwarduncontroversial, though I accept that WP:OR applies here: simple arithmetic is considered original research. I hope there is some way to make the statement more accessible to readers without a training in statistics.

A further remark, which also qualifies as original research: what the radiocarbon dating measures is not the "date of the death of the animal" on whose hide the document is written. It is the mean date at which the carbon atoms now in the hide left the atmosphere and entered plants by photosynthesis, plants which were later eaten by the animal and their carbon atoms used in its skin, possibly several years before its death. Maproom (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a reason for the rules. In fact, Tabiibnafsanii's additions were not helpful, correct or straightforward. The confidence intervals obtained from radiocarbon dates are not symmetrical and can even consist of multiple intervals. Without the raw data, it is not possible to say which year is the most likely. It is certainly wrong to assume that the midpoint of the interval is the most likely year. Zero^talk 09:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

fully agree Zero. Standard scholarly application of confidence intervals, is that all points within the intervals should be considered equally probable (i.e. 95%); specifically because a normal distribution of probabailities cannot be inferred. In particular, it is always misleading to state the mid-point of the interval, with the implication that this is 'more likely' that the extremes. TomHennell (talk) 11:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I was reverting per WP:BRD and because the lack of a source. I suggested discussing the matter here, which seems even more important now, given Zero's comments. That said, I don't think smiple arithmetic is original research, per WP:CALC, although it seems things might not be so simple here. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanations. I now agree with you both. I have tried to find a source that gives the actual radiocarbon findings, and failed. (I did find this which shows a serious failure to understand probability – as should be expected from anything in the popular press.) Maproom (talk) 09:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, you can play with radiocarbon calibration here. The design of the page is very peculiar though. In brief: (1) click "Data Input Menu", you'll see a multicolored form (maybe after scrolling the top frame). (2) Enter for example 1450 for Radiocarbon age BP (that means before 1950 in C14 years) and 25 for Standard Deviation. Make sure "IntCal13" is the curve selected. (3) Click the little "Enter Data" button on the left; you will see numbers appearing in the bottom frame. (3) Click "Calibrate" in the bottom frame. (4) Look in the middle frame for the answer. As well as numerical intervals you'll see some pretty plots. On the bottom axis you'll see a plot showing the likelihood of each year and colors for the confidence ranges. The actual numbers are probably close to these. The thick green snake running through the picture is the experimental relationship between radiocarbon and actual age. Zero^talk 10:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Edits which were reverted, twice, by two different editors, are by definition not uncontroversial. The edits in question were also uncited. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Please consider this proposition: the probability of a true date after 622 CE is less than 20%. 109.151.7.162 (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)tabiibnafsanii

Not so tabiibnafsaniil; the probabibility of any the radiocarbon date falling between 568 and 645 is 95.4%; and there are no grounds for inferring that any one date within that range is any more likely than any other. So you cannot take a sub-section of the range and infer a lower probability for dates within that sub-section. TomHennell (talk) 22:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Tabiibnafsanii, TomHennell, I disagree with you both. You are (like the HuffPost journalist) assuming that the only evidence we have for the manuscript's age is from radiocarbon dating. We have other evidence. Islamic scholars believe that the contents of the Koran became known to men between 610 and 632, and were not written down until after 644. We should not necessarily believe the things we say; neither should we disregard them. Their opinions are evidence, just as the radiocarbon findings are. We can use Bayes' theorem to combine probabilistic evidence from different sources. Maproom (talk) 06:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed Maproom; a recognised scholar of Qur'anic paleography might well do so. And when they published it in an authoritative academic source, the publication should properly be cited in the article. But for you and me; combining probabilistic evidence from different sources is clearly original research. Even more so, if you or I (rather than an authoritative scholar) were to appply Bayes theorem to do so. Sorry.

One point is to clarify the response to tabiibnafsanii's question as I understand it. The radiocarbon analysis indicates a 95.4% probability of a date within the range 568 to 645, a range of 77 years. But we know (from codicology) that these pages were originally from a 'complete' Qur'an, which could not have been produced until after the Prophet's death in 632. Which gives a potential range of 13 years. So is the probability of date between 632 and 645 only 16% ( 13/77*0.954)? Answer; No. The probabability of a date within that range is 95.4%, it doesn;t drop to a much smaller figure if we specify a smaller sub-interval. This is actually a version of Zeno's Paradox.

A second point is to assess how far the new evidence offered by the radiocarbon date for one of the Birmingham leaves may be reconciled with current paleographic indicators for dating Qur'ans in Hijazi script. The comments of Prof. Berk are significant here. These two leaves belong with BnF Arabe 328(c), but that manuscript has been dated paleographically "around the end of the seventh century and the beginning of the eighth century". These findings are not combinable (even using Bayes theorem); so a reassesment is needed. Ideally we would hope that counterpart radkiocarpbon dates could be extracted from several other, codicologically distant, leaves of the Paris manuscript. Maybe the dealer who filled the order for the parchment skins had one or two older leaves sitting amongst his stock? The mosque where Arabe 328(c) was discovered, was founded in 642; so the radiocarbon date is historically possible.

A third point is to assess how far any revised dating of BnF Arabe 328(c), may reconcile with received opinions of Qur'anic scholars. There are in fact two traditons; a Sunni narrative which associates the definitive assembling of the text of the Qur'an with Uthman after 650, and a Shia narrative which says this happened some years earlier. On the face of it, the radiocarbon dates would be more consistent with the latter traditional narrative; but while there is only the one experimental date, it would be unwise to build too much of an alternative theory. There are also a number of stylistic features that have been taken as indicating (or exdcluding) a very early date - the presence of diacritical marks, verse markers, chapter dividers. Cognate evidence here may be relevant from the Sana'a Qur'ans; and from dated inscriptions in Hijazi script.

Finally, there is the witness of the text itself - in respect of which the whole of BnF Arabe 328(c) is relevant. My understanding is that (orthographic matter aside) the text agrees very closely with what would become the standard Qur'an; but that the verse divisions do not. But are there any other Hijazi Qur'ans that consistently divide verses at the same points in the text as BnF Arabe 328(c)? If so, then these might be identified as a distinct manuscript family - and dated together.

But all of this waits on scholars to publish; as yet it has no place inthe article. TomHennell (talk) 09:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Birmingham Quran manuscript/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 11:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm no expert in this subject by any means, but I do find it interesting and thus I'll take on this review if I may. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	There are several errors of punctuation throughout the article, for instance "to 632,[12] According".
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	There are some sections without references, and even with 'citation needed' tags.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	As above.
	2c. it contains no original research.	The non-referenced information might constitute original research; at present that is unclear.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	I'm unsure about the validity of File:مقارنة مخطوط برمنغهام بالقرآن الكريم.jpg and File:Birmingham Quran manuscript - closeup.jpg, and would like to see them both checked out by someone who knows all about the use of images on Wikipedia (there is no U.S. public domain license specified, for instance).
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	There's clearly been a lot of good work that has been done here. That being said, I don't feel able to award it GA status at this juncture, due to the various issues (admittedly, most of them fairly minor) that currently mar the page. I'd suggest sorting out these various problems and then re-submitting the article for GAN, perhaps at a time when more academic, peer-reviewed material on the manuscript has seen publication. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Birmingham Quran manuscript. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150926153516/http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/events/quran-manuscript/faqs.aspx to http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/events/quran-manuscript/faqs.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150906130646/http://www.saudigazette.com.sa:80/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentid=20150727251595 to http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentid=20150727251595
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150926153516/http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/events/quran-manuscript/faqs.aspx to http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/events/quran-manuscript/faqs.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)