User talk:Vice regent/Archives/2017/May

History of the Qur'an

You may note that Alba Fedeli's thesis on the Birmingham Qur;anfolios is now on-line.

http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/5864/1/Fedeli15PhD.pdf

see especially pages 182 - 185. Fedeli identifies the Birmingham leaves as most likely copied from a written exemplar; and not from dictation. Also showing signs of strong control against an established copying traditon. Which does raise issues in respect of the Carbon14 date. Not surprisingly, she recommends further samples from the Paris leaves of the same manuscript should be C14 dated

"Thus there would be two possibilities in matching the data from carbon 14 analysis and the data from the palaeographical and philological analysis. Firstly, the characteristics of mastery in writing, as observed in MS PaB, should be attributed to an earlier period, i.e. to the first maṣāḥif project initiated by ‘Uthmān (d. 35/655), so that the mastery and perfection does not mean a later period. Secondly, the entire chronology of the beginning of Islam and the beginning of the written transmission of the Qur’ānic text should be revised, in that the beginning should be brought forward, thus having technical skills in writing, the existence of exemplars to be copied, lines between two following sūras should be among the other features to be placed before ‘Uthmān’s death"

She does also make remarks about the dating of Sana'a palimpsest leaves. One aspect she notes is that the Sana'a folios at the DAM have been treated with a restorative; where the other leaves (which include the ones sold at auction) have not; and she speculates this may have affected C14 dating; so that the C14 dates for the DAM leaves could be too early.

Otherwise however her most interesting conclusion is negative; that it is not possible to attribute either of the Birmingham Qur'an fragments (together with their corresponding surviving folios in Paris and St Petersburg respectively) consistently to any one of the conventional Qira'at readings or supposed geographical locations. Combined with counterpart findings in other Hijazi quar'ans this tends to confirm that the Qira'at readings are later artefacts. She proposes that text-critical analysis of Qira'at readings are unlikely to be fruitful; and that rather manuscript variations should be explored using formal phylogenetic software. In that respect she criticises Sadghis's study of the Sana'a' palimpsest for failing to apply phylogenetic methods to his test of whether the lower text should be considered a discrete text-type. TomHennell (talk) 11:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

El cid, el campeador

I know what he said offended you but step back and try to let an admin intervene. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

If by that you mean do not revert again, I agree. Edit-warring is unproductive. But I do think its a good idea for me to continue to discuss on the Manchester Bombing talk page and I have reported the 3RR violation too. Do you think either is unadvisable?VR _talk 15:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

No they are both fine, and yes this indeed looks to be edit warring. As a personal opinion here I am deeply troubled by all of the anti-Islamic rhetoric coming from others, I hope you can place this behind you. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)