Slashdot Mirror
Carbon Dating Shows Koran May Predate Muhammad
HughPickens.com writes: Brian Booker writes at Digital Journal that carbon dating suggests 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 of the Koran held by the Birmingham Library was actually written sometime between 568 AD and 645, 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 Koran was simply written on old paper. Some scholars believe, however, that Muhammad did not receive the Koran 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."
Update: 09/01 17:32 GMT by S : There was a typo in the dates used by the original linked article — in the press release from the University of Birmingham, the date range given for the parchment is between 568 AD and 645 AD, which overlaps more closely with Muhammad's lifetime. The dates and link have been fixed now in the summary. Historians say this new information highlights the uncertainty surrounding the emergence of such religious texts, rather than being a major upheaval.
Death threats.
"Some scholars believe, however, that Muhammad did not receive the Quran from heaven, as he claimed during his lifetime..."
My brain died a little bit just from reading that.
ok first off, i am not islamist, fuck muhammed and fuck allah.
however, a. carbon dating is not that precise. as much as koran and muhammed is bullshit, this report is also bullshit. the shit could have been written in old paper, or simply the carbon dating maybe was not that precise.
we all know all the prophets including mohammed and jesus and david, ate some schrooms and climbed on the mountain and thought they were downloading some shit from god, but not true.
be modern, and dont believe in all this bullshit kids.
thank you
Hope you don't get shot or blown up by followers of the "religion of peace" for your work.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Well, just like how conclusive carbon dating of the shroud of Turin to the medieval period completely eliminated the throngs of faithful who believed in its miraculous origins
Or how the discovery of the Tomb of Jesus, which would appear to completely invalidate the ressurection and divine origin of Jesus, caused Christian worldwide to renounce their faith.
The faithful will continue to believe, regardless of the scientific evidence. And in this case, as the summary itself mentions, there's a perfect reasonable explanation for the date - the parchment could have been an older parchment that was re-used, which happened often enough in that time period. This will change nothing.
Go ahead, show me that a plurality of Christians believed that all non-believers should be put to death.
So it's more like the Bible, then?
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Pretty sure Muslims worldwide will claim these findings are offensive and disrespectful to Islam and as such we will put them aside and pretend they don't exist. Which is pretty much the modus operandi from the West for anything that might offend Muslims.
Chop off Hands.
Kill atheists.
Overtax Jews and Christians, then kill them.
Kill Buddhists.
Kill Hinduists.
All the "relgion of peace".
It seems the Media have done their job and you are appropriately terrified of the Other.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
I expect they will just opt to not believe it. It's easier than tearing a whole religion down because science has shown it to be faulty. I mean, one of the main points of Islam is that Muhammad wrote the Koran and that it was done in a very specific order. I don't think they'll accept this. It will be seen as Western propaganda and a fatwa or three issued because of it. Sad, too, the Arabic peoples have a very rich scientific heritage.
I've met Christians who are hell bent on insisting that carbon dating is wrong. I expect this to be the same. Religion makes some people willing to deny evidence and believe all sorts of strange things. I'm a Buddhist, also an atheist, and have wanted to believe all sorts of things that just don't have any evidence to support them. I can understand.
Instead, for example, I choose to believe that my atoms will return and be the substance known as stars eventually. I don't imagine those atoms will have any memory of me. Karma? Well, sure... We call it human nature and awareness. It's obviously not going to follow me into a new life, I don't see how a star can be subjected to karma anyhow.
Ah well... Let's hope these people doing this work are not subjected to too many death threats or terrorist attacks because of their findings. Some folks work really hard to keep other people in line and some folks are willing to die for their religious beliefs. Hopefully that does not happen here.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Historically, it's very likely that Christianity has caused the most harm to human beings and humanity as a whole thus far.
If you think about the dark ages, witch hunts, torture during the inquisition, crusades, sanctions against unbelievers, such as expulsions and acquisitions of their assets, forced conversions, colonization, abuse and culture shock of natives...
Most of this bad Karma was accumulated in the early to late middle ages, until the age of enlightenment finally put a stop to most of it. Of course today you still have popes condemning contraceptives, abortion and other modern solutions to age old problems, which is still creating a considerable amount of hurt.
Then of course you also also have fundamentalist christians, such as the "God Hates Fags" nutjobs, dishing out a sizeable portion of distress to some people, even today.
I think Islam still has some catching up to do if it wants to reach christianity's accumulated level of harm. But I have to admit that current Islamists are trying pretty hard at the moment. If they go on like this, they might catch up in only a century or two.
Well, in absence of scientific evidence, if you just read the thing and have to decide between:
- The guy made it up to fit his political agenda
- The guy got it from a superpowered entity
Honestly, there's no way you can find the later simpler and more plausible. Especially after reading that part where men are allowed to marry up to four wives except the prophet who could marry as many as he wanted...
But it is always cool to have scientific evidence when you can get ones.
Video of some good progressive thrash music
Really? This would come as a surprise to all the Jews READING the Torah in their synagogues at the time of Christ.
Small problem with your argument (well, two...)
1) The Shroud of Turin is not central to (or even any part of) scripture, teaching, or dogma. In fact, most Christians believe it to be a medieval construct as well, and it remains a curiosity at best, even among the majority of Catholics.
2) The alleged tomb that Jesus was laid in is probably not the one - that particular spot was picked by Helena of Constantinople nearly 4 centuries later, based on some local legends. She also allegedly found the cross, but that's most likely bunk sold to her by locals who were eager to curry favor. As with #1, it has approximately bupkis to do with scripture, teaching, or dogma (Heck, the Council of Nicaea probably hadn't even convened yet when this alleged tomb was found.) Today, it serves as a nice place to worship, and to meditate on the Passion and Resurrection, but it has no real significance otherwise.
Meanwhile... the Quran is the actual scripture of Islam; if it was found to have existed *before* the founder existed (let alone wrote it, received it from Heaven, whatever)? That's kind of like kicking the pillars out from under a rather delicate tower... it would be akin to finding a written account of Jesus' life that carbon-dates to 30-40 BCE... now *that* would be faith-shaking.
All that said, here's the fun part: the calendar we use is rather error-prone and isn't fully accurate. Most scientists and archaeologists know this, and correct for it. This is why Jesus' actual life may have begun as early as 6-10 BCE. I'm hoping these guys in TFA have managed to do those calculations for correction, and more important, did them correctly... because they're about to buy themselves a rather nasty shit-storm if they didn't. Even if they're right, I'm willing to bet that the very first counter-argument will point right to our calendar's not-so-perfect history.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
"Well, just like how conclusive carbon dating of the shroud of Turin [wikipedia.org] to the medieval period completely eliminated the throngs of faithful who believed in its miraculous origins"
Interestingly, the shroud of Turin isn't exactly mentioned in the Bible as being the lynchpin of the Christian faith.
"Or how the discovery of the Tomb of Jesus [wikipedia.org], which would appear to completely invalidate the ressurection and divine origin of Jesus, caused Christian worldwide to renounce their faith."
Uh... so the existence of a tomb that is expressly mentioned in the Bible as being the location of where Jesus was interred after being crucified is now proof that the Bible must be wrong because it apparently actually exists? You give Atheists a bad name.
Most scholars don't think that the Talpiot Tomb has anything to do with Jesus. For exampel, Géza Vermes says the arguments for the Talpiot tomb are not "just unconvincing but insignificant" (see the Wikipedia page). Also, Christian theology does not depend on whether or not the shroud of Turin is real.
I'm not muslim, but even the summary notes a perfectly reasonable explanation - the parchment could be an old one. And frankly, I'm skeptical that the carbon dating is that precise; carbon dating depends on a lot of assumptions that can easily be false in specific circumstances. (Yes, radioactivity decreases at a fixed rate... but you have to make BIG assumptions about its starting value.) So while this article makes for a good headline, the current actual evidence is rather worthless.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
It is interesting that EVERY bit of data examined about the Shroud (pollen studies, linen study, weaving techniques, post-mortem "autopsy" study, a study of the dirt around the heels, the blood type of the stains, the image itself) ALL support the notion that the Shroud is authentic. The only study that supports a medieval origin is the carbon dating, which has also been challenged.
There are two interesting questions (at least) from that:
1) When there is a massive amount of factual data supporting authenticity and only one data supporting fraud, should all of the supporting data be ignored?
2) How did the supposed fraudster carry out such a detailed fraud?
Then there's the image itself. Although there have been a few (maybe one) success at creating something that looks like the image on the Shroud, there have been no successes at creating an image that matches the physical AND chemical composition of the image. We still don't know how that was done, fraud or not.
My point is that there is still a great deal about the Shroud that is highly controversial, allowing the faithful to continue to hold to their beliefs with not requirement to be stupid or uninformed.
The difference is most Christians shrugged their shoulders and ignored it
Muslims will kill all the researchers their families and threaten anyone who dares to not believe their version. I really can't wait for Muslims to get out of this phase.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Seems it was the end point for Mr. Parrot...parroting Wikipedia, where any moron can say anything.
There is a reason citing Wikipedia is an automatic F in most universities.
Caused? This was the religion of their time. I highly doubt whoever was in power would of behaved well if they were following another religion. Also your comment shows a poor understanding of other cultures and religious beliefs and how they were used to manipulate people.
love is just extroverted narcissism
Interesting that you cite science for the 'tomb of Jesus' where the introductory paragraph says 'disputed' three times and then points out that one filmmaker tried to draw sensational conclusions from the find. But, like you say, the faithful will always believe, no matter what the specific faith entails :)
First, no, they believe that the parchment may have been made between those times.
Second, this is carbon dating, and we are talking about drama involving a couple decades.
From most to least likely, as best I can tell:
1- The carbon dating is off by a couple years. This is extremely likely, especially given that Islamic events *mostly* take place in the light of history (with the typical religious spin regarding their accuracy, of course). They did not date the ink itself, something that the scientists point out but gets lightly treated in media.
2- The parchment, a very valuable and frequently reused substance, was around a few years before being written on. This assumes that the carbon dating is totally accurate. Remember this isn't the difference between something being ten million years old and some guy claiming the earth is 4k years old- this is not a very long time at all. Nor is it like from 200 AD or anything, either.
3- Some parts of the Koran predate Mohammad Since this is just a very small part of the Koran, this is the most interesting claim, but neither is it as the headline is spinning it. While Muslim fundamentalists will fight this conclusion, they have a pretty reasonable leg to stand on- so far, at least. Even if they are wrong and parts of the Koran were repurposed to back some new militant religion, is that really that surprising to the rest of us?
Certainly interesting, but nowhere near as impactful as the headlines sound on this.
Also note, their p is that 5% thing- they are 94.5% sure, meaning they are wrong 1/20th of the time. That means that out of all the 95% confidence claims, 1/20 are wrong- and those would always be the most sensational.
Hey, speaking of sensational, why is the link to daily mail? This is all over the net, is that the best source?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07...
Also, I'm still not sure what dates are being claimed- each article seems to have slightly different ranges?
As you say, lack of evidence has bupkis to do with people's faith. They believe despite the total lack of evidence, not because evidence exists.
There are so many historical holes in the Bible that Christian apologists have spent more than a millennium trying to explain them away. And people still believe.
A certain percentage of the population has an innate need to believe what cannot be proven. I think this is a feature of humanity, not a bug.
No. That is not a feature. It is definitely a bug.
And before anybody assumes so: I don't expect my humble opinion to settle that issue :-)
Meanwhile... the Quran is the actual scripture of Islam; if it was found to have existed *before* the founder existed (let alone wrote it, received it from Heaven, whatever)? That's kind of like kicking the pillars out from under a rather delicate tower... it would be akin to finding a written account of Jesus' life that carbon-dates to 30-40 BCE... now *that* would be faith-shaking.
Faith, in all religions, is designed to shake off facts that don't fit; that's they are religions, not science. There are many ways to work an earlier date into the doctrine, if needed, don't you worry. Just look at how Jehovah's Witnesses have handled the repeated failure of the end of the world to manifest itself; and they are by no means the only ones. So spare your glee; and any way, I think it is poor form, trying to make your own religion look better by pointing to potential weaknesses in others. You wouldn't need to gloat, if you really believed that what you stand for is better.
Standard Islamist apologist. I assume you are not a woman. Now imagine that you are a woman. Would you rather live in a Muslim-dominated society? Or a secular Western society?
Because all of Islam is a fraud. Muhammad shows up and claims "I am a profit and oh by the way I am last one" (seal of the profits).
I mean seriously how scamy is that? It rates right up there with "now all your friends are going to tell you this is to good to be true".
I am not arguing here about the validity of the rest of the Abrahamic but its painful clear Muhammad was just a con man.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
I've read McDowell's book. He basically lays out the same non-existent evidence that theologians have for centuries and then does a lot of conjecture. There is no evidence for Jesus existence that comes from Jesus' time. The rest is backfill from post-Paul. It's why the gospels were written in Greek instead of Aramaic or Hebrew.
Joseph Atwill makes a compelling case for the "historical Jesus" actually being allegory for the acts of Titus Flavius.
You are welcome on my lawn.
So, Jesus sends a secret message to his followers to "prove" that he existed in a bizarre inverse image on a piece of cloth that appears to have originated long, long after he died in radiometric testing. This is the Alpha and the Omega, creator of the Universe itself, all powerful, who rose from the dead multiple times (according to Saul/Paul, and of course Saints cannot lie about something important like that) and who could easily save the souls of all the unbelievers in the world at any time by manifesting himself to them as he did to Saul/Paul and "hundreds of others".
He could, in fact, save my soul, as I am very, very certain that Jesus Was Not Magic, and that's if a single Jesus corresponding to the one in the inconsistent Gospels even existed and isn't a synthesis of a number of apocalyptic preachers of the time, dressed up with added myths and legends so that the religion itself could hold its own with the other prevailing "world" religions of the day (virgin birth, raised from the dead, raises the dead, sundry other miracles). There is, after all, absolutely nothing that any objective scientist would consider believable evidence to support the preposterous allegations of miracles of this or any other religion. So according to the Gospels, I am damned. According to Mark, Jesus deliberately set things up that way because I am preordained to be damned. Of course elsewhere in the Gospels, it is asserted that Jesus loves me, and still other places I would no doubt be identified as a "dog begging scraps from the master's table" as a Gentile and not a Jew.
But no matter. If Jesus is God, if God is all-powerful and all-loving, Jesus/God doesn't want to damn me or any other sentient being to hell. Of course as all-powerful all-loving Jesus/God, he/it can easily prevent it by just not doing it, but even if he/it establishes a rule that non-believers have to go to hell, he established a clear precedent with Saul that he can and at a whim will appear in person before them to take a Christian-persecuting wicked zealot sinner and convince him that he is real and thereby not only save them from damnation but convert them into a saint. It is an obvious theorem of these not too stringent observations and assumptions that either:
* Jesus is God, but is evil, and deliberately refrains from actions that would save sentient beings he presumably loves and who are capable of suffering from an easily preventable eternity of suffering.
* Jesus is God, but is not all powerful (which some would argue disqualifies him from being God, but whatever) and would love to appear before each sinner and demonstrate his reality and compassion and miraculous abilities, but lacks the time-sharing capabilities to do so.
* Jesus existed but was just a man who was born, lived for a while, perhaps made a bit of heavily mythologized and utterly non-supernatural ruckus, and then died, possibly by crucifixion, possibly of old age or disease.
* Jesus is a syncretic myth composed perhaps of John the Baptist legends and legends of some of the other apocalyptic con men/preachers of the age who went around preaching for a living and salted the crowd with shills to increase their following and donation/support stream. It is, not at all unreasonable that any such preacher would be named or even just titled Yeshua, which simply means god-redeemer, which happens to be the meaning of the word Christ as well which happens to be pretty much the meaning of Messiah (annointed savior). Jesus Christ, the Messiah, is "Annointed/Holy Savior" in three languages, Romanized Hebrew, Greek, and Hebrew. It seems perfectly reasonable that none of these terms is an actual name of the individual(s) involved (including, by the way, "Emmanuel", which comes from a completely irrelevant prophecy to King Ahaz and means "God is with us" and which nobody records as being one of his names but Matthew seeking desperately to tie Jesus to some kind of "official" prophecy).
If I am mi
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
There is really no reason for it to shake their faith.
The margin of error only starts before Mohammed was born, but his whole lifetime is comfortably within the margin of error. And while this is probably not the one he wrote or received, there were definitely early copies, of which there were probably many of by the time he died, considering his eventual position as ruler of a number of united tribes and prophet of an up and coming religion.
So, this is not news at all. It's like saying that Jesus was disproved by saying that the original Bible was written somewhere between 10 BC and 60 AD. Some people need to understand what a "margin of error" is.