How many people wrote the Qur'an?

[firedragon]

In Sunni tradition, it is believed that the first caliph Abu Bakr ordered Zayd ibn Thabit to compile the written Quran, relying upon both textual fragments and the memories of those who had memorized it during Muhammad's lifetime, with the rasm (undotted Arabic text) being officially canonized under the third caliph .

Have you read any atheist scholarship on this? Just curious.

 

[England my lionheart]

I didn't. talk about scholars. I spoke of scholarship.

George did whom I was replying,who got a scholarship that knows a god?.

Anyway, dismissing scholars and/or scholarship and making a guessing game like you so far did is absurd. So thanks for engaging. This is not going an inch further.

Cheers.

I prefer imperial measurements to metric so kudos for that,thanks too for not being able to answer.

 

[firedragon]

George did whom I was replying,who got a scholarship that knows a god?.


I prefer imperial measurements to metric so kudos for that,thanks too for not being able to answer.

Cheers.

 

[England my lionheart]

Cheers.

All good,I wasn’t expecting more.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I prefer imperial measurements..

The 'good old days' when white Englishmen ruled the world? Pfft!

 

[England my lionheart]

The 'good old days' when white Englishmen ruled the world? Pfft!

I’m curious,how did you formulate measurement conversion into a racist slur?,I actually wasn’t expecting that but I’m not shocked.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I’m curious..

You prefer "imperial" (British Empire)

 

[England my lionheart]

You prefer "imperial" (British Empire)

It’s a measurement that was taught as an architect before decimalisation,I can do both though but never thought that yards feet and inches or fractions were about empire lol.

 

[firedragon]

All good,I wasn’t expecting more.

Nice. Very good.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

As a non-muslim or a Muslim what ever you are, since I have been hearing a claim I ask this question. How many people do you think wrote the Qur'an and what's your reasoning or evidence behind it? How have you established it with what kind of scholarship?

Thanks.

If you want to look at it purely from scholarship view, without considering beliefs, It is hard to prove with absolute certainty how many authors wrote it.

According to historical narratives, and assuming that history is accurate, some people had memorized different Surrahs or Parts of the Qur'an, and had written them down, and kept it.
There are scholars that say, the reason that they had written them, was not that, they were planning to compile them into one Book. But they had written them, to assist them to remember for themselves.
How accurately it was written, we cannot be sure, as seal of Muhammad was not on them for authentication.

Once Muhammad passed away, it is said, that Umar and a group of other Muslims, collected the Surrahs from different people and compiled them. There, they ended of having 14 different versions of the Quran, with some differences.
We don't know for sure how different they were.
Umar ordered to keep one, and burn the other 13. We don't know how different the other 13 were.
Now, depends on what you mean by Author.
Based on beliefs, only Muhammad had said the verses, and thus He would be the one Author.
Is it possible that, some of the verses or Surrahs were added by others? It is hard to know with absolute certainty.

 

[danieldemol]

As a non-muslim or a Muslim what ever you are, since I have been hearing a claim I ask this question. How many people do you think wrote the Qur'an and what's your reasoning or evidence behind it? How have you established it with what kind of scholarship?

Thanks.

To me that is unknown, I know Dr Shoemaker provides evidence suggestive of a latter composure in the imperial court of Al-Hajaj, but in our discussion from about post#162 onwards here

The decline of traditional religion in the West

I read through the first 121 pages of 435 of "Creating the Quran" by Dr. Stephen Shoemaker, it is pretty solid on evidence so far. What evidence does it give to prove that the Qur'an post dates Muhammed, and why do you accept it? You asked whether I believed Muhammad said it, answering no and...

www.religiousforums.com

I recall you suggesting that the "Maail" and "Gain" of the script prove it was from an earlier production, but I asked about them at https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicQuran/s/LC5yj5RkFR
And no one seemed able to explain or verify your claim, so until I can find updated knowledgeable information about these terms it remains unknown to me.

 

[firedragon]

To me that is unknown, I know Dr Shoemaker provides evidence suggestive of a latter composure in the imperial court of Al-Hajaj, but in our discussion from about post#162 onwards here

The decline of traditional religion in the West

I read through the first 121 pages of 435 of "Creating the Quran" by Dr. Stephen Shoemaker, it is pretty solid on evidence so far. What evidence does it give to prove that the Qur'an post dates Muhammed, and why do you accept it? You asked whether I believed Muhammad said it, answering no and...

www.religiousforums.com

Shoemaker has no scholarship on the Qur'an or arabic philology. Irrelevant.

recall you suggesting that the "Maail" and "Gain" of the script prove it was from an earlier production, but I asked about them at https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicQuran/s/LC5yj5RkFR
And no one seemed able to explain or verify your claim, so until I can find updated knowledgeable information about these terms it remains unknown to me.

Irrelevant.

 

[danieldemol]

Shoemaker has no scholarship on the Qur'an

False,
'Stephen J. Shoemaker is an American scholar, specialising in ancient and early medieval Christianity and early Islam. He serves as a professor of religious studies at the University of Oregon. His work has focused on early devotion to the Virgin Mary, Christian Apocrypha and formative Islam and its relationship with Near Eastern Christianity. Shoemaker received his Ph.D. from Duke University.[1][2]'
Source: Stephen J. Shoemaker - Wikipedia

His works include

• Creating the Qur’an: A Historical-Critical Study (University of California Press, 2022)

This book is scholarship on the Quran in my view.

or arabic philology. Irrelevant.

It may be that arabic philology is irrelevant to this discussion. Can you demonstrate how the "Maail" and "Gain" of the script date it and what these two terms even mean?

Irrelevant.

When people on a dedicated academic sub don't necessarily know what you are talking about or how it is relevant it is possible that it isn't.

 

[firedragon]

False,
'Stephen J. Shoemaker is an American scholar, specialising in ancient and early medieval Christianity and early Islam. He serves as a professor of religious studies at the University of Oregon. His work has focused on early devotion to the Virgin Mary, Christian Apocrypha and formative Islam and its relationship with Near Eastern Christianity. Shoemaker received his Ph.D. from Duke University.[1][2]'
Source: Stephen J. Shoemaker - Wikipedia

His works include

• Creating the Qur’an: A Historical-Critical Study (University of California Press, 2022)

This book is scholarship on the Quran in my view.

Your "view" is irrelevant. It's just your need. He is no scholar of the Qur'an and its source or form.

It may be that arabic philology is irrelevant to this discussion.

What a nonsensical statement mate. It's absolutely relevant.

Can you demonstrate how the "Maail" and "Gain" of the script date it and what these two terms even mean?

If you read the OP, it's not about dating. So this is irrelevant.

When people on a dedicated academic sub don't necessarily know what you are talking about or how it is relevant it is possible that it isn't.

Refer to the OP. Refer to the topic.

 

[danieldemol]

Your "view" is irrelevant. It's just your need. He is no scholar of the Qur'an and its source or form.

According to the University of California he is.

What a nonsensical statement mate. It's absolutely relevant.

I disagree, from what I recall philology is the meaning of the Quran. If it dates to the imperial court of Al-Hajaj we don't need to know it's meaning to know it is most probably the result of a group of people - that group being the imperial court in my view

If you read the OP, it's not about dating. So this is irrelevant.

It's relevant because if it is the product of an eighth century imperial court the likelihood of it having a singular author goes to zero in my view.

Refer to the OP. Refer to the topic.

The topic is essentially did it have a singular author, if it dates to the imperial court then it didn't.

 

[firedragon]

According to the University of California he is.

But he is not. Do some more research. Do not worship someone because you like them. That's hypocrisy.

I disagree, from what I recall philology is the meaning of the Quran.

Well you are wrong. Ignorant.

It's relevant because if it is the product of an eighth century imperial court the likelihood of it having a singular author goes to zero in my view.

Your personal view or sentiment is irrelevant. Refer to the OP. your feelings are for you. It's just a personal feeling. Maybe you have some emotional feeling and love toward your needed information or your heartfelt need. That's not scholarship. It's just your dire need. Your own desperation.

Refer to the OP.

 

[danieldemol]

But he is not. Do some more research. Do not worship someone because you like them. That's hypocrisy.

Ad-hominem is not appropriate to scholarly debate, you sound like an apologist

Well you are wrong. Ignorant.

'philology, traditionally, the study of the history of language, including the historical study of literary texts. It is also called comparative philology when the emphasis is on the comparison of the historical states of different languages'
Source: Philology | Historical Linguistics, Textual Criticism & Comparative Studies

The historical study of literary texts including the Qur'an is what Dr Shoemaker does in his book Creating the Quran" in my view.

Your personal view or sentiment is irrelevant.

Only as irrelevant as yours is.

Refer to the OP. your feelings are for you. It's just a personal feeling. Maybe you have some emotional feeling and love toward your needed information or your heartfelt need. That's not scholarship. It's just your dire need. Your own desperation.

Ad-hominem in the place of refutation doesn't make for a scholarly conversation, but it does reek of apologetic tactics in my view.

Refer to the OP.

 

[firedragon]

'philology, traditionally, the study of the history of language, including the historical study of literary texts. It is also called comparative philology when the emphasis is on the comparison of the historical states of different languages'
Source: Philology | Historical Linguistics, Textual Criticism & Comparative Studies

The historical study of literary texts including the Qur'an is what Dr Shoemaker does in his book Creating the Quran" in my view.

Nice. You just proved you were absolutely wrong. Good effort.

Anyway., though you are in love with shoemaker, he has no scholarship in the Qur'an or linguistics. Do some more research.

 

[danieldemol]

Nice. You just proved you were absolutely wrong. Good effort.

I proved that I was *partially* wrong in my view, my statement on philology was only part of my post.

Anyway., though you are in love with shoemaker

Ad-hominem

, he has no scholarship in the Qur'an or linguistics. Do some more research.

False on both counts in my view, this is the intro to his book published by University of California;

'Creating the Qur’an presents the first systematic historical-critical study of the Qur’an’s origins, drawing on methods and perspectives commonly used to study other scriptural traditions. Demonstrating in detail that the Islamic tradition relates not a single attested account of the holy text’s formation, Stephen J. Shoemaker shows how the Qur’an preserves a surprisingly diverse array of memories regarding the text’s early history and its canonization. To this he adds perspectives from radiocarbon dating of manuscripts, the linguistic history of Arabic...'
Source: Creating the Qur'an: A Historical-Critical Study

 

[firedragon]

I proved that I was *partially* wrong in my view, my statement on philology was only part of my post.

Ad-hominem

False on both counts in my view, this is the intro to his book published by University of California;

'Creating the Qur’an presents the first systematic historical-critical study of the Qur’an’s origins, drawing on methods and perspectives commonly used to study other scriptural traditions. Demonstrating in detail that the Islamic tradition relates not a single attested account of the holy text’s formation, Stephen J. Shoemaker shows how the Qur’an preserves a surprisingly diverse array of memories regarding the text’s early history and its canonization. To this he adds perspectives from radiocarbon dating of manuscripts, the linguistic history of Arabic...'
Source: Creating the Qur'an: A Historical-Critical Study

So what's your point in relation to the OP?