No, the “Birmingham Quran” does not predate Muhammad
Anyone suggesting otherwise is being just plain silly or intellectually dishonest, and here’s why.
If you have followed the news over the last week, then there’s little doubt you may have seen some of the following headlines:
Fragments of World’s Oldest Koran May Predate Muhammad
Birmingham’s ancient Koran ‘could rewrite history of Islam’
Carbon dating suggest ‘world’s oldest’ Koran could be older than the Prophet
Apparently this ancient Quran found in England is older than the Prophet Muhammed!
Well, does the Birmingham manuscript predate the lifetime of the Prophet?
No. Or, if it does, then the case for its divinity is even stronger. There are three big reasons for this.
1. The Birmingham manuscript’s parchment is the only thing that has been carbon dated. Every single one of the above mentioned articles has noted that, indeed, there is no actual evidence to suggest the text itself predates the Prophet’s lifetime. According to the logic being used by the “predating” line of thinking, If I found a scrap of paper that existed prior to my birth and wrote something on it, it means that, actually, what I had written magically predates my birth. Again: all we know is that the parchment itself came from an animal that lived before the Prophet’s birth. What does this mean in terms of “rewriting the history of Islam?” Absolutely zilch.
As for the articles on the subject of dating, here is a sampling of quotes:
Small cautioned that the carbon dating was only done on the parchment in the fragments, and not the actual ink…
Keith Small, of Oxford’s Bodleian Library, cautioned that carbon dating was done only on the Koran’s parchment and not its ink, but he said the dates were probably accurate.
The pages were carbon-dated by experts at the University of Oxford, a process which showed the Islamic holy book manuscript could be the oldest Quran in the world.
With that said, the carbon dating was only done on the parchment in the fragments, and not the actual ink. However, if the date does apply to the parchment and the ink, then the Koran-or at least parts of it-actually predates Mohammad.
The most interesting bit is actually in the last quote. “If the date does apply to the parchment and the ink.” Well, fine. But since that is total speculation, it doesn’t belong in a news piece, let alone coming from the mouth of a librarian. In the meantime, every single article leads with a completely misleading title. No manuscripts or studies or science suggest that the Qurʾān predates the Prophet Muḥammad. At best, every headline should have been a variation of “Birmingham manuscript suggests that an animal lived before the lifetime of Muḥammad.” But then, I suppose that’s not very interesting news.
2. The Qurʾān contains names and events that could not predate the Prophet’s birth. For instance, Muḥammad’s name is mentioned four times in the text of the Qurʾān. One of his relatives, Abū Lahab, is mentioned by name, and the sūra (chapter) in which he is referenced even includes a pun about it. An entire sūra deals with the battle by the Muslims to conquer Mecca. Another sūra concerns the birth of one of the Prophet’s daughters. Another mentions him hiding in a cave to escape his Meccan pursuers when migrating to Medina. These are just a handful of examples. Any one of them, let alone all of them together, especially taken in conjunction with the fact that only the parchment of the manuscript potentially predates the Prophet’s birth, would lead any reasonable individual to conclude beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Qurʾān simply could not exist except after the beginning of Muḥammad’s prophetic mission.
Here’s a great example. “Ṭaha” is one of the endearing names used by God for the Prophet Muḥammad. In fact, there is an entire sūra known by this name. And guess what? It is included among the Birmingham fragments:
Right under those squiggly lines on the left, we find:
In the Name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful. Ṭa Ha! (1) We did not send down to you the Qurʾān that you should be miserable, (2) but only as an admonition to him who fears [his Lord]. (3) A sending down [of the Revelation] from Him who created the earth and the lofty heavens (4) — the All-beneficent, settled on the Throne. (5) To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth, and whatever is between them, and whatever is under the ground. (6) Whether you speak loudly [or in secret tones,] He indeed knows the secret and what is still more hidden. (7) Allah — there is no god except Him — to Him belong the Best Names. (8) Did the story of Moses come to you, (9) when he sighted a fire, and said to his family, ‘Wait! Indeed, I descry a fire! Maybe I will bring you a brand from it, or find some guidance at the fire.’ (10) So when he came to it, he was called, ‘O Moses! (11) Indeed I am your Lord! So take off your sandals. You are indeed in the sacred valley of Ṭuwa. (12) I have chosen you; so listen to what is revealed. (13)
None of this, particularly the text I bolded above, works if the Qurʾān not only refers to the Prophet directly, but to itself directly in relationship to him, prior to the Prophet’s lifetime.
Of course, if one was inclined to accept that the Birmingham manuscript, in spite of all of this, predates the birth of the Prophet Muḥammad, then the Qurʾān would be an even greater miracle than any Muslim had ever imagined, given that what were previously contemporary historical events now have no other explanation but divine prophecy. In other words, even the parts of the Qurʾān that are not held to be prophetic in a predictive sense suddenly have their value upgraded to just that.
3. There is no contextual historical evidence to suggest that any of the Qurʾān predates the accepted time frame of revelation.
4. The document contains some usage of diacritical marks. These are the dots above or below certain characters to indicate which letter is intended in the case that they share the same “skeletal” shape (for example, ب ت ث or ش س). Diacritical marks are widely known and universally recognized as postdating the lifetime of the Prophet. Now, we have examples of manuscripts where diacritical marks have been added by others later, and this could be the case here. But it’s also entirely possible, even without this consideration, that the parchment fragments could predate their use as material for a written Qurʾān by centuries.
Based on the above, it is sad to think that anyone, particularly with an academic background, takes seriously the notion that the contents of the Birmingham manuscript actually predate the Prophet’s lifetime. It suggests an utter lack of intellectual rigor and seriousness. Those quoted in the stories about the Birmingham manuscript, such as historian Tom Holland, librarian Keith Small, and their respective employers, should be thoroughly embarrassed.
