Quranic composition and modern scholarship

[Fernando]

And have no doubt, it was indeed composed.
I've just today come across a discussion on the CEMB forum, It's 13pp long and after the reading the first page I'm reeling. (No jinn needed!)
It covers the development of the Koran from its Jewish and Christian origins, its multiple authors, its position in the forming of the Arab Empire and its languages.
Much of the stuff is new to me mentioning authors since Luxenberg, Puin and Crone et al. There are probably enough leads for a month of study although much of it is over my head. It's perhaps best summarised by poster "shaytanshoes" towards the end of the first page

In a nutshell, the Qur'anic base was actually commentary in a North Arabic dialect mixed with Syriac liturgy aimed at introducing Judaic/Christian teachings to Levantine Arabs circa 600 AD, maybe preached by an apocalyptic prophet named Muhammad who died before the conquest of Palestine.

The Umayyads then consolidated control over competing tribes by codifying the religion, the Qur'an and Islamic teachings by taking these disparate texts and Zubayr's Mecca-focused ideology as their own, although that process wasn't complete until the mid 700's. Unfortunately they didn't have the historical, cultural or linguistic context to make sense of the original rasm text. The text may have remained fairly static but the society around it had changed radically.

Is that the correct idiot's guide version of it? Smiley

There are so many new critical studies looking at the Qur'an from linguistic, historical and cultural points of view that I think we're in a kind of golden age for skepticism. I find it weird that most Western non-Muslim scholars are still afraid of digging in with sharp knives into the carcass of the Qur'an... Are they scared of being physically harmed by fanatics or having their funding cut by Islamophobia-phobic administrators?

Not surprisingly, another poster answers that last question with a YES.
I'm left wondering whether i still have the capacity to sit down and make notes as if I were still at university - I certainly can't take in so much new stuff at one sitting. Unfortunately, it reads as though the books derived from the new scholarship are few and far between and very expensive. One wag suggests that that's to keep them out of the hand of fanatics. (lthough IS would probably burn the fanatics along with the books if they caught them with them!)
http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=27568.0

[manfred]

I am sure we also have thread involving the syriac reading of the qur'an, I think there is also something in the resource centre.

[Eagle]

Lame. And old. Srely you will find an educative answer to that silliness somewhere down in this forum. If not, here again;

Some polemicists have tried claiming that the Quran was heavily influenced linguistically by Syriac (syro-aramaic), mixing it with pre-islamic Arabic, which brought about what is now referred to as classical Arabic. The obvious implication of the claim being that the Quran is either a heresy produced by Syriac speaking Christians or that the Arabs were very influenced by them during the process of writing it. Archeology on the other hand has shown that classical Arabic pre-dates Islam by several centuries to the least (according to the current discoveries), with a grammar and language closer to modern Arabic than the language of Shakespeare is to modern English. As to Syriac orthography and grammar, it was still defective after the advent of Islam. The Arameans (Syriac speaking people) themselves were not able to read and write their own language correctly due to the reluctance to modify the imperfect Syriac script of Christian scriptures that didnt possess vowels. The correct reading depended on learning the proper traditional enunciation, if not, the reader simply had to make wild guesses. As to the early stages of Syriac grammar and its developement, not much is known other than through the writings of later writers who composed at a time when the Syriac tradition had undergone the influence of Arabic grammar, which had taken over most of the conceptual and terminological apparatus of that tradition. As to Syriac lexicography, the attempts to document it initiated in the 9th century, but was still a confused and incomplete work until the 10th century Syriac-Arabic lexicon of Bar Bahlul, with both Syriac and Arabic used for the explanation of a word. Arabs on the other hand already had a well articulated and detailed dictionary 2 centuries earlier. It was kitab al-ayn from al-Farahidi and up to this day, most lexicographical efforts in Arabic have been based on his work. This is not to mention all the other lexicographical activity among the Arabs even before Bar Bahlul.

Dismissing what Arabic sources have to say about the Arabs' own history, as every single such similar negationist and revisionist sillliness often parroted by the lowly forum dwellers herein, their language, as well as their religion, for the sake of non-Islamic sources and speculative opinions, these people who levelled the claim went as far as saying that the Arabic script had no notion of vowels till the late 8th century, and neither was there a written form of Arabic during the advent of Islam. It is argued that the language of writing was either Hebrew or syro-aramaic/Syriac. With more preference towards the Syriac origin of the Arabic script, some have taken the assumption further and argued for the Aramaic origin of the Meccan settlement, with its inhabitants originally speaking a kind of syro-arabic that eventually fell into oblivion with, conveniently of course, no trace attesting to its existence to be found anywhere today. These empty speculations however are easily dismissed in light of pre and early post-islamic inscriptions available providing ample evidence of a well articulated Arabic alphabet, with most letterforms not having changed at all, or very little, since the time these inscriptions are dated to. There is Arabic papyrus dated to a few years after the prophet's death (22AH), from Egypt, attesting to a well developed written language, thus making it impossible for a supposedly rare and primitive written language at the time of Muhammad to have spread to Egypt in such a short time and be used practically there. Arabic as a language wasnt confined to southern Arabia but was spread throughout the middle east as seen from inscriptions pre-dating Islam going as far north as Zebed in the heart of the Syriac speaking region. On the other hand, the pre-Islamic Syriac inscriptions are confined to the Edessa region in modern south Turkey, a long way from the hijaz let alone Mecca. South of Damascus, pre-Islamic Syriac inscriptions are almost non-existent, except those written by travellers or pilgrims. The closest to the pre-Islamic Arabic inscriptions in terms of geography are the Nabataean inscriptions. Nabataeans were Arabs who spoke a non-Aramaic north Arabic dialect akin to the Classical Arabic. Their script was Nabataean-Aramaic (nothing to do with syro-aramaic) but expressed their Arabic language. As seen from a 3rd century inscription, their language included Aramaic archaisms. Like the Nabataean Arabic dialect to the north of Arabia, in the Hijaz where Aramaic had also been very influencial as early as the 5th/4th centuries BCE, the hijazi dialect of Arabic too adopted some Aramaic words, but that of course does not make it a mixed language. The Nabataean origin of the Arabic script is now almost universally accepted.

In the Syriac alphabet, only two characters possess diacritical dots whereas the Arabic alphabet contains a total of fifteen dotted characters, which further stresses the untenability of Arabs borrowing their dots from Syriac, not to mention the fact that we have pre and early post-Islamic (pre-dating Uthman's Quran) evidence of the usage of diacritical dots. In fact 10 out of the 15 were already fixed in those early times. As to the vowel markings, one of the shallow evidence offered by those claiming Arabs borrowed them from Syriac is the similarity in the name and sound of a vowel in Syriac and Arabic, namely the fatha called phtaha in Syriac, which in fact didnt enter the Syrian phraseology until around the middle of the 9th century. Also, where are the corresponding appellations in Syriac for damma and kasra of the Arabic vowel system?
Vowel markings, as well as their names (fatha, damma, etc) were invented by Abu al-Aswad al-Duali, in the late 7th century. He had derived grammar from one of the 1st converts to Islam, the cousin and son-in-law of the prophet, Ali ibn Abi Talib. What prompted him to do so was the rapid spread of Islam to regions and people who had to read the non-vowelized Quranic script while they hadnt had a demonstration of the proper recital by a memorizer.

The other argument proposed is that the sabaat ahruf/seven readings of the Quran correspond to the seven vowel signs of Syriac. Firstly, the recitation of a book in 7 different modes has nothing to do with the 7 vowels of Syriac. Also, the ahadith concerning the 7 Quranic readings were already in circulation before the end of the 7th century and Jacob of Edessa who is accredited with creating the 7 vowel marks of Syriac died at the beginning of the 8th century. This system didnt even gain currency in Syria. How did a rejected vowel scheme in Syria itself, in Jacob's time, modify the language of the Arabs and their recitation of the Quran?

[manfred]

These two clips are a short introduction to the qritings of Luxenberg and others





And eagle it's not a "polemic" it is STUDY. Your reply could be called a polemic.

[skynightblaze]

In a nutshell, the Qur'anic base was actually commentary in a North Arabic dialect mixed with Syriac liturgy aimed at introducing Judaic/Christian teachings to Levantine Arabs circa 600 AD, maybe preached by an apocalyptic prophet named Muhammad who died before the conquest of Palestine.

@Fernando

I really wonder if these are fancy theories disguised as scholarship. I know people would say that people have done research on this and then come up with their findings so how can I challenge them without doing dedicated research?. The question is genuine and Its very much possible that based on my limited reading, I could be the one who is wrong but I have a few basic questions that a layman has. Its a fact that no one before Doctrina Jacobi (writing around 634 AD) mentions muhammad so its quite obvious Muhammad was not a popular figure. Why in the world would someone hijack a unpopular prophet and extend his teachings to form a new religion? How would that benefit anyone? If Muhammad was a popular figure, it would then make sense to use his name.

Further ,are we to believe that not a single person came to know of this forgery? Not a single non muslim author documents anything of forgery. Is it practically possible to invent a new figure head muhammad and under his name pass off whatever teachings you wish to have in the book without anyone knowing it? Just imagine yourself doing the same thing today and you will immediately see the problems that I am talking about.

According the person ShaytanShoes Ummayads hijacked muhammad's teachings to form a new religion.There is one more problem with this claim. Ummayad dynasty started ruling from 661 AD onwards. So, if muhammad was not a popular figure and just a man who taught christian judaic values why are non muslim writers (writing before 661 Ad) portraying him as someone raiding villages with his army, burning churches etc? There is a link by Hoyland which has all the quotes of non muslim writers.

I have interacted with Patricia Crone and she clearly told me in the email that she does not favor the fabrication idea. Here is what she wrote to me in an email

.you might read the short article called "what do we actually know about Muhammad?" that I published in Open Democracy on the web around ten years ago. (John of Damascus was excluded as too late). And I NEVER talked about fabrication! On the contrary, I've written against the fabrication idea many times.

Further she writes..

Academics disagree, I don’t represent the consensus.

If there is disagreement among people who have spent dedicated time for decades doing research in this field its quite possible that a particular author is wrong even after spending years of doing research.

[skynightblaze]

@Fernando

The theory that ummayad's simply hijacked christian judaic prophet i.e. muhammad and inserted their own teachings is demonstrably false..

Spoiler! :

Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem (d. ca. 639)

[In a synodical letter without date, Sophronius gives an extensive list of heretics and asks, in the valedictions, that the following may be granted by God to "our Christ-loving and most gentle emperors":]

a strong and vigorous sceptre to break the pride of all the barbarians, and especially of the Saracens who, on account of our sins, have now risen up against us unexpectedly and ravage all with cruel and feral design, with impious and godless audacity. More than ever, therefore, we entreat your Holiness to make urgent petitions to Christ so that he, receiving these favourably from you, may quickly quell their mad insolence and deliver these vile creatures, as before, to be the footstool of our God-given emperors. (Ep. synodica, PG 87, 3197D-3200A [p. 69])

[The following comments are dated to December of 634.]

We, however, because of our innumerable sins and serious misdemeanours, are unable to see these things, and are prevented from entering Bethlehem by way of the road. Unwillingly, indeed, contrary to our wishes, we are required to stay at home, not bound closely by bodily bonds, but bound by fear of the Saracens. (Christmas Sermon, 506 [p. 70])

At once that of the Philistines, so now the army of the godless Saracens has captured the divine Bethlehem and bars our passage there, threatening slaughter and destruction if we leave this holy city and dare to approach our beloved and sacred Bethlehem. (Christmas Sermon, 507 [p. 70])

If we were to live as is dear and pleasing to God, we would rejoice over the fall of the Saracen enemy and observe their near ruin and witness their final demise. For their blood-loving blade will enter their hearts, their bow will be broken and their arrows will be fixed in them. (Christmas Sermon, 515 [p. 71])

[This dates to the 6th of December in 636 or 637.]

But the present circumstances are forcing me to think differently about our way of life, for why are [so many] wars being fought among us? Why do barbarian raids abound? Why are the troops of the Saracens attacking us? Why has there been so much destruction and plunder? Why are there incessant outpourings of human blood? Why are the birds of the sky devouring human bodies? Why have churches been pulled down?[Why is the cross mocked?/color] Why is Christ, who is the dispenser of all good things and the provider of this joyousness of ours, blasphemed by pagan mouths (ethnikois tois stomasi) so that he justly cries out to us: "Because of you my name is blasphemed among the pagans," and this is the worst of all the terrible things that are happening to us. That is why the vengeful and God-hating Saracens, the abomination of desolation clearly foretold to us by the prophets,[color=#FF0040] overrun the places which are not allowed to them, plunder cities, devastate fields, burn down villages, set on fire the holy churches, overturn the sacred monasteries, oppose the Byzantine armies arrayed against them, and in fighting raise up the trophies [of war] and add victory to victory. Moreover, they are raised up more and more against us and increase their blasphemy of Christ and the church, and utter wicked blasphemies against God. Those God-fighters boast of prevailing over all, assiduously and unrestrainably imitating their leader, who is the devil, and emulating his vanity because of which he has been expelled from heaven and been assigned to the gloomy shades. Yet these vile ones would not have accomplished this nor seized such a degree of power as to do and utter lawlessly all these things, unless we had first insulted the gift [of baptism] and first defiled the purification, and in this way grieved Christ, the giver of gifts, and prompted him to be angry with us, good though he is and though he takes no pleasure in evil, being the fount of kindness and not wishing to behold the ruin and destruction of men. We are ourselves, in truth, responsible for all these things and no word will be found for our defence. What word or place will be given us for our defence when we have taken all these gifts from him, befouled them and defiled everything with our vile actions? (Holy Baptism, 166-167 [pp. 72-73])

[In a work originally composed by John Moschus (d. 619), but expanded by Sophronius (d. ca. 639), actually found only in an addition of the Georgian translation, the following entry appears, concerning a construction dated by tradition at 638, i.e., soon after the capture of Jerusalem ca. 637. It appears in a portion concerning Sophronius as recounted on the authority of his contemporary, the archdeacon Theodore, and may have been written down ca. 670.]

the godless Saracens entered the holy city of Christ our Lord, Jerusalem, with the permission of God and in punishment for our negligence, which is considerable, and immediately proceeded in haste to the place which is called the Capitol. They took with them men, some by force, others by their own will, in order to clean that place and to build that cursed thing, intended for their prayer and which they call a mosque (midzgitha). (Pratum spirituale, 100-102 [p. 63])

http://www.christianorigins.com/islamrefs.html

If you just expand the spoiler and see the portions that I have marked as red , you will see that writings as early as 636 ad clearly say that churches were burned down, cross was mocked, saracens building mosque (Its obviously refering to muslims). If islam was started as judeo christian idealogy before the advent of Ummayads why would its followers be so anti christian?

[Fernando]

I was only qhoting Shaytanshoes to give a flavour of the discussion. Ive read a couple more pages now and there's far too much source material linked to get through in under a month, already. They were compiling a list of references, which might be ready now. IIRC there's mention of John of Damascus but I can't recall what their take was. In general, though, I think the mood is that the Koran evolved gradually rather than was forged at a later date like the hadiths. In a way, it still fits in with the idea that we have the Koran as it is because such a book was needed by the growing Empire to justify itself. It's easier to envisage such an embryo book being tarted up to suit the new requirement than one - especially one so incoherent - being knocked up from scratch at an imperial command.
Whatever the truth, earlier than Mo or later, I'm left puzzled by the division into Meccan and Medinan suras. I gather that it''s only Muslim sources that make this classification, along with with the disgracefully convenient timing of the "revelations". Why would Muslims deliberately portray Mohammed in such a bad light? It's easy to invent a story and add it in retrospectively (I forget the correct term) but why such a damning one?
However, I shall plod on - all may be revealed!

[skynightblaze]

I was only qhoting Shaytanshoes to give a flavour of the discussion. Ive read a couple more pages now and there's far too much source material linked to get through in under a month, already. They were compiling a list of references, which might be ready now. IIRC there's mention of John of Damascus but I can't recall what their take was.

Well I don't like their forum and I don't bother about their beliefs but as they say focus on the message and not the messenger, I am ok to discuss with you on the links that they have shared purely out of academic interests. Now I am not denying that there quran and ahadith contain fictitious stuff. All I want to say is - the idea that it has nothing to do with traditional muhammad that we know is simply an exaggerated one. It mostly does not make sense especially when one reads so many non muslim sources repeating many of the things found in islamic literature as they are. One would have to pay deaf ear to all those sources. Anyone who reads John of Damascus cannot possibly say that islam is fabricated in entirety. Those who make such claims need to explain why John of Damascus is repeating many things that are found in sira and ahadith. One might argue that John of Damascus wrote late (around 730 Ad) and must have referred to islamic sources. That cannot be true because atleast sira and ahadith were not YET written during the time of John of Damascus. Even if he had access to quran, he certainly does not confirm with quran 100% which means he was not copy pasting directly from quran.

In general, though, I think the mood is that the Koran evolved gradually rather than was forged at a later date like the hadiths. In a way, it still fits in with the idea that we have the Koran as it is because such a book was needed by the growing Empire to justify itself. It's easier to envisage such an embryo book being tarted up to suit the new requirement than one - especially one so incoherent - being knocked up from scratch at an imperial command.

A simple explanation for this is - Muhammad was a cult leader who invented islam for himself and benefit of other muslims. Muslims did not collect quran properly and hence the quran was compiled and modified over a period of time. A few verses might have been added by muslim rulers as they saw fit. E.g night journey of muhammad to a mosque that did not exist during his time.

Now what you said can also be a possibility but then I wonder why these people who compiled quran included verses in the quran that benefit muhammad alone E.g there is a verse (33:50) that says muhammad can marry any believing woman if she is ready to offer herself to him. Then there is verse which tells us that people should leave Muhammad's house after a meal at muhammad's place and not annoy him. Then we also have satanic verses which actually shed doubt on muhammad's truthfulness. Why would a growing empire which wanted to fabricate the scripture for themselves include such verses in the quran? Similarly there are quotes in ahadith too.

I still find it hard to believe that the fabrication took place at such a massive scale and yet no one knew about it. Quran was spreading across countries like Syria, Iraq etc and its practically not possible to hide such a thing when you are spreading the word at the country level. Someone one would know that muhammad was a local christian-judaic prophet who was hijacked later by ummayads and would definitely make a mention of this.

Whatever the truth, earlier than Mo or later, I'm left puzzled by the division into Meccan and Medinan suras. I gather that it''s only Muslim sources that make this classification, along with with the disgracefully convenient timing of the "revelations". Why would Muslims deliberately portray Mohammed in such a bad light? It's easy to invent a story and add it in retrospectively (I forget the correct term) but why such a damning one?
However, I shall plod on - all may be revealed!

I think this argument can be used both ways. Someone who defends fabrication theory would say that inventors of islam were criminals and they wanted to justify their acts and hence they simply said Muhammad did so and so as to back what they wanted to do. On the other hand, someone who opposes fabrication theory can claim islam is a cult centered around muhammad and muslims after him simply did their best to tell what he did and what he did not i.e they could be honest confessions.

I go with possibility 2 because I see the non muslim sources saying the same things about muhammad.

[skynightblaze]

I would like to mention one more point here. We have concept of abrogation in the quran. If someone wanted to fabricate the book as per their liking why would they keep abrogated verses in the quran? They could have simply removed the abrogated verses and replaced it with the new ones. A fabricator would surely know that internal contradictions would expose them as frauds. However, if someone really attempted to document what muhammad said and did , he/she would definitely include everything under the sun that muhammad said and did instead of trying to save face by avoiding the abrogated content. To the believers everything is genuine because they have sacrificed logic for faith. Even the abrogated content is from God and it does not matter if it makes sense or not. Anyway there is a hadith regarding the same..


Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 53:
Narrated Ibn Az-Zubair:
I said to 'Uthman bin 'Affan (while he was collecting the Qur'an) regarding the Verse:-- "Those of you who die and leave wives ..." (2.240) "This Verse was abrogated by another Verse. So why should you write it? (Or leave it in the Qur'an)?" 'Uthman said. "O son of my brother! I will not shift anything of it from its place.

[Fernando]

I appreciate your arguments and would not begin to attempt to answer them because I can only get a flavour of the CEMB guys' approach. They keep (well, kept - Im still only half way through) bringing up additional papers and books which I cannot possibly ly keep up with. However the stuff they cite seems to be largely by qualified academics. as some of them themselves appear to be. So I fancy that they've at least looked at the sort of objections you raise.
Something I'd like to see is a short publication putting all these differing but related anti-traditionalist approaches together in an accessible style - not too technical but no circling round the arguments.
I must say that their approach appeals to me because arguments claiming that the origins of the Koran and Islam are not as claimed seem to be the best way of getting the majority of Muslims off the hook their leaders have placed them on. Without a literal word of god and with an idol that is vague and woolly - or even transparent or non-existant - Muslims might be more inclined to see through the facade than if they're driven into defending a marauding mediaeval monster as someone still worth emulating.
Just my two penn'orth.

[skynightblaze]

However the stuff they cite seems to be largely by qualified academics. as some of them themselves appear to be. So I fancy that they've at least looked at the sort of objections you raise.

I would be glad if I can see the response of academics to my arguments. Atleast I could not see anyone answering these objections. I see David Wood raising some of the same objections with his debate with Spencer and Spencer could not answer them. Now Wansbrough, Cook, Crone too were considered academicians but they were criticized heavily by other academicians or even rejected. Academicians do not have consensus on this so the tag of academician does not necessarily mean they are right. As far as CEMB site is concerned, I don't think their posters are academicians but as I said previously, you can be an ordinary man and yet be right and hence I don't value tags.

[Ibn Rushd]

They were criticized because they did not rely exclusively on the Islamic texts, and used methods that are used in Biblical studies. In the case of Wansbrough, it's not so much they rejected him, as they couldn't understand what the hell he was saying. He wrote in a confusing style, and no one is really sure of what he was trying to say. Perhaps he did it to hide his true intentions as he knew that he would receive death threats. In the end he was the subject of a fatwa over the 2 books. He never wrote again after the Res Ipsa Loquitor lecture about Islamic origins.

As for Crone, she said her Hagarism was a mental exercise, trying to see if there was an alternative way of looking at Islam besides its own hagiography. The academic response is like the Islamic response to critical studies: they were enemies of Islam and we all know they lie.

The resistance to using the non-Islamic sources also stems from the ignorance of Western Europeans and Americans about the Oriental churches. The Christians and Jews who wrote these texts are unrecognizable to Catholics, Protestants, Evangelicals, and Ashkenazic Jews. The theology is informed by Babylonian and Persian motifs that date back to Gilgamesh. Likewise the tradition of ascribing quotes to some authority figure in the past was common in the Near East (eg. many incarnations of Josephus in Christianity and Judaism as a mouthpiece for the orthodox view), while not in France, Italy or England. One of the key tenets of "Nestorian" Christianity was that Jesus' soul put on clothes (ie. a body), then took off those clothes before the crucifixion, remaining unharmed. Thus his earthly body was killed, not Jesus himself. Could this be the idea behind the Qur'anic Jesus not being crucified? Probably.

Another trope that may help to explain the Qur'an, is that the Mary in John 20 who say Jesus in the Garden, is not Mary Magdalene in the Syriac gospels or Syriac theology, but the Virgin Mary. Also the grammar in Semitic languages for holy spirit is feminine, while in Greek it is neuter. Syriac bishops were quite embarrassed by this, so they changed it to a masculine form, which meant that it no longer matched the proper orthography or grammar, but matched theological ideas. This could illumine the Qur'anic view of Mary as holy spirit, although Islam views Archangel Gabriel as the holy spirit.

[skynightblaze]

I would like to make one more point. Consider the following narrations..

(Sahih al-Bukhari: vol. 6, bk. 61, no. 527)
Narrated Ibn Abbas: Umar said, "Ubayy was the best of us in the recitation (of the Qur'an) yet we leave (out) some of what he recites". Ubayy says, "I have taken it from the mouth of Allah's Apostle and will not leave for anything whatever". ... .

(Sahih Muslim: bk. 5, no. 2286)
We used to recite a surah which resembled in length and severity to (Surah) Bara’at (surah 9). I have, however, forgotten it with the exception of this which I remember out of it: “If there were two valleys full of riches, for the son of Adam, he would long for a third valley, and nothing would fill the stomach of the son of Adam but dust” ...

The above narrations clearly indicate that the Qur'an as we have it today does not contain some parts which have gone missing very early on,and hence not from God.. Would any fabricator write that his/her work contains missing portions from what was originally revealed to Muhammad? Would any fabricator make a mention of variant readings if they wanted to promote the quran that we have today ? Ofcourse not! Only a person who is genuinely interested in documenting islamic history would write such things.

Sanaa manuscripts confirm that there were indeed non uthmanic qurans in existence at a certain point of time. Islamic history has recorded about variant readings. This should tell anyone that its not completely false because variant readings are a FACT.

[Fernando]

I think we may have got our wires a bit crossed here. Certainly it's been said that theKoran was produced to justify or bolster an Arabian empire. The idea quite appealed to me but I never saw any suggestion as to how it might have been done. I think these CEMB people - or rather the ones they are citing - are arguing that there was a gradual transformation from a christian/Jewish commentary to a Muslim scripture - hastened at times for expediency's sake. A bit like Mo's convenient revelations, in fact! I recall one commenter remarking the the longer suras got the most attention for instance, leaving the shorter ones lowards the end in nearer their original state.
So there are three possible strands. all leading to the Koran we have today:
Allah did it
A later Calph did it
Like Topsy, it just growed - but with quite a bit of help
We can rule out Allah
A gang of scribbling authors in the Caliph's scriptorium seems unlikely to have written it from scratch.
Topsy is entirely possible, it's the way things were done in the past.
My own guess is Topsy with help from the scriptorium.
But I must stress that that's on a very shallow reading of comments about books and papers I haven't read. The books I have read don't offer enough detail. There is an urgent need for a good summary of the subject. Preferably at a level that will deal with objections like yours without drowning the reader in technicaities.

[manfred]

For Fernando:
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=16479

[skynightblaze]

They were criticized because they did not rely exclusively on the Islamic texts, and used methods that are used in Biblical studies.

I remember reading somewhere Wansbrough criticizing it. I don't think he was criticizing it for discarding islamic sources. Let me find the link. Now relying on islamic texts would be circular reasoning. However this does not mean that islamic sources cannot tell us the truth. It is just that when someone is under trial, their own testimony needs to be verified through other sources.

As for Crone, she said her Hagarism was a mental exercise, trying to see if there was an alternative way of looking at Islam besides its own hagiography. The academic response is like the Islamic response to critical studies: they were enemies of Islam and we all know they lie.

Here is an interesting review on amazon. I tried finding this review on other sites and many sites are quoting this but I really doubt if Patricia Crone or some person called Neuwirth actually have written this. What are your thoughts on the following? Has someone fabricated this?

About Crone: "She [Crone] was even more candid in repudiating the central thesis of the book. She agrees with the critics that the book was "a graduate essay." The book was published in 1977 when the authors lived in England. "We were young, and we did not know anything. The book was just a hypothesis, not a conclusive finding," said Crone. "I do no think that the book's thesis is valid."" [...]Crone recently acknowledged we know more about Muhammad than about Jesus and that: "...we can be reasonably sure that the Qur'an is a collection of utterances that he [Muhammad] made in the belief that they had been revealed to him by God. The book may not preserve all the messages he claimed to have received, and he is not responsible for the arrangement in which we have them. They were collected after his death - how long after is controversial. But that he uttered all or most of them is difficult to doubt."

Recent archaeological discoveries have AFFIRMED rather than called into question the traditional Islamic accounts. Neuwirth acknowledges:

“As a whole, however, the theories of the so-called sceptic or revisionist scholars … have by now been discarded … New findings of qur’anic fragments, moreover, can be adduced to affirm rather than call into question the traditional picture of the Qur’an as an early fixed text composed of the suras we have. Nor have scholars trying to deconstruct that image through linguistic arguments succeeded in seriously discrediting the genuiness of the Qur’an as we know it …

http://www.amazon.com/Hagarism-The-Maki ... 0521297540

The resistance to using the non-Islamic sources also stems from the ignorance of Western Europeans and Americans about the Oriental churches. The Christians and Jews who wrote these texts are unrecognizable to Catholics, Protestants, Evangelicals, and Ashkenazic Jews.The theology is informed by Babylonian and Persian motifs that date back to Gilgamesh. Likewise the tradition of ascribing quotes to some authority figure in the past was common in the Near East (eg. many incarnations of Josephus in Christianity and Judaism as a mouthpiece for the orthodox view), while not in France, Italy or England.

I did not get you here but I can guess. Are you saying that academicians are deliberately ignoring these non muslim historians? If your answer is yes then there is a problem. The problem is that it is NOT just 1 non muslim source that speaks about muhammad. Right from Doctrina Jacobi to John of Damascus no one speaks positively about Muhammad. They are consistent in that regard. I am considering quotes only to John of Damascus because they have something in common i.e. they were written before any ahadith or Sira was composed.If you open up any source, they all describe muhammad and his army as someone who raided villages, abducted women and raped them in front of their husbands ( Refer Coptic Apocalypse of Pseudo-Shenute (644?) from the link that I gave previously), burned churches and enslaved people.

Is it a mere coincidence that whatever these non muslims wrote before Sira and ahadith came into existence made its way as it is later in the Sira and ahadith ? One or two sources can be biased and may be attributing false quotes to some authority figure but how come all? If this is the case then these academicians are going to any extent to prove their case. They are not just accusing muslims of supporting lies but even the non muslims are also declared as liars.

[skynightblaze]

I think these CEMB people - or rather the ones they are citing - are arguing that there was a gradual transformation from a christian/Jewish commentary to a Muslim scripture - hastened at times for expediency's sake

I will reply in detail later but just one question for them . Do majority of muslims support liars? I can assure you they will come up with arguments like you bigot.blah blah.... Now let us ask them the same question in this context. Were majority of muslims during Ummayad and Abbasid dynasty ( from 661 Ad to 900 ad where the alleged fabrication took place) supporting liars? Those who support these theories are actually confirming that majority of muslims (excluding a few minorities like Mu'tazilites and a few others) supported fabricators/liars and that too for couple of centuries.

[skynightblaze]

I think we may have got our wires a bit crossed here. Certainly it's been said that theKoran was produced to justify or bolster an Arabian empire. The idea quite appealed to me but I never saw any suggestion as to how it might have been done. I think these CEMB people - or rather the ones they are citing - are arguing that there was a gradual transformation from a christian/Jewish commentary to a Muslim scripture - hastened at times for expediency's sake.

Consider 9:29. Its radically against christians and jews for their BELIEFS. So it's quite clear that the people who wrote 9:29 hated jews and christians and also their beliefs. If this is the work of fabricators then why would they keep the jewish and christian bits in the quran intact? Wouldn't they just remove those bits if they hated it so much?

A bit like Mo's convenient revelations, in fact! I recall one commenter remarking the the longer suras got the most attention for instance, leaving the shorter ones lowards the end in nearer their original state.

Would this really be a criteria for a fabricator? Lengthy ones first?? Come on ! Length would be the last thing on earth he/she would worry. A fabricator fabricates things for serving his purposes. So the first things he would take up is convenient rulings which serve his purpose. Short or lengthy would really not matter.

So there are three possible strands. all leading to the Koran we have today:
Allah did it
A later Calph did it
Like Topsy, it just growed - but with quite a bit of help
We can rule out Allah
A gang of scribbling authors in the Caliph's scriptorium seems unlikely to have written it from scratch.
Topsy is entirely possible, it's the way things were done in the past.
My own guess is Topsy with help from the scriptorium.

Its certainly not Allah but I don't think any single person wrote the current day quran. It has been a work of multiple people belonging to different times.

[Fernando]

So there are three possible strands. all leading to the Koran we have today:
Allah did it
A later Calph did it
Like Topsy, it just growed - but with quite a bit of help
We can rule out Allah
A gang of scribbling authors in the Caliph's scriptorium seems unlikely to have written it from scratch.
Topsy is entirely possible, it's the way things were done in the past.
My own guess is Topsy with help from the scriptorium.

Its certainly not Allah but I don't think any single person wrote the current day quran. It has been a work of multiple people belonging to different times.

Ah, so we did get our wires crossed: I quite agree with you! Its just a question of which people and when...
A couple of points from your earlier posts:
Angelika Neuwirth is, AFAIK, in charge of the Corpus Coranicum project in Germany, which is based on Puin's (I think) photographs of the Sanaa Koran dump. She seems to be of the opposite school to those who now think it had a long slow maturation from before Islamic times.
As for dishing the dirt on Mo, one of the CEMB posters or links used an expression something like "evidence by embarrassment" to mean the deliberate seeding of a ms with unfavourable accounts to make it sound more authentic. Oh, the irony, if Muslims are behaving like savages because somebody wanted to make their sweet charming boss-man look convincingly nasty!
EDIT to add:
I don't recall Crone backing off as far as that - and Amazon reviews are often very partial. It's pretty certain that there was a fabricated retraction going around, I think by someone claiming to have had it from her on the phone.
I keep meaning to check this subject on wikiislam, a source I've carelessly ignored, but I'm still wading through that single CEMB thread - qnd slowly at that.

[skynightblaze]

I think we agree that quran was composed over a long time by ordinary men however I only split from this thought where it says that muhammad had nothing to do with the quran and it was written from scratch by men who wanted to invent a religion. What I think is muhammad uttered many of the sayings in the quran however it was not collected properly and organized after his death. People who collected quran after muhammad messed it up. These people genuinely tried to recollect from their memory (with the exception of opportunists who might have falsely testified to verses in quran) to their best possible ability. This would explain as to why they would keep abrogated verses in the quran intact because to a cult follower logic is irrelevant and cult follower would try best to include all things their leader said and did.

As for dishing the dirt on Mo, one of the CEMB posters or links used an expression something like "evidence by embarrassment" to mean the deliberate seeding of a ms with unfavourable accounts to make it sound more authentic. Oh, the irony, if Muslims are behaving like savages because somebody wanted to make their sweet charming boss-man look convincingly nasty!

They are forgetting that non muslim sources also make look Muhammad bad. Why would they do it? I am talking of non muslim sources writing before any muslim source was official recognized ( sira and ahadith did not even exist and quran (as a document or main book) was unknown even by time of john of damascus). We have muslim + non muslim sources speaking nasty things about muhammad. I guess the bias if any is eliminated when people with different interests write the same thing. It means the things actually happened. The next question I want to ask is- what would be fire sure way to determine that Muhammad of islam was indeed a nasty character if muslim + non muslim sources are not sufficient? The arguments of these type can be raised against any historical figure despite the consistency of reports from people with different interest.

Anyway thanks for giving inputs on Crone and Neuwirth.