How many people wrote the Qur'an?

[danieldemol]

A person can research it. There's a lot of academics who criticize Islam, they aren't killed. This is a lame excuse.

I tried to follow Crone's link to an article which I assume was explaining what she meant by it being highly charged politically but the link appears to be old and broken. So I probably won't get clarification there. But I believe it takes more than just being left alive in a western country to undertake serious academic research. It takes resources and ideally resources that aren't necessarily ideologically motivated.

I'm sure if it was in their favor as far being able to disprove it, they would get into the research.

I believe you are misrepresenting the historical critical method. It is about trying to tell us as accurately as possible what most probably happened, not an agenda to disprove an idea in my view.

 

[Link]

I tried to follow Crone's link to an article which I assume was explaining what she meant by it being highly charged politically but the link appears to be old and broken. So I probably won't get clarification there. But I believe it takes more than just being left alive in a western country to undertake serious academic research. It takes resources and ideally resources that aren't necessarily ideologically motivated.

I believe you are misrepresenting the historical critical method. It is about trying to tell us as accurately as possible what most probably happened, not an agenda to disprove an idea in my view.

Well then it depends what your Agenda is. If you want to study it superfluously and on the surface, or get into it. If you want to get into it, it does take sacrifice in that you have to devote time to learning.

I once wrote a book I shared on shiachat "28 issues" with the Quran, it was just a word document. I made a website later showing the problems I had with the Quran.

To me it's almost impossible now to disbelieve in the Quran given the knowledge I have of it. I see how people can develop bias and not truly pay attention to the Quran or come up with logical problems, but at the end, the true book is above all that.

I disbelieved in the Quran for some number of years too.

The Quran requires the reader to reflect. It doesn't spell out things in a direct way. It repeats the same themes and makes it easy to comprehend and understand, but only with a heart that wants to see. It doesn't require a person to be a genius or something, just a heart that seeks truth, and it will bestow even intelligence itself to the one who reflects.

 

[danieldemol]

but only with a heart that wants to see

I'm not sure what you mean by this, ideally it should be read dispassionately to be objective in my view.

it will bestow even intelligence itself to the one who reflects.

This is a bit old at 1997 but still relevant;
'The contribution of Muslim countries to world science literature is also meagre. Forty-six Muslim countries contribute 1.17 percent to world science literature as compared to 1.66 percent by India'

Source: Current state of science and technology in the Muslim world - Scientometrics

It seems reflection on the Vedas bestows greater intelligence than reflection on the Quran in my view. Or perhaps we need to do less reflection on ancient mythology and more reflection on reality to bestow intelligence.

 

[Augustus]

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.

It was written by one or more people.

It is possible it was written by a single person, and some scholars support this theory.

Others consider it primarily one author with some redactions and interpolations.

Others claim multiple authors.

Others that we can’t really ever know.

I’m largely agnostic on the question as it requires too high a degree of expertise to evaluate the answers. Different people make good cases, but choosing one would be just guessing. If I had to pick one option it would be we can’t really ever know.

I’d guess it is an incomplete compendium of Muhammad’s sayings/teachings rather than a complete text created to be a single document.

By the time it was formally compiledI believe there had been some loss in continuity of communal memory regarding context and meaning, hence the need to fabricate much of the literature on occasions of revelation, sirah, etc.

A single author of the material is certainly fairly plausible, but then again so is mostly a single author with a degree of “creative editing” during the complication process.

 

[firedragon]

I believe I've already demonstrated that to be false in this thread, so I won't waste more time on your no true Scotsman.

It's not a fallacy like that extreme to say "shoemaker is no scholar of the Qur'an". It's just a fact. You are clutching for any straw that may help you.

Why not provide a link to an academic website which has The Balagha?

I don't know websites. I can give you books if you like. Let me know.

 

[firedragon]

It was written by one or more people.

Can you provide evidence to claim it was written by more than one person? It will be an interesting read.

 

[firedragon]

The author of the Quran was a person?.

I am speaking in a methodological manner with someone who does not believe the Qur'an is God's word. So yes, it was written by one person.

 

[danieldemol]

I don't know websites. I can give you books if you like. Let me know.

As keen as I am to get free books I'm unwilling to give my postal address over the internet as it is not a P.O box.

If the people you are with don't have the resources to publish books online you can recommend an ISBN number and title and if I'm lucky I'll come across it either at the library or elsewhere.

 

[firedragon]

As keen as I am to get free books I'm unwilling to give my postal address over the internet as it is not a P.O box.

If the people you are with don't have the resources to publish books online you can recommend an ISBN number and title and if I'm lucky I'll come across it either at the library or elsewhere.

On what basis did you assume that the authors I will recommend in the future don't have the means or resources? Do you see the future?

Mate. Just be a humble human being and request for information and put effort in studying the subject. If you wish, I can recommend books of scholars to study. If you don't wish to put your time into it, just say so. Not make conjecture and pretend to be a God or a soothsayer who could see the future. Speaks a lot about your personal character.

Ciao.

 

[RestlessSoul]

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

The Romans, actually.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I'm a 'nobody' .. I'd hardly call that status!

It's the noblest status of all;

And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying:

3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Matth 5:2-3

 

[danieldemol]

On what basis did you assume that the authors I will recommend in the future don't have the means or resources? Do you see the future?

Mate. Just be a humble human being and request for information and put effort in studying the subject. If you wish, I can recommend books of scholars to study. If you don't wish to put your time into it, just say so. Not make conjecture and pretend to be a God or a soothsayer who could see the future. Speaks a lot about your personal character.

Ciao.

You have serious comprehension issues, nowhere did I assume they didn't have the means, if is a conditional statement.

If they do have the means they can publish their work on the internet and I'll read it, if they don't you can recommend an ISBN, no assumption about the future involved in my view.

But any excuse for a barrage of ad-hominem ay.

 

[Augustus]

Can you provide evidence to claim it was written by more than one person? It will be an interesting read.

As I said, I’m agnostic on the question as I lack the ability to evaluate competing arguments (as do the vast majority of Muslims and non-Muslims)

Some arguments would be based on interpolations where rhyme schemes or contextual meanings seem incongruent and may reflect redaction/editing.

Others that repetitions of phrases tends to occur within 2 “Meccan” or 2 “Medinan” surahs rather than between Meccan-Medinan surahs, which potentially relates to 2 different source traditions, which may/may not be from the same author.

Others that the parts of the Quran are dynamic reworkings, rearticulations and commentaries on older traditions that were redacted and compiled over time.

Others have argued that stylometric analysis shows a “smoothness” that shows evolution in style of a single author.

Others that genres of literature from a specific time and place may exhibit such a smoothness even if they evolved over time and involved multiple authors.

Others still that there is no real way to tell beyond doubt. Features can be explained by more than one hypothesis.

All of these arguments (and more) are made by scholars far more knowledgeable than me and I can’t say who is right.

What do you find most compelling as to a single author?

 

[firedragon]

You have serious comprehension issues, nowhere did I assume they didn't have the means, if is a conditional statement.

If they do have the means they can publish their work on the internet and I'll read it, if they don't you can recommend an ISBN, no assumption about the future involved in my view.

But any excuse for a barrage of ad-hominem ay.

If you wish to read, I can recommend books. Ciao.

 

[firedragon]

As I said, I’m agnostic on the question as I lack the ability to evaluate competing arguments (as do the vast majority of Muslims and non-Muslims)

Some arguments would be based on interpolations where rhyme schemes or contextual meanings seem incongruent and may reflect redaction/editing.

Others that repetitions of phrases tends to occur within 2 “Meccan” or 2 “Medinan” surahs rather than between Meccan-Medinan surahs, which potentially relates to 2 different source traditions, which may/may not be from the same author.

Others that the parts of the Quran are dynamic reworkings, rearticulations and commentaries on older traditions that were redacted and compiled over time.

Others have argued that stylometric analysis shows a “smoothness” that shows evolution in style of a single author.

Others that genres of literature from a specific time and place may exhibit such a smoothness even if they evolved over time and involved multiple authors.

Others still that there is no real way to tell beyond doubt. Features can be explained by more than one hypothesis.

All of these arguments (and more) are made by scholars far more knowledgeable than me and I can’t say who is right.

What do you find most compelling as to a single author?

I have many reasons to believe the Qur'an is written by a single author. There are no evidences to prove it was written by more than one unless it's a polemical argument but it's not evidenced. IF it was written by several authors, it's logically possible, although it should be miraculous for several authors to have such coherence enough to dupe philologists and what we would call ilme maani.

 

[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

Can you give specific arguments presented by Shoemaker that proves the Qur'an was written by several authors and why you trust these arguments with such zeal? Please do. Thanks.

 

[Link]

If I would choose to be non-Muslim, I would believe Quran is written by supernatural committee of unseen entities (Jinn). I would not believe a normal human can write it. However, I believe even Jinn and their companions from humans, cannot write similar to Quran. It's truly above all capability of creation and miraculous. Plus, it has a truthful holiness and exalted nature only capable by truthful souls.

 

[England my lionheart]

The Romans, actually.

I gave you a like for saying “the Romans actually” because it’s usually British colonialism that gets the blame with people taking it out on statues and demanding reparations,look out Italy lol.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I gave you a like for saying “the Romans actually” because it’s usually British colonialism that gets the blame with people taking it out on statues and demanding reparations,look out Italy lol.

Imperial measurements mostly date from ancient Rome, and the word Imperial refers to the Roman Empire, not the British. So I was being pedantic tbh...

 

[danieldemol]

Can you give specific arguments presented by Shoemaker that proves the Qur'an was written by several authors and why you trust these arguments with such zeal? Please do. Thanks.

Your taking this post out of context in my view, as I explained in following posts it was a tentatively held belief based on the hypothesis Dr Shoemaker uses to explain the early evidence.

I then reviewed Dr Joshua Little's work were he seems to push the canonisation back to Uthman and noted that there is a possibility (not that I believe it with zeal) that this may mean the Quran had an evolutionary history involving more than one author as it may not have been a fixed text until that time.

I would need to explore that possibility with other authors to reach a tentative conclusion on its likelihood, and if you read the post of @Augustus it looks like a daunting task with no easy answers.

I believe if Uthman hadn't burned the evidence there would be more for scholars to work with to determine whether the traditional version of the story was true or not but I guess that's a digression.