How many people wrote the Qur'an?

[firedragon]

It’s cute that you genuinely think an empty assertion that you are correct constitutes an argument.

Just asserting it must have 1 author because some philologists think so (even though others think differently) and because of certain grammatical and rhetorical features is just a statement of your non-expert opinion.

When others simply state their opinion you whine endlessly and demand scholarship an evidence.



Forgot how boring you are.

Ciao

Nice. Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

Sorry, not going to read all this. Just answer the question - How many people wrote the Quran?

Most scholars in the exact field of linguistics in this question have concluded that it was written by one person thinking of the topic in a naturalistic manner from my side.

If you read the text directly, the coherence of the text shows very easily that it was one writer. There are many routes to this factor. One is called "Adhab Mukaran" which is to study parallel texts which will show parallels with other existing texts and it's a show of how one text could have various sources. And even if you take the Qur'an as copied from other sources, it's still written by one person. A qualified philologist in the Qur'anic text will affirm that it was written by one person and in arabic the study is called failulujeeyyah. When you get into stylistic features, rhetorical techniques etc, the coherence shows that it was written by one author and the study is called allugaaweeyyah or/and usloob.

All of these scholarships may fall into the category of source criticism and form criticism.

 

[Kathryn]

Most scholars in the exact field of linguistics in this question have concluded that it was written by one person thinking of the topic in a naturalistic manner from my side.

If you read the text directly, the coherence of the text shows very easily that it was one writer. There are many routes to this factor. One is called "Adhab Mukaran" which is to study parallel texts which will show parallels with other existing texts and it's a show of how one text could have various sources. And even if you take the Qur'an as copied from other sources, it's still written by one person. A qualified philologist in the Qur'anic text will affirm that it was written by one person and in arabic the study is called failulujeeyyah. When you get into stylistic features, rhetorical techniques etc, the coherence shows that it was written by one author and the study is called allugaaweeyyah or/and usloob.

All of these scholarships may fall into the category of source criticism and form criticism.

Sorry but nothing I can find easily supports this position.

 

[danieldemol]

If you don't believe it why quote it?

Believing it vehemently or disbelieving it are a false dichotomy, there are other options such as believing it tentatively in my view.

 

[firedragon]

Sorry but nothing I can find easily supports this position.

Good to do some research.

What did you search for? Did you search for scholarly fields I gave you? There are many many great work on this field.

 

[firedragon]

Believing it vehemently or disbelieving it are a false dichotomy, there are other options such as believing it tentatively in my view.

So you are not sure but you made a definitive claim that "Uthman destroyed the evidence". Great. Even that, without even reading the same hadith that you quote. You didn't even read it fully. If you did, you would not make this kind of comment. So you had blind faith on one hadith that suits you.

 

[Kathryn]

Good to do some research.

What did you search for? Did you search for scholarly fields I gave you? There are many many great work on this field.

I searched for How Many Authors Does The Quran Have? Feel free to post the ones you suggest.

 

[firedragon]

I searched for How Many Authors Does The Quran Have? Feel free to post the ones you suggest.

I don't know if you would find good sources with a search like that on google or something. But I can recommend some books. This is not wide on google which I presume because it's not a topic discussed much unlike the Bible which directly quotes various authors.

Anyway, try and find a scholar called alJurjani who wrote on the coherence of the Quranic text. Or Ibn alAthir. Or maybe even Dr. Raymond Farin.

If you wish to read some additional text critical work, read Angelika Neuwirth although she is not a philologist or ilme maana. She is a textual critic. Her information would take you down a different route. They are all highly qualified in the field.

 

[paarsurrey]

How many people wrote the Qur'an?

I searched for How Many Authors Does The Quran Have? Feel free to post the ones you suggest.

I would suggest reading a chapter of a short treatise:
THE COMPILATION OF THE QURAN 259-271
Devices Adopted To Safeguard the Text of the Quran 260
Instructors of the Quran 261
Reciters of the Quran 263
The Quran Committed to Memory 263
The Quran Collected in One Volume 265
Standardized Copies of the Quran 266
Practice of Committing the Quran to Memory Continued 267
Arrangement of Chapters and Verses 269
Some Prophecies of the Quran 271

https://www.alislam.org/library/books/Introduction-Study-Holy-Quran.pdf

Right?

Regards

 

[Augustus]

Sorry but nothing I can find easily supports this position.

“If you ask Muslims then most think one author and that the text is miraculous. Non-Muslim scholars are more sceptical and less willing to trust the Islamic tradition that a text that was complied from various sources after being passed down orally and in partial written form survives in a perfect, verbatim, complete and unedited version. Especially given the widespread fabrication of Islamic history began early on, and the rapidly evolving, expanding and culturally diverse environment in which this occurred in.”

 

[danieldemol]

So you are not sure but you made a definitive claim that "Uthman destroyed the evidence". Great. Even that, without even reading the same hadith that you quote. You didn't even read it fully. If you did, you would not make this kind of comment. So you had blind faith on one hadith that suits you.

It's not that it suits me, it's that all Quran manuscripts that I know of bar the Sana'a palimpsest are rated most probably to the time of Uthman and I don't know of a competing early narrative for why we don't have alternative Qurans even though the Sana'a palimpsest seems to indicate they existed.

In other words the traditional narrative seems to fit what little I know of the evidence in my view.

 

[firedragon]

It's not that it suits me, it's that all Quran manuscripts that I know of bar the Sana'a palimpsest are rated most probably to the time of Uthman and I don't know of a competing early narrative for why we don't have alternative Qurans even though the Sana'a palimpsest seems to indicate they existed.

The Birmingham manuscript predates Uthman.

 

[muhammad_isa]

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

I'm not a prophet.

 

[muhammad_isa]

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...

After the United States Declaration of Independence the units of measurement in the United States developed into what is now known as customary units. The United Kingdom overhauled its system of measurement in 1826, when it introduced the imperial system of units. This resulted in the two countries having different gallons. Later in the century, efforts were made to align the definition of the pound and the yard in the two countries by using copies of the standards adopted by the British Parliament in 1855.
Imperial_and_US_customary_measurement_systems - Wikipedia

 

[muhammad_isa]

Sorry, not going to read all this. Just answer the question - How many people wrote the Quran?

Loads of people have written the Qur'an.
However, these days it is usually reproduced by printing press.

..but if one means how many sources does it have? That would be only one.
Unless of course, you believe some random bloke(s) pretended to be G-d.

 

[danieldemol]

The Birmingham manuscript predates Uthman.

It's paper has been radiocarbon dated to earlier than Uthman, however only 2 scholars accept its radiocarbon dating as indicating precisely when the text was produced. Others leave the possibility open of it being produced earlier but date it likely to the time of Uthman according to my understanding.

For a complete summary of the views of academic historical critical scholars you can see this article here under the title "significance"

Birmingham Quran manuscript - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I have not included it all as many scholars have weighed in on the debate.

 

[firedragon]

It's paper has been radiocarbon dated to earlier than Uthman, however only 2 scholars accept its radiocarbon dating as indicating precisely when the text was produced. Others leave the possibility open of it being produced earlier but date it likely to the time of Uthman according to my understanding.

For a complete summary of the views of academic historical critical scholars you can see this article here under the title "significance"

Birmingham Quran manuscript - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I have not included it all as many scholars have weighed in on the debate.

Anyway, this is irrelevant to authorship. You are bringing in a red herring you will hang onto and go on and on. It's a waste of time.

It's linguistics. This is a red herring or you have not read up on philology or other sciences of linguistic study like ilme maana as one example. Why don't you actually read my responses instead of handwaving?

Most scholars in the exact field of linguistics in this question have concluded that it was written by one person thinking of the topic in a naturalistic manner from my side.

If you read the text directly, the coherence of the text shows very easily that it was one writer. There are many routes to this factor. One is called "Adhab Mukaran" which is to study parallel texts which will show parallels with other existing texts and it's a show of how one text could have various sources. And even if you take the Qur'an as copied from other sources, it's still written by one person. A qualified philologist in the Qur'anic text will affirm that it was written by one person and in arabic the study is called failulujeeyyah. When you get into stylistic features, rhetorical techniques etc, the coherence shows that it was written by one author and the study is called allugaaweeyyah or/and usloob.

All of these scholarships may fall into the category of source criticism and form criticism.

I don't know if you would find good sources with a search like that on google or something. But I can recommend some books. This is not wide on google which I presume because it's not a topic discussed much unlike the Bible which directly quotes various authors.

Anyway, try and find a scholar called alJurjani who wrote on the coherence of the Quranic text. Or Ibn alAthir. Or maybe even Dr. Raymond Farin.

If you wish to read some additional text critical work, read Angelika Neuwirth although she is not a philologist or ilme maana. She is a textual critic. Her information would take you down a different route. They are all highly qualified in the field.

 

[Augustus]

Most scholars in the exact field of linguistics in this question have concluded that it was written by one person thinking of the topic in a naturalistic manner from my side.

If you read the text directly, the coherence of the text shows very easily that it was one writer. There are many routes to this factor. One is called "Adhab Mukaran" which is to study parallel texts which will show parallels with other existing texts and it's a show of how one text could have various sources. And even if you take the Qur'an as copied from other sources, it's still written by one person. A qualified philologist in the Qur'anic text will affirm that it was written by one person and in arabic the study is called failulujeeyyah. When you get into stylistic features, rhetorical techniques etc, the coherence shows that it was written by one author and the study is called allugaaweeyyah or/and usloob.

All of these scholarships may fall into the category of source criticism and form criticism.

I don't know if you would find good sources with a search like that on google or something. But I can recommend some books. This is not wide on google which I presume because it's not a topic discussed much unlike the Bible which directly quotes various authors.

Anyway, try and find a scholar called alJurjani who wrote on the coherence of the Quranic text. Or Ibn alAthir. Or maybe even Dr. Raymond Farin.

If you wish to read some additional text critical work, read Angelika Neuwirth although she is not a philologist or ilme maana. She is a textual critic. Her information would take you down a different route. They are all highly qualified in the field.

Lots of unsupported assertions there again.

A less apologetic view on the issue would be that the fact remains that there is no expert consensus on the question and some scholars actively doubt it while more consider the question to be open to debate either way.

There is more or less a consensus that the text was standardised pretty early (7th c) and probably mostly reflects the sayings of Muhammad in some form or another.

The idea that it’s pretty certain the entire text was written by a single author without any redaction or editing or interpolation does not reflect the scholarship as a whole.

For example, Sadeghi did a stylometric analysis that he claimed showed one author, and Sidky did the same with inscriptions written by thousands of authors using the same method and got “one author”.

He isn’t saying this shows the Quran has many authors, just that it’s a very hard question to answer due to evidence requiring subjective judgement that are often open to dispute.

But again, no one posting in this thread is actually capable of judging the arguments purely on their merits, at best we can make intuitive judgements based on limited knowledge or remain agnostic.

Ciao

 

[paarsurrey]

Anyway, this is irrelevant to authorship. You are bringing in a red herring you will hang onto and go on and on. It's a waste of time.

It's linguistics. This is a red herring or you have not read up on philology or other sciences of linguistic study like ilme maana as one example. Why don't you actually read my responses instead of handwaving?

Most scholars in the exact field of linguistics in this question have concluded that it was written by one person thinking of the topic in a naturalistic manner from my side.

If you read the text directly, the coherence of the text shows very easily that it was one writer. There are many routes to this factor. One is called "Adhab Mukaran" which is to study parallel texts which will show parallels with other existing texts and it's a show of how one text could have various sources. And even if you take the Qur'an as copied from other sources, it's still written by one person. A qualified philologist in the Qur'anic text will affirm that it was written by one person and in arabic the study is called failulujeeyyah. When you get into stylistic features, rhetorical techniques etc, the coherence shows that it was written by one author and the study is called allugaaweeyyah or/and usloob.

All of these scholarships may fall into the category of source criticism and form criticism.

I don't know if you would find good sources with a search like that on google or something. But I can recommend some books. This is not wide on google which I presume because it's not a topic discussed much unlike the Bible which directly quotes various authors.

Anyway, try and find a scholar called alJurjani who wrote on the coherence of the Quranic text. Or Ibn alAthir. Or maybe even Dr. Raymond Farin.

If you wish to read some additional text critical work, read Angelika Neuwirth although she is not a philologist or ilme maana. She is a textual critic. Her information would take you down a different route. They are all highly qualified in the field.

Kindly give the Arabic words in brackets of the terminology used in one's above post, for convenience and better understanding, please.

Regards

 

[danieldemol]

Anyway, this is irrelevant to authorship.

It's relevant because of the possibility that multiple Qurans existed means that people were constructing their Qurans off a partially orally transmitted text from memory therefore the author may only partially be Muhammad with the rest being filled in by the authors memories in my view.

Due to lack of scholarly consensus it can't really be ruled in or out in my view. That's problematic for the apologist but for others I see no reason we shouldn't remain open to the possibility of more than one author