Br. Ejaz Ahmed had a brief dialogue with Jay Smith today (I personally would call it a car crash. RIP Jay).
Jay believes all major codices from the Qur’an date to the 8th and 9th centuries CE. Ejaz proved to him this is not the case.
“the second half of the first century A.H. and the first half of the second Century A.H. [due to] “vowelling and dotting.” (i.e. early – mid 8th century) (Altıkulaç, ‘AlMushaf alSharif’ 2007:81)
622 CE is when the Hijri calendar begins, 622 + 50 is 672. He lies and says it’s only from the 8th century onwards. When caught he initially says it dates to the mid 8th century which is 750 CE, then he changes his mind and says 719. So why can’t he get his story straight?
Jay’s claims Topkapi has “thousands of differences”, I point out it’s mainly with the letter alif and quoted this for him:
“There are 2270 instances where there is dissimilarity between the Topkapi Mushaf and the Fahd Mushaf – most of them concerning whether or not the word was written with an alif..”
Jay Smith is a notorious hate preacher from the USA who has a proven track record of slander and lies against Muslims and Islam. For a shocking example see here
Categories: Christian extremism, Debates, Frauds, History, Islam, Missionaries, Silly, Speakers Corner
Blogging Theology 
the second half of the first century A.H. and the first half of the second Century A.H. [due to] “vowelling and dotting.” (i.e. early – mid 8th century) (Altıkulaç, ‘AlMushaf alSharif’ 2007:81)
Clearly the problem is this citation which contradicts itself. Ijaz is right in the first sentence, but the summation demonstrates jay is right.
Perhaps seek clarification from the author before calling people liars?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jay got it wrong.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The citation is not contradictory you silly twat only the vowling comes later the earlier transmission that comes in the 7th centuary has no vowling. Jaysmith was to stupid that he couldnt see that. Thats what we call poor reading skills or perhaps intentional misreading.
LikeLiked by 6 people
He is getting old poor thing.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Mustafa so the mushaf contains vowels or not?
LikeLike
Brother Paul, I think you’re right. Poor Cerbie is getting old and you know what they say: you can’t teach an old dog new tricks.
Cerbie, you idiot, the vowels were added later. Didn’t I already school you on this on a different thread, the one you ran away from with your tail between your legs?
Hey, and that reminds me. Did you find any 1st century manuscripts of your NT yet? I’m still waiting…
LikeLiked by 6 people
You’re very confident for someone who never wins an argument. You must be an only child?
LikeLike
“You’re very confident for someone who never wins an argument”
For Paulus it’s opposite day everyday!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well Cerbie, after humiliating you in so many discussions, one tends to become quite confident!
So no answers, huh? OK, thanks for the clarification!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Paul said does the Mushaf have vowels?
Script & Ornamentation
Kufic.
It is extensively dotted perhaps by a later hand. A general examination of the codex indicates that its script varies in thickness and size. For example, parts between folios 1b-6b and 11a-11b exhibit a different hand as compared with the script in rest of the codex. This needs to be further investigated. It could be that some of the folios were lost and damaged for some reason and were rewritten and added to the codex later. If so, these additions must have been made within short intervals of time.
So the latter Script is voweled not the Original earlier print on the Mushaf
LikeLiked by 1 person
https://islamicarchives.wordpress.com/2017/06/06/91-7-of-the-quran-in-first-century-ah-vs-0-of-the-bible-in-first-century-ad/%5D%5D
Christians are trying to attack the Qur’an because they are embarrassed that in their first Century they have 0% of the NT, while Muslims have 91.7 % of the Qur’an in their first Century.
This is all of course if we disregard an oral tradition, which Christians can never claim. While Muslims can make that claim.
Tell me Paulus, what is the oldest manuscript/fragment of the Christians and Muslims that we have, respectively?
LikeLike
Goes to show who pays attention, I see Mustafa watched the video where the clarification was given. Pretty straight-forward if you ask me…
LikeLiked by 5 people
Ijaz,
It was a little hard to follow along with everything that you wee saying in the video due to the poor sound quality on your end. Can you try to remedy that for the next time please!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Barring better sound quality, maybe you can at least provide a written transcript of the conversation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ll try to fix it, but you guys got to remember I live in a 3rd world country on an island that barely functions. I doubt there will be a transcript but I will see what we can do on the audio end of things.
LikeLike
Ijaz,
Thanks for doing your best under those circumstances, and keep up the good work!! Jazakallahu Khair Brother!!! Wa Salaam!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on The Quran and Bible Blog and commented:
Notorious Islamophobe Jay Smith gets taken to school by Ijaz Ahmed on the Quranic manuscripts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“622 CE is when the Hijri calendar begins, 622 + 50 is 672.“
This doesn’t seem consistent . 672 would be the middle of the first century AH but even Islamic awareness admit that it is likely “late” first century at best
“This manuscript was written in kufic script and contains 408 folios. The extant folios contain more than 99% of the text of the Qur’an. Only two folios are missing. The manuscript shows the script, illumination and marking of vowels that are from the Umayyad times (i.e., late 1st century / early 2nd century of hijra).”
Give it 10 years either way and we are looking at 712-733AD
LikeLike
“Give it 10 years either way and we are looking at 712-733AD”
Huh?
672 + 10 = 712?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Well brother Ihsan, give him a break. Christians are known to have trouble with arithmetic(1+1+1=3 ayone?).
LikeLiked by 3 people
Man, Muslims are daft. 672 is mid first century, not late first century. Islamic awareness says the mushaf is late first century/ early second century, so go ten years either way on that hypothesis and you get the figures I gave you.
Do keep up muhammadans…
LikeLike
Late isn’t delimited by 10 years, you’d need to qualify the range you are giving, since orthographic datings are never given within a “10” year period, that is way too small. The same issue was brought up recently with Habermas claiming a palaeographic dating of the Markan fragment to within 50 years, you should see how much he was rebuked and chided for such an insipid claim. Please acquaint yourself with the scholarship before commenting.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And Paulus his respond will be:
But but but but… Jesus loves me!!!
LikeLiked by 2 people
I did qualify my range. I’d happily extend it to 20years if you prefer. That still leaves us in the 8th century. Any “earlier” than this and we wouldn’t be talking about “late first century AH”, would we?
I’d like to see you qualify “second half of the first century” to a date close to 672. I’ve qualified my dating by other scholarship
LikeLike
It’s very clear that christians do not understand the nature of how the Islamic methodology for the transmission of Qur’an. Most of what they say is coming out of the gross ignorance in this regard.
Muslims have never relied on manuscripts as (primary methodolgy). Rasm الرسم is a secondary one.
Christians look to their problem and diseases within their religion as a sample of all what happens in the other religions. It’s the same problem with most orientalists as well.
LikeLiked by 4 people
What’s with his weird, affected way of speaking? Does he think “dagger” is an Arabic word?
LikeLike
You mean Mr. Kee-Ree-Art? If you saw how he butchered the words, “Qira’at” and “Ahruf”, you’d think he was making it up as he went along. One of the most basics things to know in a field are its technical terms, it’s why a vademecum exists…on this very subject…
On your comment however, in English it is indeed referred to as the dagger alif.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Give it 10 years either way and we are looking at 712-733AD“
This is a bizarre reading of the author. If we take the Turkish scholars understanding we are looking at ranges. Second half of the first century for the consonantal structure of the text (672-722(ish)). According to this scholar the vowels were added later. He says early second century. In other words, roughly 732-742 .
So how does that lead to your understanding? Furthermore, the point at hand is not the Umayyad dating of the manuscript. Then point at hand is Jay Smith’s continuous misuse of sources. He has repeatedly said that the manuscript is mid eight century. He also repeatedly claimed that there are no Quranic manuscripts earlier than the 8th century. Misusing Deroche for this as well.
Also, new data has shown that the vowels were added earlier than previously thought (n the reign of Abdul Malik.) This was data that the Turkish scholar did not have access to.
See this
Coloured Dots and the Question of Regional Origins in Early Qur’ans (Part I)
LikeLiked by 3 people
” He also repeatedly claimed that there are no Quranic manuscripts earlier than the 8th century”
I wonder if Jay Smith heard about the Birmingham Manuscript:
https://islamicarchives.wordpress.com/2017/05/24/oldest-koran-fragments-found-in-birmingham-university-during-the-time-of-the-prophet/
https://islamicarchives.wordpress.com/2017/05/30/p52-vs-birmingham-manuscript-comparing-the-earliest-biblical-manuscript-to-the-earliest-quranic-manuscript/
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Second half of the first century for the consonantal structure of the text (672-722(ish))“
I think we can clarify what is meant by the work of others. Islamic awareness discuss this mushaf and conclude that the consonantal structure is from the late end of the first century
“The manuscript shows the script, illumination and marking of vowels that are from the Umayyad times (i.e., late 1st century / early 2nd century of hijra).
Ijaz has jumped on the phrase “second half of the first century” and appealed straight to the earliest time, I.e mid first century. When in reality the scholarship is suggesting late first century. Ergo, 8th century.
Anyway, this is all really besides the point. The majority of Muslims still believe this mushaf is Uthmanic because the propaganda in the masjid is so strong.
LikeLike
There is a mistake by Paulus, in that he thinks I assume it’s from 672. Incorrect, the range is from mid-first to early second, I’m arguing that there is a range, as other scholars have put forward. To place it only in the 8th century CE is incorrect, and to place it only in the 7th century is also incorrect.
You missionaries should really learn to read what is being said before commenting.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“the range is from mid-first to early second“
Not according to islamic awareness. In fact, I’d love to see anybody say “mid first” for this mushaf.
“Second half of the first century” could be, as you say, 672 or it could be as late as 721. You appealed to the former. I’m suggesting we look at the latter because that is what the clarifying articles and scholarship are saying.
LikeLike
“I think we can clarify what is meant by the work of others. Islamic awareness discuss this mushaf and conclude that the consonantal structure is from the late end of the first century“
Well that is all fine and dandy but the topic is the insincerity of Jay Smith so I fail to realize how your twist of the Turkish scholar or Jays outlandish claims can be put aside because of an apologetic site
Ijaz was talking about the possibilities of the range according to the Turkish scholars point of view. It was a refutation of Jay.
Anyway, this is probably an Umayyad codex and there are quite a few others significantly earlier than it. Of course , unless we go with preposterous claims by Jay Smith and claim that some are reasonable pre-Islamic!
LikeLike