I am a Yemeni living in Sana'a and I checked the matter directly in my visit to the grand mosque and they showed me a copy of the manuscripts. They have a copy also of manuscript of Ali's original manuscript that was preserved and not in the roof. Imam Ali was the cousin and son in law of the prophet.
An original manuscript from the 7th century does not exist, especially not a manuscript by Ali, the fourth Rashidun caliph. Whoever told you that is either a braggart with no historical knowledge or a liar.
@@ardenkilikian7990 I wouldn't be qualified to give a considered opinion but I would expect it to be no earlier than the 8th century, but beyond that I simply can't say and I wait the findings of scholars to nail down a date or a dating range for them.
Thank you Dr. Kerr. Wonderful. Needed urgently. Calm, objective academic setting. Congrats. Please, please, please: Bring Volker Popp online before it is too late (in terms of age and mobility).
Ursula Dreibholz said that "Despite the rumors that have circulated, it is important to emphasize here that no distortion was found in the manuscripts found in the Great Mosque in Sanaa, as the differences were limited to the vowel symbols used in the early Islamic ages".[8] [8] Ursula Dreibholz (1989). Early Quranic parchments discovered in the Great Mosque in Sanaa. Sana'a: German Archaeological Institute. p. 13.
Well ; not sure about that. The issue with the Sanaa where the original writings [ first layer ] was washed out , cleaned off or scrubbed - begs the question. If the copies of Quran were accurately and faithfully copied from one manuscript to another , copy to another copy , why were the underwritings or the layer underneath these parchments washed and scrubbed off ? Also , from what I have heard the original writings [ first layer ] do contain variants when compared to the writings written over those that were erased .
@@mikekaroules2820 that there were variants prior to codifications by Othman is nothing new. islamic traditions recorded that codification by Othman was done to ensure standardization of the quran. the second layer of sanaa manuscript is very much in line with Uthmanic text. the first layer contain variants as already recorded in Islamic tradition. in fact, first layer is not even a pre-Uthmanic quran. It is more like a handbook / a recording of a teacher manual for students. it contains notes and scribbles of teacher for students. only the second layer can be considered as the Quran. Writing materials were expensive back then.
@@ykn9240 ; Thank you. I know the basics. But if what you are saying is true concerning the variants pre Uthman than this makes the transmission of the Quran basically very similar to the way the Bible and the New Testament was transmitted and established . Devout muslims claim that their text is perfect , error free in their transmission and the way it was standardized. There are variants in the early copies of the Quran like you say just like there was in the Bible and New Testament. Never really heard or observed devout muslims admit to variants in their Quran manuscripts. By the way , I heard it was actually Uthman that burned and destroyed all the Quran copies/manuscripts that did not agree with his standard Quran text. This is really shady. Thank you for your feed back .
@@mikekaroules2820 the variants were approved by the prophet himself for the Quran was revealed in different dialects. That Uthman burned the non-standard version (non Quraish dialect) - including the erasure of some of the first layers of Sanaa manuscript - was not shady at all. In fact it was the right thing to do to ensure the standard and to avoid confusion among later generations. The Uthman codex was approved by the community and each verse in uthman codex was verified and testified by at least 2 companions of the prophet that such verse was indeed revealed to and then transmitted by the prophet.
@@mikekaroules2820 can't be compared to bible and new testament at all. Each verse in the Quran / Othman codex was verified and testified by at least 2 companions / eye witnesses of the prophet. New Testament was written in Greek, while Jesus and all of his 12 disciples were Aramaic speaking Jews. the 4 gospels were anonimous, only later that church fathers assigned the names of matthew, luke, mark and john as the authors.
Sanaa mosque was school for learning new Muslims quran..and small children ..it was a habit tell nowadays in Arab countries ..it means writing and editing what u memorised..as day project..Birmingham scripts are the same literally ...
As an Arab I am truly thankful to Germans and Westerners for their effort and brilliant minds to unfold our history and unmask so many lies we have been told
Inarah is the light house in a very dark Islamic world. Islam is a very sick and twisted ( cult) it’s a compilation of historical events, cults, political powers, languages, ethnicities….endless ratatouille that ended up ruining many nations. أكبر خدعة عرفها العالم، للأسف!
@@azilius5302 Maybe for you it’s unnecessary and unethical and non academical, but for those who seek the truth, they know they have a responsibility question and search every historical study and use a little of common sense. No one asked you to agree or disagree with what I wrote, unless you’re here to discuss.
To all muslims We should follow what being instructed by Caliph Uthman to use the version approved by the prophet companions. The rest manuscripts or completed Qurans not approved to be destroyed. Any old copies manuscript found should not be used to compare with the present Quran because no one can verify the authenticity of the manuscript except the prophet companions. Why should we questioned and claimed the Quran is complete just because we found old manuscript which no one can verify its authetic in todays world. Best for us, is to ignore those claim and hold on to the one approved by the prophet's companions
Best for YOU, maybe. Some of us just want to know how things happened, not how later pious believers wanted us to THINK things happened. Also, of you read Inarah research more closely, you'll find that Uthman himself is a likely invention of the 9th century, so he never instructed anybody.
@Daniel Shah: Not one early manuscript is matching with the current Hafs version. They have all been manipulated through centuries. Check out Variant Quran
@@ykn9240 the imteresting fact is that, speculations are arrived at by piecing together the available evidences and analysing them. If you dont know how analysing evidences works, thats how it is. So, obviously they give a logically consistent view that contradicts with the standard narrative. So yes, faith based perspective has got no authority, and these dudes have it all.
Thank you for bringing in Gerd Puin. When are Karl-Heinz Ohlig, Markus Gross, Volker Popp and you (Robert M Kerr) yourself going to give your presentations? Make it soon. In short 20 minutes segments stretched over dozens of episodes or few hours long episodes. We don't mind. People need to know the researches that are taking place regarding the origins of Islam and the historicity of muhammad.
It doesn't matter because it's 99.99% is same as Quran we know, the differences are sometimes Arabic letters change and sometimes words and meaning is exact same so when you read it in english you won't get anything special.
Also, there is no physical evidence that Muhammad ever existed. In fact The evidence leads the Abbasids made up the character. Muhammad. I repeat. Muhammad there is no physical evidence that this man named Muhammad ever existed. Muslims follow a created up character named Muhammad by Ibn Hisham? He put together Muhammad's Biography, and he died in 833 AD. Ibn Hisham takes little from Ibn Ishaq and throws the rest away and puts his own spin on it and makes Muhammad's Biography. Muhammad supposedly died in 632 AD and Ibn Hishan died in 833 AD. Looking at the time gap of near 200 years later, of Muhammad's supposed death in 632 AD. Then you go to the Hadiths. AL Bukhari written 870 AD Sahih Muslim 875 AD At-Tirmidhi 884 AD Ibn Majah 887 AD Abu Dawud 899 AD An-Nisa' 915 AD As you notice, they are 240 years after Muhammad's death. Then you have Tafsir = Commentaries on the Qur'an and you have Tarikh Histories of Mankind. The first to write this is Al Tabari, who died in 923 AD. So the first thing we get about this character, Muhammad, is 200 years after his death. Abd al-Malik (692 AD) introduces Muhammad by putting it on the Dome of the rock and on the coins. It was written 140 years before Ibn Hisham wrote it down. But it was the Abbasids (749 AD). They are the ones that give us the Islamic narrative we have today. Muhammad was revealed 84 years after the Abbasids created him, 141 years after he was first introduced, yet 201 years after he supposedly lived! The Islamic Traditions say everything that happened is supposedly in Medina and Mecca. (In Hejaz) Yet all the writers of the Traditions worked in Baghdad, which is 1,200 miles too far North. Ibn Hisham (Sira) is from Basra But he grew up in Cario Cairo from Mecca is 990 miles away. Basra from Mecca is 1,200 Miles Al Bukhari (Hadith) is from Bukhara Bukhara from Mecca is 2,600 Miles AL Tabari (The Tafsîr & Takhrikh is from Tabaristan and Tabaristan from Mecca is 1,700 miles away. None of the Traditional writers hundreds of years later lived or worked in Mecca or Medina. They were so far North of Mecca, and came from the West and East of Baghdad. Note: All of these northern areas are where the Abbasids originated from. Furthermore, all the writers of the Standard Islamic Traditional narrative worked in the 9th and 10th centuries. They all wrote their material hundreds, even thousands of miles too far away and hundreds of years too late. None ever met Muhammad or saw Muhammad. They were all going on by Hearsay. So who created Muhammad's Biography? The first In reference that we have of Muhammad in a book form and I said it was by Ibn Ishaq but no it was not. It was by Ibn Hisham. The Life of Muhammad book was translated by Alfred Guillaume translated from French to English. Alfred Guillaume, taken from Ibn Ishaq? No, there was nothing about Muhammad's life up to 1819 AD. No, There was nothing about Muhammad's life in the 9th century. We have nothing from Ibn Ishaq and we do not have anything from Ibn Hisham. Only Islam mouths claims it but they have nothing. So where did this BOOK come from "The Life of Muhammad?" It came from this man. It was Heinrich Ferdinand Wustenfeld (1808-1899), who between 1858-1860 complied the Sira. He went to 4 different LIBRARIES and museums in 4 GERMAN cities. He was German himself. Between those 2 year period and took Arabic text about this supposed guy Muhammad. All coming from the Ottoman period, and he complied the life of Muhammad. By a man just 160 years ago. None of it can be traced back to Ibn Ishaq 9th Century. It is from the 19th Century of 1,000 years later. Then translated by Alfred Guillaume and others later in 1967. There is another addition by Fouad Sezgin, who complied another Sira from few documents he found in Morocco. Conclusion: The man whom Muslims are dependent on to know who their so called prophet is or what he did, is an elderly GERMAN linguist who wrote Muhammad's story 160 years ago, thus over 1,000 years to late. 21st Century Scholars Conclusions. Concerning these dates, "Islam, as we know it, did not exist in the 7th Century, but evolved over a period of 200-300 years by men." "The Qur'an was not revealed to one man in 22 years but evolved over a period of 50-100 years" Conclusion: Islam is FRAUD. So who are you following? Man/men's Bullshit! Everything that he said was bullshit. The Kabba before Muhammad, they worship it. It was an idol. The black stones were in a town by other Moon-god worshipers, a town above where the made-up city called Mecca is today. They worshiped the black stones as their god. All Mosques have a Qibla, but all the ancient Moon-god Kabba's, their Qiblas are not pointing to Mecca but Jordan, a place called Petra. Another Big lie from Islam. The Dome of the Rock has no Qibla. To be a Mosque, it must have a Qibla. The other building structures have a prayer house, Qibla, and they too point not to Mecca but to Petra. The Dome of the Rock has Zero Qibla. They call this place a Mosque, but it is not. Another big fat lie from Islam. Islam is such a lie, not only the Quran and Hadiths, but their made-up city called Mecca and the Islamic history of coming out of Islam is a lie. Ancient maps and ancient shipping maps before Muhammad and 120 years after Muhammad's supposed death, not one map has Mecca on it. Oh, it has other cities and towns on the map. But not Mecca. The Arabs made up a city called Mecca because it was mentioned in the Quran, just another fraud. Archeology Not one single piece of evidence in Mecca shows that Mecca ever existed in Saudi Arabia. Islam and salvation or God are all a fraud by the Arabs. They made up the entire cult religion of man/men over a period of 200-300 years. All this information is available if you search for it on RUclips and the internet. AL Fadi CIRA International is a great place to start. He was born in Saudi Arabia and Arabic is his native tongue. Conclusion: Islam is nothing more than a fraud of a human-origin cult. A scam fooling good people into this fraudulent cult. They took from other people's sources, the Bible made it into opposite stories, and much more, took from their true religion before Muhammad, the Moon-god AL ILah the idol god, and other pagan rituals of the Moon-god worshipers and much more. Again, Islam is not from any God.
Another comment on sana - The discovery is made by a non Muslim, where there are so many research institutes in Islamic world run by Muslims. It's significant.
With nearly all the earliest Quranic fragments emanating from Damascus, can't it safely be assumed that the Sana manuscript too was created in Syria and the lower text was a part of the dominant reading and the later variant replaced it with a change in the political narrative.
Sana manuscript hand writing style was different from Syrian and high luckily one of the companions wrote it around prophet period with Hijazi writing style.
@@aminaaden2921 do your own research. There is no quran from today that is exactly like the ones in 8th, 9th, or even 10th century, it is no proof of that. The one that is popular now is the cairo one. The book was not completed when Mohamed died, they had to put it together, so there where many differences, and the next ruler burned the rest(according to the hadiths). You could argue that the meaning hasn't changed, but you can't prove that the version we have is exactly the same.
quran was revealed with no text, just recitation, and preserved by memorization traceable to Prophet Muhammed pbuh. when more non-arabs embraced islam it was necessary to put it in text. the text still need to be checked by hafiz[who memorized Quran].
There's no prophet named Muhammad in the Quran. The manuscripts found are the parchments in the Syriac-Aramaic textual language of the then Christians. The term muhammad means "the praised one" attributed to Jesus and in Syriac language muhammad is written in exactly the same way as in Arabic (Google it).
@@osuclassof88 According to historical evidence, Muhammad was born and raised as a Jew amongst the Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians of the Quraish tribe and knew their revelations which he revealed to his accomplices and later got copied and written down as Quran during the Abbasid dynasty. In other words, over 95% of what is written in today's Quran was already preached before Islam evolved. Muslims just don't have the brains and brawns to accept this notion.
Sana - Question - Where the manuscript is discovered ? What is the proof that the manuscript is. Related to The Holly Quran ? All manuscripts, except those included in The Holly Quran, was destroyed. Survival of the S M is doubtful and questionable.
I am a Yemeni living in Sana'a and I checked the matter directly in my visit to the grand mosque and they showed me a copy of the manuscripts.
They have a copy also of manuscript of Ali's original manuscript that was preserved and not in the roof.
Imam Ali was the cousin and son in law of the prophet.
An original manuscript from the 7th century does not exist, especially not a manuscript by Ali, the fourth Rashidun caliph. Whoever told you that is either a braggart with no historical knowledge or a liar.
@@Indah-tjs the extremist christians and atheists are lying about facts
@@Indah-tjs It was just a tool to help out the vocal tradition of Quran.
Finally Inarah Institute made channel. Thank you.
Wonderful insight into the discovery and early work on the Sana manuscripts. Thank you for this and the upcoming series.
I would be interested to know Mel's opinion about the dating of Sanaa manuscripts and how they fit into the nhs?
You think Dr Puin will be called a "ultracrepidarian"?
@@ardenkilikian7990 I wouldn't be qualified to give a considered opinion but I would expect it to be no earlier than the 8th century, but beyond that I simply can't say and I wait the findings of scholars to nail down a date or a dating range for them.
@@ardenkilikian7990 ruclips.net/video/Mly9RZ50UtI/видео.html
@@inquisitivemind007 your channel is underrated!
Set the speed at 1.25x
1.75
Thank you Dr. Kerr. Wonderful. Needed urgently. Calm, objective academic setting. Congrats. Please, please, please: Bring Volker Popp online before it is too late (in terms of age and mobility).
thanks for every body who involve on that manuscript project especially for Dr. G P and his friend
H - Manuscript project ? Is it manufactured ?
More views, thank you Sneaker's Coner🙏🎖
Ursula Dreibholz said that "Despite the rumors that have circulated, it is important to emphasize here that no distortion was found in the manuscripts found in the Great Mosque in Sanaa, as the differences were limited to the vowel symbols used in the early Islamic ages".[8]
[8] Ursula Dreibholz (1989). Early Quranic parchments discovered in the Great Mosque in Sanaa. Sana'a: German Archaeological Institute. p. 13.
Well ; not sure about that. The issue with the Sanaa where the original writings [ first layer ] was washed out , cleaned off or scrubbed - begs the question. If the copies of Quran were accurately and faithfully copied from one manuscript to another , copy to another copy , why were the underwritings or the layer underneath these parchments washed and scrubbed off ? Also , from what I have heard the original writings [ first layer ] do contain variants when compared to the writings written over those that were erased .
@@mikekaroules2820 that there were variants prior to codifications by Othman is nothing new. islamic traditions recorded that codification by Othman was done to ensure standardization of the quran. the second layer of sanaa manuscript is very much in line with Uthmanic text. the first layer contain variants as already recorded in Islamic tradition. in fact, first layer is not even a pre-Uthmanic quran. It is more like a handbook / a recording of a teacher manual for students. it contains notes and scribbles of teacher for students. only the second layer can be considered as the Quran. Writing materials were expensive back then.
@@ykn9240 ; Thank you. I know the basics. But if what you are saying is true concerning the variants pre Uthman than this makes the transmission of the Quran basically very similar to the way the Bible and the New Testament was transmitted and established . Devout muslims claim that their text is perfect , error free in their transmission and the way it was standardized. There are variants in the early copies of the Quran like you say just like there was in the Bible and New Testament. Never really heard or observed devout muslims admit to variants in their Quran manuscripts. By the way , I heard it was actually Uthman that burned and destroyed all the Quran copies/manuscripts that did not agree with his standard Quran text. This is really shady. Thank you for your feed back .
@@mikekaroules2820 the variants were approved by the prophet himself for the Quran was revealed in different dialects. That Uthman burned the non-standard version (non Quraish dialect) - including the erasure of some of the first layers of Sanaa manuscript - was not shady at all. In fact it was the right thing to do to ensure the standard and to avoid confusion among later generations. The Uthman codex was approved by the community and each verse in uthman codex was verified and testified by at least 2 companions of the prophet that such verse was indeed revealed to and then transmitted by the prophet.
@@mikekaroules2820 can't be compared to bible and new testament at all. Each verse in the Quran / Othman codex was verified and testified by at least 2 companions / eye witnesses of the prophet. New Testament was written in Greek, while Jesus and all of his 12 disciples were Aramaic speaking Jews. the 4 gospels were anonimous, only later that church fathers assigned the names of matthew, luke, mark and john as the authors.
Fascinating. May I suggest, however, that you adjust speed in Settings to 1.5. He is rather a slow speaker.
Came here thanks to the recommendation of the RUclips Channel Sneaker's Corner.
Hello fellow sneaker head!
@@farhanrazi9597are you a atheist bro
Congrats, I was waiting for this to come so long. Can't wait to watch your videos, thanks
Enjoyed very much your lectures in London and am happy to find your RUclips channel. Blessings to you🙏🏼
It was an interesting first video. Looking forward to seeing many more of this video
Sanaa mosque was school for learning new Muslims quran..and small children ..it was a habit tell nowadays in Arab countries ..it means writing and editing what u memorised..as day project..Birmingham scripts are the same literally ...
It was interesting,i wait your future videos
Came here after getting notified by sneakers corner channel
Very exited to find your channel in RUclips, where are the rest of the episodes :)
As an Arab I am truly thankful to Germans and Westerners for their effort and brilliant minds to unfold our history and unmask so many lies we have been told
Lies of whom?
Inarah is the light house in a very dark Islamic world. Islam is a very sick and twisted ( cult) it’s a compilation of historical events, cults, political powers, languages, ethnicities….endless ratatouille that ended up ruining many nations.
أكبر خدعة عرفها العالم، للأسف!
What lies?
@@TheThornbird21 thanks for your unneeded and unacademic opinions and may peace be upon you ✨
@@azilius5302
Maybe for you it’s unnecessary and unethical and non academical, but for those who seek the truth, they know they have a responsibility question and search every historical study and use a little of common sense.
No one asked you to agree or disagree with what I wrote, unless you’re here to discuss.
Just discovered and subscribed, thank you Inarah, your academic work is the light house in a very dark Islamic world.
To all muslims
We should follow what being instructed by Caliph Uthman to use the version approved by the prophet companions. The rest manuscripts or completed Qurans not approved to be destroyed.
Any old copies manuscript found should not be used to compare with the present Quran because no one can verify the authenticity of the manuscript except the prophet companions. Why should we questioned and claimed the Quran is complete just because we found old manuscript which no one can verify its authetic in todays world.
Best for us, is to ignore those claim and hold on to the one approved by the prophet's companions
Best for YOU, maybe. Some of us just want to know how things happened, not how later pious believers wanted us to THINK things happened. Also, of you read Inarah research more closely, you'll find that Uthman himself is a likely invention of the 9th century, so he never instructed anybody.
@Daniel Shah: Not one early manuscript is matching with the current Hafs version. They have all been manipulated through centuries. Check out Variant Quran
But after compiled by Uthman and send to 3 provinces under him... those mushaf still have differences... how can you explain this?
@@mikedelossantos4775 what credibility does this so called Inarah have? nothing but speculations without basis...
@@ykn9240 the imteresting fact is that, speculations are arrived at by piecing together the available evidences and analysing them. If you dont know how analysing evidences works, thats how it is.
So, obviously they give a logically consistent view that contradicts with the standard narrative. So yes, faith based perspective has got no authority, and these dudes have it all.
Thank you for bringing in Gerd Puin.
When are Karl-Heinz Ohlig, Markus Gross, Volker Popp and you (Robert M Kerr) yourself going to give your presentations? Make it soon. In short 20 minutes segments stretched over dozens of episodes or few hours long episodes. We don't mind.
People need to know the researches that are taking place regarding the origins of Islam and the historicity of muhammad.
How can we get sana manuscript Quran in modern form? Do we have download link with English translation?
It doesn't matter because it's 99.99% is same as Quran we know, the differences are sometimes Arabic letters change and sometimes words and meaning is exact same so when you read it in english you won't get anything special.
اتمنى ان يتم ترجمة فورية للقاءات باللغة العربية
Dr Puin mentioned the discovery of Sanaa manuscript was in the 80s, I dont know why switched the date from 1973 to the 80s!
Hi is there any way to contact you regarding this. Thank you
Sana = Marwanid manuscript
Also, there is no physical evidence that Muhammad ever existed. In fact The evidence leads the Abbasids made up the character. Muhammad.
I repeat. Muhammad there is no physical evidence that this man named Muhammad ever existed.
Muslims follow a created up character named Muhammad by Ibn Hisham? He put together Muhammad's Biography, and he died in 833 AD. Ibn Hisham takes little from Ibn Ishaq and throws the rest away and puts his own spin on it and makes Muhammad's Biography.
Muhammad supposedly died in 632 AD and Ibn Hishan died in 833 AD. Looking at the time gap of near 200 years later, of Muhammad's supposed death in 632 AD.
Then you go to the Hadiths.
AL Bukhari written 870 AD
Sahih Muslim 875 AD
At-Tirmidhi 884 AD
Ibn Majah 887 AD
Abu Dawud 899 AD
An-Nisa' 915 AD
As you notice, they are 240 years after Muhammad's death.
Then you have Tafsir = Commentaries on the Qur'an and you have Tarikh Histories of Mankind. The first to write this is Al Tabari, who died in 923 AD.
So the first thing we get about this character, Muhammad, is 200 years after his death.
Abd al-Malik (692 AD) introduces Muhammad by putting it on the Dome of the rock and on the coins. It was written 140 years before Ibn Hisham wrote it down. But it was the Abbasids (749 AD). They are the ones that give us the Islamic narrative we have today.
Muhammad was revealed 84 years after the Abbasids created him, 141 years after he was first introduced, yet 201 years after he supposedly lived!
The Islamic Traditions say everything that happened is supposedly in Medina and Mecca. (In Hejaz)
Yet all the writers of the Traditions worked in Baghdad, which is 1,200 miles too far North.
Ibn Hisham (Sira) is from Basra
But he grew up in Cario
Cairo from Mecca is 990 miles away.
Basra from Mecca is 1,200 Miles
Al Bukhari (Hadith) is from Bukhara
Bukhara from Mecca is 2,600 Miles
AL Tabari (The Tafsîr & Takhrikh is from Tabaristan and Tabaristan from Mecca is 1,700 miles away.
None of the Traditional writers hundreds of years later lived or worked in Mecca or Medina. They were so far North of Mecca, and came from the West and East of Baghdad.
Note: All of these northern areas are where the Abbasids originated from.
Furthermore, all the writers of the Standard Islamic Traditional narrative worked in the 9th and 10th centuries.
They all wrote their material hundreds, even thousands of miles too far away and hundreds of years too late. None ever met Muhammad or saw Muhammad. They were all going on by Hearsay.
So who created Muhammad's Biography? The first In reference that we have of Muhammad in a book form and I said it was by Ibn Ishaq but no it was not. It was by Ibn Hisham.
The Life of Muhammad book was translated by Alfred Guillaume translated from French to English.
Alfred Guillaume, taken from Ibn Ishaq?
No, there was nothing about Muhammad's life up to 1819 AD.
No, There was nothing about Muhammad's life in the 9th century. We have nothing from Ibn Ishaq and we do not have anything from Ibn Hisham. Only Islam mouths claims it but they have nothing.
So where did this BOOK come from "The Life of Muhammad?"
It came from this man. It was Heinrich Ferdinand Wustenfeld (1808-1899), who between 1858-1860 complied the Sira. He went to 4 different LIBRARIES and museums in 4 GERMAN cities. He was German himself. Between those 2 year period and took Arabic text about this supposed guy Muhammad. All coming from the Ottoman period, and he complied the life of Muhammad. By a man just 160 years ago. None of it can be traced back to Ibn Ishaq 9th Century. It is from the 19th Century of 1,000 years later.
Then translated by Alfred Guillaume and others later in 1967. There is another addition by Fouad Sezgin, who complied another Sira from few documents he found in Morocco.
Conclusion: The man whom Muslims are dependent on to know who their so called prophet is or what he did, is an elderly GERMAN linguist who wrote Muhammad's story 160 years ago, thus over 1,000 years to late.
21st Century Scholars Conclusions.
Concerning these dates,
"Islam, as we know it, did not exist in the 7th Century, but evolved over a period of 200-300 years by men."
"The Qur'an was not revealed to one man in 22 years but evolved over a period of 50-100 years"
Conclusion: Islam is FRAUD.
So who are you following? Man/men's Bullshit!
Everything that he said was bullshit. The Kabba before Muhammad, they worship it. It was an idol. The black stones were in a town by other Moon-god worshipers, a town above where the made-up city called Mecca is today. They worshiped the black stones as their god. All Mosques have a Qibla, but all the ancient Moon-god Kabba's, their Qiblas are not pointing to Mecca but Jordan, a place called Petra. Another Big lie from Islam.
The Dome of the Rock has no Qibla. To be a Mosque, it must have a Qibla. The other building structures have a prayer house, Qibla, and they too point not to Mecca but to Petra. The Dome of the Rock has Zero Qibla. They call this place a Mosque, but it is not. Another big fat lie from Islam.
Islam is such a lie, not only the Quran and Hadiths, but their made-up city called Mecca and the Islamic history of coming out of Islam is a lie.
Ancient maps and ancient shipping maps before Muhammad and 120 years after Muhammad's supposed death, not one map has Mecca on it. Oh, it has other cities and towns on the map. But not Mecca. The Arabs made up a city called Mecca because it was mentioned in the Quran, just another fraud. Archeology Not one single piece of evidence in Mecca shows that Mecca ever existed in Saudi Arabia. Islam and salvation or God are all a fraud by the Arabs. They made up the entire cult religion of man/men over a period of 200-300 years.
All this information is available if you search for it on RUclips and the internet. AL Fadi CIRA International is a great place to start. He was born in Saudi Arabia and Arabic is his native tongue.
Conclusion: Islam is nothing more than a fraud of a human-origin cult. A scam fooling good people into this fraudulent cult. They took from other people's sources, the Bible made it into opposite stories, and much more, took from their true religion before Muhammad, the Moon-god AL ILah the idol god, and other pagan rituals of the Moon-god worshipers and much more. Again, Islam is not from any God.
Another comment on sana - The discovery is made by a non Muslim, where there are so many research institutes in Islamic world run by Muslims. It's significant.
With nearly all the earliest Quranic fragments emanating from Damascus, can't it safely be assumed that the Sana manuscript too was created in Syria and the lower text was a part of the dominant reading and the later variant replaced it with a change in the political narrative.
Sana manuscript hand writing style was different from Syrian and high luckily one of the companions wrote it around prophet period with Hijazi writing style.
Sanaa manuscript found in 1972...🤔
@@jellyfishi_ The goverment is hiding because it is different from today's Qurans. Meaning the Quran has changed!
@@Yui789esss Elaborate please
@@Yui789esss nah it hasn’t changed , Sanaa Manuskripts are just personal notes
@@Yui789esss You mean you wish it was changed. Wishful thinking.
@@aminaaden2921 do your own research. There is no quran from today that is exactly like the ones in 8th, 9th, or even 10th century, it is no proof of that. The one that is popular now is the cairo one. The book was not completed when Mohamed died, they had to put it together, so there where many differences, and the next ruler burned the rest(according to the hadiths). You could argue that the meaning hasn't changed, but you can't prove that the version we have is exactly the same.
The facial hair on these guys is crazy distracting!
Indeed 🤣
quran was revealed with no text, just recitation, and preserved by memorization traceable to Prophet Muhammed pbuh. when more non-arabs embraced islam it was necessary to put it in text. the text still need to be checked by hafiz[who memorized Quran].
There's no prophet named Muhammad in the Quran. The manuscripts found are the parchments in the Syriac-Aramaic textual language of the then Christians. The term muhammad means "the praised one" attributed to Jesus and in Syriac language muhammad is written in exactly the same way as in Arabic (Google it).
@@earthlycreature8772 there is no text. Quran revealed by recitation. Later text help non Arabic speaking people to learn read Quran.
@@osuclassof88 According to historical evidence, Muhammad was born and raised as a Jew amongst the Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians of the Quraish tribe and knew their revelations which he revealed to his accomplices and later got copied and written down as Quran during the Abbasid dynasty. In other words, over 95% of what is written in today's Quran was already preached before Islam evolved. Muslims just don't have the brains and brawns to accept this notion.
@@earthlycreature8772 learn more and come back to comment. You are talking about someone else
@@osuclassof88 Yes, muhammad is refered to Jesus as the praised one and someone else became a fake prophet of Islam, LOL.
Cruseders had been defeated again 😂😂
Qur'an is more authentic than your entire civilization
This guy is confused and you can see that he is not normal and not confident his words.
He cannot be a scholar.
He is German, he is speaking in English his third language
Sana - Question - Where the manuscript is discovered ? What is the proof that the manuscript is. Related to The Holly Quran ?
All manuscripts, except those included in The Holly Quran, was destroyed.
Survival of the S M is doubtful and questionable.
It could be Ubayy's
well it's possible one of manuscripts survived and that also confirm the official Islamic narration.
This video has been debunked long time ago.
😂😂😂
Terrible speaking skills
Feke holy qurán
👀📖🤲🤬🔪🐁💣🔥☠🤢🤮✋👎