Science / History / Prophecy > Archeology & History

Oldest copy of the Quran - The Sana'a Manuscripts (1-2AH)

(1/2) > >>

Salaam brothers/sisters

While doing some research on the oldest copies of the Quran in existence, I came to know that in 1972, they discovered one of the oldest copy of the Quran in Yemen as well as many other manuscripts...  But I cannot find any further information on them... Any chance anyone can help on this?'a-manuscripts

However, we do not know whether this is all a fabrication or conspiracy...


there(s one manuscript wich is even older, some people believe it was written by mohamed himself, some believe it was his companion Othman who wrote it, it is in a musuem in turkey
thos who believe that it was othman who wrote it it's because they think mohamed was illiterate
go for turkey quran othman , and do research
I personnaly believe it was mohamed's handwriting for some says it was the same handwriting as the letters that mohamed sent to the world leaders, most of them still exist in diferent musuems around the world, with his ring seal ans hand print , u konw he used it like fingerprint,

It says that the oldest quran is not same we have nowday.


--- Quote from: Stone on June 02, 2011, 12:04:53 AM ---It says that the oldest quran is not same we have nowday.

--- End quote ---

In this example, it says the text that was wiped off and overwritten has variations, then one commentator in the video concludes this shows AQ was not fixed. That just shows the illogical thinking of such people. It could just as easily be because whoever wiped it did not write or arrange it correctly, hence wiped it and re-did it.
Also, one commentator says this shows AQ was not transmitted word for word because the script has no tashkeel/vocalisation/vowel markings thus each word could have variations, which is a misrepresentation. It is a bit like saying an English text was not transmitted word for word because it has no dots or strokes on t's Q's i's etc. Perhaps he meant to say something else.

As is common in such videos and articles, they make illogical points and exaggerate findings. The most they can do is hafs and warsh is different in some letters and does not change the meaning in any practical/significant way. This has been discussed several times on the forum.

I forgot to say the quickest way to refute such argument is say bring your top 3 strongest difference it makes to the meaning of the text. Most will run away and not answer as they know the examples of differences they have are inconsequential.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version