Talk:Birmingham Quran manuscript/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Display

Pigsonthewing, regarding this edit, do we know that this will be the first time the manuscript has been publicly displayed? It will certainly be the first time since the recent discovery of its age, but it might have been displayed before, no? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

That's what sources say, but if you want to append "in the West", "in Europe" or "in modern times"; or reword to "first recorded public display", I'll have no objections. Be bold! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The sources just say that it's going to be displayed in October though, don't they? Unless I'm missing something, they don't say that that's the first time it's been displayed? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
No. Maev Kennedy in The Guardian (ref #4 at the time of writing) says the leaves "...will go on free public display for the first time in October, at...". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Andy. As you were then! I'll just add a reference to that source to the line about the display plans. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
You beat me to it. Cheers! Cordless Larry (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Early Quranic Manuscripts and BnF ar. 328(c)

I can see the point of a seperate article uniting BnF ar. 328(c) with the Birmingham leaves; but not yet another article for Early Quranic Manuscripts. We already have History of the Quran and that is trouble enough. TomHennell (talk) 09:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you got this backward. Early Quranic manuscripts is an umbrella topic in itself, related to "history of the Quran", but clearly not identical to it. "BnF ar. 328(c)" is just one early manuscript, which can easily be a section in the main article until it grows large enough (with actual information, that is, not dumps of journalistic drivel) to become a standalone article. --dab (𒁳) 10:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "BnF ar. 328(c)" doesn't seem a good general title as it's too technical. The Sana'a manuscript seems a better model for this page to follow. Andrew D. (talk) 12:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Codex

Do we have a better source for "believed to come from the same codex as other manuscript Quran leaves in the Bibliothèque Nationale de France in Paris"? I seem to recall having read that; but Kennedy only says they "resemble" them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The UoB press release quotes Fedeli as saying "The two leaves, which were radiocarbon dated to the early part of the seventh century, come from the same codex as a manuscript kept in the Bibliothèque Nationale de France in Paris". Cordless Larry (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Alba Fideli has published an on-line note on the Mingana collection which states that the newly identified leaves belong with BnF ar. 328(c). see here: https://iqsaweb.wordpress.com/2013/03/18/qmmc/
This is a different manuscript from BnF ar. 328(a/b) - the famous Codex Parisino-petropolitanus. Images of ar. 328(c) are here: http://corpuscoranicum.de/handschriften/index/sure/20/vers/131?handschrift=158 That they are from the same manuscript as Mingana 1572a is as plain as a pikestaff. TomHennell (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The journalists are having a field day with this. The actual news would be "two more leaves of BnF ar. 328(c) discovered. Now at 18 leaves total". Perhaps we shouldn't emulate the hysterical journalistic approach to Quranic philology in our articles, and try to arrange this more encyclopedically? E.g. compile a page on Early Quranic manuscripts, where the fragments can be discussed together? --dab (𒁳) 06:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I suppose this is relevant, as they have now carbon dated it. As far as I can see, most literature on the Codex Parisino-petropolitanus have focussed on the 70 folia of parts "a-b". Part c has 16 folia, covering suras 10-11 and 20-23. The two folia now found in Birmingham seem to be from suras 18-20, so they fit right into the lacuna. But if the carbon-dating indeed suggests that the parchment of this portion may be older than the a-b part, perhaps "328(c)" will become notable enough for a separate article. What we should not do is keep an article on the two Birmingham folia separate from that on the 16 Paris folia. --dab (𒁳) 08:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

agreed; though for the moment, the priority is to make it clear that the article Codex Parisino-petropolitanus should not deal with 328(c) alongside 328(a+b); but cross refer to this article, or its successor. TomHennell (talk) 09:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
yes, I realized this and made BnF Arabe 328(c) a redirect to early Quranic manuscripts. This article has two things to offer: two more pages were found, and a carbon-date was estimated. This can be added to the main article in a matter-of-fact way without going overboard with journalistic sound-bites. --dab (𒁳) 09:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
You have lost the notable opinions of David Thomas and Muhammad Isa Waley; please put them back. TomHennell (talk) 09:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I have done so myself. Both these academics are notable in the field; and so presenting such opinions is the primary function of this article. TomHennell (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
how are these "notable opinions"? Of course the men are notable, so once they publish something on the ms. academically, of course we should cite them. So far, we just have them being phoned up by journalists to "make a comment". This isn't encyclopedic. Waley probably hadn't even realized this was two pages from a known manuscripts, so he just told the journalist "yes, it's great, rejoice" to get rid of him, for all we know. If you think this is "notable" I have to inform you that you greatly misunderstand what Wikipedia is trying to achieve. --dab (𒁳) 09:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Not at all dab. The quotes are taken from the Bimingham University announcement; so they are considered academic judgements by the leading authorities in the field; published in an academic forum. As such they are exactly what Wikipedia exists to record. Remember Wikipedai is an encyclopedia of published authoritative academic opinions - and of the evidence that led those forming those opionions, to reach the conclusions they have. Disembodied staements of fact, with no link to authoritative opinions, have no place in Wikipedia. TomHennell (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, please stop implying the ms. was "written" during 568-645. This is an estimate on the date of the parchment (more exactly, the death of the goat from which the parchment was made). Yes, it is very likely the parchment predates 645, but this is just a terminus ad quem. Fwiiw, there is also a 50% chance the manuscript is older than AD 610. With the same justification of "omg, it may have been written during M's lifetime" you could argue "omg, it may have been written before M ever started preaching, the Quran must have been plagiarised". Neither is a reasonable conclusion. What is reasonable to say is that the age of the parchment is consistent with this manuscript having been produced under Uthman. --dab (𒁳) 10:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry dab; you may be confusing my views (and yours), with those of notable academic authorities. Prof Thomas states that the parts of the Quran recorded on these leaves may with confidence be dated to less than two decades after Muhammad’s death. That is the notable opinion on the subject; and hence the one that Wikipedia must present as authoritative. Moreover, Dr Waley's opinion is clear that the dating of these hides to before 645 is consistent with the standard Quranic text coming into being well before conventionally accepted dates for an Uthmanic redaction. Again, that is the view that the notable authority has stated; no notable authority is yet stating the opionion you put forward - though I am sure that some will. When they do, then their opinions, and the evidence they advance to support them, should be included in Wikipedia. TomHennell (talk) 10:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

you are clearly unable to distinguish scholarly literature from journalism (if they give soundbites from scholars, it's still journalism). If it is published academically, by all means cite it. If you just get it from newspaper websites, please stop wasting your time and mine. They have carbon-dated the parchment. They assumed that any intelligent reader would understand what this means. I am not going to explain this to you just because you refuse to look it up on your own. Waley's statement "open the possibility that the Uthmanic redaction took place earlier than had been thought – or even, conceivably, that these folios predate that process" is obviously correct, but it is so obvious that there is need to attribute it to Waley just because he was phoned up by some journalist, who cherry-picked it for sensationalism.
  • the date is consistent with the standard date for Uthman's redaction
  • the date is consistent with a slightly earlier date of Uthman's redaction
  • the date is consistent with Muhammad himself having written this
  • the date is also consistent with Muhammad having found it somewhere and perused it to come up with his text
the estimate is so wide as to be "consistent" with any of these. It is up to the journalist to select from these a scenario that is sufficiently newsworthy without putting his neck on the line for "blasphemy". --dab (𒁳) 10:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
None of the statements in the article, so far as I am aware, originate from newspaper websites; and any that does, unsupported by notable opinions should well be removed. The major source for this article is the authoritative announcement from Birmingham University, plus the BBC on-line article, which is clearly directly sourced from the University and Cadbury Cengtre (as in the demonstration of the verse-by-verse correspondence of the Mingana leaves to the modern accepted Quran text). No doubt there will be a peer-reviewed publication coming over the horizon sometime soon - but in the meanwhile we do have the opinions of notable scholars - and these are far from soundbites; they are clearly carefully phrased and considered judgements. These men and women are putting their academic reputations on the line in what they are saying - and they know it. We should respect those opinions, and not let our judgements of fact get in the way of them. TomHennell (talk) 10:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
As long as the opinions of the academics are clearly attributed to them rather than being presented as scientific fact, I don't see the problem. The quotes are quite long in the context of the article as it currently stands, but that problem should diminish as the article expands. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok by me. I would expect that, fairly soon, we will be getting considered academic responses that take issue with the stated propositions of Thomas and Waley. Specificlly, in view of the proposed identity of the Brum leaves with BnF ar. 328(c), it would be interesting to know whether François Déroche contributes to the debate; and indeed whether it may be possible to cross-check the radiocarbon dates for Mingana 1572a with counterpart dates for BnF ar. 328(c). Once there are more (and more varied) notable options and associated findings, it will necessary to chop back the current quotes. But for the moment, these opinions are really all we have. TomHennell (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

If the argument is that: Until we have peer-reviewed material on newly found discoveries available, mere opinions by academics should not be listed, then why does this page even exist right now? (Not to mention any other page that was created on a potentially groundbreaking discovery e.g. BICEP 2's results, which later turned out to be erroneous) On the other hand, if a page is to be created on new finds, then OBVIOUSLY it will initially only have journalistic sources and the opinions of the academics in the field ( + the researchers who made the discovery.) Intelligent readers know that such pages evolve as peer-reviewed analysis starts coming in. So there's no need to throw a fit regarding newspaper citations in the early stages (the only other logical option is: enforcing a ban on creating new pages dedicated to all new finds on Wikipedia in general until enough peer-reviewed material is generated. Good luck enforcing this idea.) Code16 (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Text

Fwiiw, the text is really basically identical with the modern recensions. But we do not have to rely on random websites to make this point, or quotes of gushing journalism telling us how wonderful and remarkable it is. A close transcription of Arabe 328(c) by Corpus Coranicum (an academic project working on a critical edition of the Quran), with variant readings highlighted in colour. Apart from uncertain readings, the differences amount to about five or six characters per manuscript page. --dab (𒁳) 09:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

It's unclear what argument you are making, as your third sentence appears to be incomplete. Nonetheless, we need one or more citations, not original research, for any statement regarding the content of the text. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Size matters

I removed the uncited claim about the precise size of the manuscript, but it has been retuned, still without a citation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I found the source via this edit by TomHennell. I don't know anything about that site though. Is it reliable? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
As far as I can see; the cited source has taken their information on sized from the Corpus Coranicum site, and presents the dimensions of BnF ar. 328(c). http://corpuscoranicum.de/handschriften/index/sure/20/vers/131?handschrift=158 The advantage of that source, though, is that it also details the exact content of each folio, both for BnF ar. 328(c) and for Mingana 1572a. TomHennell (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned that according to the site's FAQ, Islamic studies is a hobby of the founder and primary contributor, suggesting he's an amateur. He's actually a materials scientist by training. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
In my view, we can't be too picky. This is a blog; but which quotes from the 2009 catalogue entry for Mingana 1572 (before it was split). http://baheyeldin.com/writings/history/seventh-century-quranic-manuscript-birminghams-mingana-collection.html. That gives the size as 33.8 by 21.7. Of course, the Brum leaves are rather more battered than the BnF ones; plus, of course, the exact size of leaf will vary with the size of your goat. TomHennell (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't WP:VERIFY require us to be picky? We should leave the information out if we don't have a reliable source for it. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes you are right; the source looks to be a sound one; but it is self-published without specific academic credentials. I shall rephrase the entry to refer to the size for the leaves of BnF Arabe 328(c) for which I have a good reference. TomHennell (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
And what does "Full folio" mean? We have no article or redirect of that tile, and it's not listed at Folio#Size. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
not an official size; Imperial folio (or Foolscap folio) is 8.5 by 13.5 inches, which is effectively what these leaves are, but a bit wider. But 'folio' is a reasonable description, given that Imperial sizings are not longer in force. TomHennell (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Age

Is this the age of the animal skin only? Certain it isn't a palimpest? Is there no dating of the ink? Dating of the style of writing? (Our linked article on the writing style mentions it should have no dots but a number of dots are visible on the manuscript - do they indicate something other than vowels?) Rmhermen (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

there are clustered dots to indicate verse endings, which appear to be original; otherwise in this (as in most other unvocalised Arabic manuscripts) diacritical dots will have been added later. The age is the age of the animal skin; which the cited authorities maintain will also be close to the date of the writing. TomHennell (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
shouldn't you be citing other authorities who question this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.80.54.16 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 24 July 2015‎ (UTC)
The article is very much a work in progress, 93.80.54.16, and is developing quickly. Do you have any suggested sources in mind that we can cite? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

There is the spokesman from the King Faisal centre who suggested the material had been washed and the writing was rather more recent than the parchment. Surely this is well known. As the article read when I made my last comment it didn't mention such criticisms at all. Now it's swung to another extreme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.80.54.16 (talk • contribs) 09:14, 24 July 2015‎ (UTC)

The manuscript clearly is not a palimsest; as doesn't show any indications of washed-off underwriting (compare the Sana'a I Quran codex; see: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/soth.html ). 7th century inks always left a mineral residue in the parchment when washed, not apparent at the time, but increasingly visible behind the over-writing over the years. It would seem that the comments from the King Faisal centre are responding purely to tne news reports, rather than from any study of the digital images of the codex itself. The more substantial debate is as to whether the goats could have been slaughtered a number of years before their skins were used - Waley's argument (quoted in the article) is that this was unlikely. If the original Quran had around 230 folios (which seems reasonable), that is 230 adult goats-skins. You are not likely to stockpile that quantity of hides, losing the continuing productive value of the goats, on the off-chance of plutocrat commissioing a monumental lectern Quran for the chief mosque of the city. TomHennell (talk) 08:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Tom, thank you. I would expect that if any manuscript were a palimpsest it would show, but I'm hardly an expert and the King Faisal source may have reason to think otherwise. 93.80.54.16 (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Tom, I have just read your comments on 'History of the Koran' and can see why I should be sceptical about the response from the King Faisal Centre.93.80.85.53 (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
It may also be added the Alba Fideli is the acknowledged authority on applying ultra-violet digital scanning to the identification and reading of palimpsest Qurans. The standard published readings of the underwiting of both the Sana'a palimpsest and the Mingana-Lewis palimpsest are cited to her. So it is scarcely credible that she might have missed such underwiting in this case. TomHennell (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Birmingham Quran manuscript.jpg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Birmingham Quran manuscript.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 23, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-09-23. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Birmingham Quran manuscript
Folio 2 recto (left) and folio 1 verso (right) of the Birmingham Quran manuscript, preserving parts of Surahs 18 to 20. These two leaves of this early Quranic manuscript, held in the Mingana Collection, were discovered in 2015 as being dated between 568 and 645, making it among the oldest Quran manuscripts to date.Manuscript: Unknown
Archive – More featured pictures...

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. Zerotalk 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. Zerotalk 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

GA toolbox
Reviewing
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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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)

Wiki should not work this way

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.199.62.126 (talk) 09:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

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)

Should also note that Lumbard doesn't disguise his agenda

Lumbard, who as an adult convert to Islam brings the expected amount of zealous single-mindedness and bias, explicitly writes that academic views of the history of the Quran need to precede from (his interpretation of) Islamic beleifs about the topic. The entire "Birmingham Quran" story is basically saying, you can't use any tools of literary analysis, history, or even Islamic traditions that aren't the one we like to support the extremely well-founded idea that the Islamic religious conception of 7th-century history is a theological belief with no secular support as a sequence of events that actually happened - we have this one, poorly performed test that says maybe this piece of paper comes from a certain time, therefore that outweighs everything else. There's no reporting or discussing the topic without opening the entire discussion about Islamic revisionism because the topic only exists as a calculated attack on that school of thought. Predestiprestidigitation (talk) 05:10, 19 October 2021 (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, 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.[1]79.66.54.19 (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ 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)
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 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. TomHennell (talk) 11:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
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? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
79.66.54.19 (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)(which at present it fails to do quite considerably)79.66.54.19 (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
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 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomHennell (talk • contribs) 21:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
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 . TomHennell (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2018 (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. Zerotalk 01:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Let me figure a way to add this. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Oldest?

Dating only to 568, how is this the oldest in the world? The Dead Sea Scrolls are at least 500 years older. Rosengarten Zu Worms (talk) 11:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

You have the Quran confused with the Bible. Zerotalk 11:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Birmingham_Quran_manuscript/Archive_1&oldid=1208493237"