BeaverFever BeaverFever:
And I feel like I have to take as shower after clicking one of your slimy links against my better judgment.
Well then, continue to listen only to those biased and opinion based, leftist links you've been posting lately from digital slop buckets like Salon and remain ignorant of what they won't tell you. Call that clean, if you like. I call it ignorant.
Or you could do what I and others do and read both sides of an issue then look for the more rational, and better supported argument.
$1:
But of course someone founded and led Islamic conquest of the Arabian peninsula and beyond, and we know from the writings of other peoples that this leader went by the name of Mohammad.
Actually no. Mohammed conquered a section of the Arabian peninsula, but when you talk about "beyond" you're talking about the later Caliphs.

Now as to the controversy. There's a video below from Bill Warner PHD.
You don't need to watch the whole thing. If one starts at about the 17:15 mark Dr. Warner answers the question :
"Is there any archeological evidence that answers the question that corroborates early Islam as per the Surah?"I'll give you a spoiler and tell you,
"not so much". In fact, more exactly the answer is "No".
But this is why this current finding, half-assed explained by the BBC matters. If this Koran turns out to be the real deal that answer will have to change.
The next question to Dr. Warner is also interesting. Somebody states: "
We are told that the Koran is the perfect word of God and has no variation and is therefore not corrupt."
Apparently there are already Korans with variations, but if these new pages turn out to belong to an actual Koran, and have variation with the current accepted texts, it will add to the evidence.