Talk:History of the Quran/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Harald Motzki: 'The Collection of the Qur'an; A Reconsideration of Western Views in the Light of Recent Methdological Devleopmments'

This article - from 'Der Islam' (2001) - is accessible on line, but does not appear to feature in the Wikipedia article.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/97592549/The-Collection-of-the-Qur-an-a-Reconsideration-of-Western-Views-in-Light-of-Recent-Methodological-Developments

May I suggest it provides a framework for a much better analysis of traditional accounts of the creation of a collected Qur'an? Motzki critiques the historiography of Western 'revsionist' narratives - those that assume that the accounts in Islamic tradition are late fictions - and claims to find serious methodological flaws. He then undertakes a text-critical analysis of those Islamic traditions in order to find a terminus post quem. He maintains that respective accounts of the collections of Abu Bakr and Uthman are independent; and that both can be sourced to the end of the second century AH utilising recent discoveries. He then proposes that, if the isnads recorded for each of these lines of tradition may be taken as partially historic (he notes that the revisionists all regard isnads as fabricated, but that this assumption has been increasingly shown to be untenable). He shows that the isnads for both accounts intersect at Ibn Shihab al-Zahri, who died in 124/742. He concludes that both traditional accounts can be securely dated to the first quarter of the second century AH.

Although Motzki is commonly classed as a leading proponent the anti-revisionist approach, I note that François Déroche quotes this paper as definitively establishing the historicity of the two accounts in the 2nd century AH; I propose that his opinions are proper for sourcing a rewrite in this section of article. TomHennell (talk) 11:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you saying that instead of using the Donner's summary for the range of viewpoints on the Quran collection we should use Motzki instead? I've seen Donner being cited more frequently, never even heard of Motzki till now. Or are you saying that Motzki provides an interesting alternate theory. Then he should certainly be cited, but of course as just another author whose added his two cents on the issue.VR _talk 03:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I certainly don't think that Donner's survey (as currently quoted in the article) can stand; it is a bit old now to represent current scholarship, and it is directed primarily to a particular sub-set of perspectives - essentially those originating in the work of Wansbrough. We need a more up to date assessment of the full range current scholarship. In which respect, I propose that François Déroche stands as the most suitable representative of the current scholarly mainstream; unfortunately I have not been able to find a counterpart assessment from Déroche to that of Donner (at least not in English); but 'The Qur'ans of the Umayyads' is both recent, and establishes what seems to be the mainstreasm position emerging with the increasing confidence, that several fragmentary Qur'ans from the first/second century AH can now be securely identified. Hence I tracked from Déroche back to the authorities he quotes in respect of the 'traditional account' of the collection of the Qur'an, and found the article by Motzki.

Motzki is not primarily an authority in the field of Quranic history; but rather in the history of hadith; especially as related to Islamic Jurisprudence. In that field he is currently the major figure, representing a reaction to the previous dominance of the views of Joseph Schacht. It is fair to say that Schacht's theories are now considered largely wrong in detail; but his general claim that hadiths are universally subsequent to legal debates one or two centuries subsequent to the life of the Prophet is the essential underpinning of Wansbrough (and hence the whole revisionist enterprise), and is still maintained by many scholars. Motzki proposes that if the hadith are examined using text critical methods, applied both to their content and claimed chain of transmission; it is possible to reconstruct their earlier forms, without accepting later assessements of 'authenticity' uncritically, or otherwise simply rejecting 'authenticity' out of hand. In the article cited, he applies this method to the hadiths recording the collection of the Qura'an. But, although that article does survey scholarly views at the time of writing; it is not yet the current summary that we need now. In my view.

One other issue with Motzki's article - which is also a criticism addressed to Motzki's work on hadiths in general - is that while he demonstrates that a rigorous text-critical application of Schacht's approach shows the traditional account to have circulated much earlier than Schacht allowed, and within a century of the Prophet's death (and within 70 years of the death of Uthman); nevertheless he does not engage with the elements of the tradition. Motzki shows that the respective narratives of Qur'anic compilation under Abu Bakr and Uthman are independent, partially duplicated, and partially contradictory; but he does not evaluate whether one of the other account may be preferred. Which is a missed opportunity, as from his account the earlier date of compilation looks to have the stronger evidence in the tradition. TomHennell (talk) 10:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

On what page does Harold do this? Because what I found was Harold dealing with individual writes, but didn't find anything on him categorizing people (e.g. "revisionists").VR _talk 06:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

On page 12 Motzki presents 'in condensed form' a recent history of western scholarly research on the traditional narrative of the collection of the Qur'an. He picks out four scholars as representing the major recent tendencies of western scholarship on the subject, TomHennell (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Motzki is certainly a prominent scholar, particularly in the field of hadith studies, as Tom points out. Donner's summary of research may deserve more weight because he's been commissioned to write similar surveys by the editors of The Cambridge History of Islam and The Cambridge Companion to the Qur'an. Donner's currently quoted essay may or may not be superseded by these other efforts of his, which are more recent and directed at a more general audience (I haven't had a chance to compare them side by side). They're all of a later date than Motzki's article, but reflecting multiple perspectives would be an improvement, and I can help summarizing material in French, if needed. Eperoton (talk) 09:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Birmingham manuscript

Last segment about Birmingham manuscript in paragraph "Origin according to academic historians":

The latest in History of Quran is the discovery of parchments found by university of Birmingham which have been radio carbon dated. Radiocarbon analysis has dated the parchment on which the text is written to the period between AD 568 and 645 with 95.4% accuracy. The test was carried out in a laboratory at the University of Oxford. The result places the leaves close to the time of the Prophet Muhammad, who is generally thought to have lived between AD 570 and 632. Researchers conclude that the Qur'an manuscript is among the earliest written textual evidence of the Islamic holy book known to survive. Such scientific discovery leaves little to debate about the authenticity of Quran as a Book compiled sometimes during or immediately after the death of Prophet Muhammad.

I noticed this text is mostly copy-paste, except last concluding claim which don't seem to exist in referenced article in any form (looks like misreading of article or original research). Maybe someone with better English than me can fix the problems. --Minnekon (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Was Muhammad "illiterate" or "unlettered" and what does it matter?

Recently reverted an edit that looked more like a zealous attempt to soften the reality that Muhammad is attested to being unable to read or write... and the term defining this inability is "illiterate" (unable to read or write). Please resist the temptation to add dissimilitude to Wiki articles, where clear and direct words are best in describing any subject matter. Of course, if unlettered (poorly educated or illiterate) is preferred, consider that word's definition. -- HafizHanif (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

latest on the history of the quran

I have attempted to rework the paragraph referred to above as requiring an edit, it now reads:

The latest in origin of the Quran is the discovery of parchments of the Quranic text discovered by University of Birmingham, the parchment (the material) has been radiocarbon dated to the period between AD 568 and 645 with 95.4% accuracy. The test was carried out in a laboratory at the University of Oxford. The result places the parchment close to the time of Muhammad, who is generally thought to have lived between AD 570 and 632. Researchers conclude that the parchment is among the earliest written textual evidence of the Quran in existence.[62]

Separately, this whole article needs reworking so it is balanced. We need clear delineation between what islamic scholars may behold as true and what the historical evidence shows and also any textual studies on the variances that exist (or there lack). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtype909 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Consider this: finding the age of parchment is one thing, while finding the date of something being written on parchment is another matter. Parchment, or an animal's hide, could be dated to within a certain time period. However, a hundred or several hundred years may pass before whatever is written upon it is done, or changed. So, the dating effort via radiocarbon isn't always an accurate method to date writings, but only a close measure dating the material being written on. I think this point is mentioned in the article, and if not it should be. In other words: only the parchments are datable, not the writings themselves. -- HafizHanif (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

April 29th edits?

• First
  • "Islamic scholarly accounts" suggests actual intellectual, critical work done in order to reach the present conclusions. The work is present in the Hadith which is scholarly work based on historical criticism rather than just completely unsupported beliefs based solely on scripture. Additionally, the words "based on historical findings" are added by the same user in another edit.
• Second
  • Citation to Hira location appears redundant as the Wikipedia article for Hira is already linked.
  • "... appeared to Muhammad said to be in the cave Hira which is now said to be near Mecca..." - The sentence begins with "According to Muslim belief", what's the need to include "said to be"? Isn't it redundant?

Regarding, "... there is no source for suggesting it is definitely the 'hira' now located near mecca...", in addition to the Hira article, even the newly added citation mentions it as the "Mountain near Mecca". Either provide a reference that suggests otherwise or keep the content as it is.

• Third and Fifth
  • What's the reason for replacing "book format" with written form? The article itself mentions the existence of previous written manuscripts. Compilation into a formal book format is the relevant incident here.
• Fourth
  • No reason has been provided for removing the Professor Francis Edward Peters section of the paragraph. The criticism regarding earliest surviving complete manuscripts is already present in the History of the Quran#Origin according to academic historians and since the first paragraph refers more to Muslim beliefs rather than problems with them, the criticism appears redundant and out-of-place. The Topkapi manuscript and Ma'il Quran references might be fine but appear to be more relevant to the article Early Quranic manuscripts, rather than this one.

--AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Comparison with pages dealing with the historicity of other faiths

The point raised at the head of this page 'I fail to see why the traditional mythology is in the forefront of the article, when it should be the factual basis for how the Qur'an was written and compiled?' remains the issue today, in 2019. Attempts to revise, revisit, in some way mediate are curtailed and one most assume that religious sensibilities are at play. For comparison's sake take the beginning of the topic on the 'Historicity of the Bible'

• 'The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's "acceptability as a history".[1] This can be extended to the question of the Christian New Testament as an accurate record of the historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age.'

Instead this article, on the history of the quran, starts with belief avoiding the usual approaches of analysing what exists by way of discernible evidence.

There is no mention at the top of the article that the earliest Qurans, complete (or close too) date from the 8th Century and therefore long after Mohammed purportedly received his revelations. Attempts to even introduce this 'fact' are curtailed by reference to there being sufficient mention later in the article.

The point, however, remains that the article at the very forefront should tackle this issue with rational not 'belief' but it fails to do this.

Consider this excerpt from the British Museum dealing with early Quran's in it's possession :

• 'The earliest Qur’ān manuscripts were produced in the mid-to-late seventh century, and ancient copies from this period have not survived intact and exist only in fragments. Or.2165 contains three series of consecutive leaves (Sūrah 7:40 – Sūrah 9:96; Sūrah 10:9 – Sūrah 39:48; Sūrah 40:63 – Sūrah 43:71) from the so-called mā’il Qur’ān, which is about two-thirds of the Qur’ān text and is one of the oldest Qur’āns in the world. It probably dates from the eighth century, and as far as can be ascertained, was produced in the Hijaz region of the Arabian Peninsula.

• The Arabic word mā’il (by which this Qur’ān is known) means ‘sloping’ and refers to the sloping style of the script – one of a number of early Arabic scripts collectively named ‘Hijazi’ after the region in which they were developed. The main characteristic of mā’il is its pronounced slant to the right. It can also be recognised by the distinctive traits of some of its letters, for example, the letter alif does not curve at the bottom but is rigid, and the letter yā’, occurring at the end of a word, turns and extends backwards frequently underlying the preceding words.

Nothing within this article, at the outset, begins to deal with this. Instead we are left with the belief that there was a recitation in the 7th century and it was compiled into 'book format' by scribes under the 3rd caliph - no source, no citation and certainly no proof. The implication is that we are today looking at an undiluted quran; from revelation to today.

Regarding including "traditional mythology" in the lead, a reader looking up the history of a religious text would want to know concisly the traditional narrative related to the beliefs surrounding that text. Using just two sentences for this doesn't appear to be problematic.

I would argue that history of a particular text and its historicity are focused primarily on quite different things. Historicity specifically deals with the critical examination regarding the historical reliability of a text while "history" is focused on whatever is known about the subject. Whether that knowledge is reliable or not, takes a secondary nature - unless the vast majority of a scholarly community believes that history to be untrue. Such is not the case with the Qur'an, the unreliability of the traditional narrative is not widely accepted.

If the article was titled historicity of the text, then criticisms of the traditional narrative should definitely be included in the lead. Keeping in mind, the present focus of the article, declared in its first paragraph, I'm not sure. Not saying it shouldn't be there, just that I'm uncertain. However, what I can say is that if the criticisms are raised, for balance purposes brief responses like other things through which the traditional narrative is supported such as the tradition of Qur'an memorization will also need to be be mentioned.

-- AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 11:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Section: "Influence of heretical Christian sects"

Edit link.

I believe the included information is mostly, if not entirely, irrelevant to the History of the Quran. At most, this information deserves a couple of sentences under the #Similarities with the Bible section, and definitely not to have ~8 paragraphs dedicated on the subject. This, especially since entire articles on Biblical and Quranic narratives and Islamic views on Jesus' death already exist.

Furthemore, the new content is written in a POV manner and apparently the exact same information is further included by the same user in two articles: Historical reliability of the Quran and Sources for the Quran. Also, what was the need to have four paragraphs of quotations if they are supposed to be supporting the same idea? Wouldn't one have had been enough, with references for others?

Unless someone counter-argues, I plan to remove the added content, with possibly including a 1-2 sentence summary of it under #Similarities with the Bible.

--AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I would also note that deeming a particular sect Heretical is not exactly a neutral point of view. It is also as you pointed out excessively long. --Erp (talk) 04:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, I'll give a couple of days for the original author to respond before removing/summarizing the added content (unless somone one else wants to take the initiative). -- AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 05:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Uthman order to burn all other copied of the Qurans

This is mention in the quote "Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied and ordered that all the other Quranic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. "

However not in the text itself. It is also implied that there were other versions of the Quran, otherwise, he would not order the burning of the Quran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.120.129.22 (talk) 14:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

The Angel Gabriel

Proclaiming without annotations that the Angel Gabriel of the Jewish and Christian faith is the same Gabriel that revealed himself to Mohammad is a gross error. In various accounts, Waraqah and Khadija being known as the first cousins twice removed of Muhammad, 'assumed' it was the Angel Gabriel that appeared to Mohammad. It is stated in various religious texts that he, Mohammad was extemely terrified of the encounter and inquired as to what being he encountered. In this pivotal encounter (as he had others prior) he was in pain and tormented to the point of submission by this being to follow its commands. There are many contradictions and assumptions about who actually appeared to Mohammad. So when it is referenced, it should be referenced as an assumption or hope, and not held as fact. It should not be assumed that it is the same Gabriel of the Jewish and Christian faiths, even if in later encounters that name was given.

Additionally, in the Qur'an and as stated below in, Learning Religions, https://www.learnreligions.com/angel-jibreel-gabriel-in-islam-2004031, Gabriel is also referred to as Holy SPirit. In Judaism and Christianity, an Angel is never the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is one personage of the Holy Trinity in Christianity. Holy Spirit in the Jewish and Christian religious traditions never appeared as a man or animal or angel. In the Christian tradition the only physical being of the Holy Spirit's manifestation was a dove. THe Holy Spirit howevered over Jesus when baptized as noted in the Gospels ( Matthew 3:13–17, Mark 1:9–11 and Luke 3:21–23.)

Islamic tradition interchanges the two identities of the Angel Gabriel and the Holy SPirit; the two being one and the same being. Hence, the Angel Jibreel or Gabriel of Islam cannot be the same Angel Gabriel of the Jewish and Christian tradition. 

The Divine Spirit according to Jewish tradition is cited here: to "https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7833-holy-spirit":

What the Bible calls "Spirit of Yhwh" and "Spirit of Elohim" is called in the Talmud and Midrash "Holy Spirit" ("Ruaḥ ha-Ḳodesh." never "Ruaḥ Ḳedoshah," as Hilgenfeld says, in "Ketzergesch." p. 237). Although the expression "Holy Spirit" occurs in Ps. li. 11 (LXX. πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον) and in Isa. lxiii. 10, 11, it had not yet the definite meaning which was attached to it in rabbinical literature: in the latter it is equivalent to theexpression "Spirit of the Lord," which was avoided on account of the disinclination to the use of the Tetragrammaton (see, for example, Targ. to Isa. xl. 13). It is probably owing to this fact that the Shekinah is often referred to instead of the Holy Spirit.

In another Qur'an Suras/verses, mention is made of the Holy Spirit (Ruh), which all Muslim scholars agree refers to the Angel Jibreel.

"And truly this is a revelation from the Lord of the Worlds, which the trustworthy spirit (Jibreel) has brought down to your heart, in order that you may be from the warners, in plain Arabic language" (Quran 26:192-195).

“Say, the Holy Spirit (Jibreel) has brought the revelation from your Lord in Truth, in order to strengthen those who believe, and as a Guide and Glad Tidings to Muslims” (16:102).

According to " WHo is the Holy SPirit, (http://grace-and-truth.org/AM-WhoIsTheHolySpiritInIslam-Lecture.htm) the translations from Arabic to other languages can create specific problems with proper interpretation, again wrong assumptions are made. Read below: 

A similar verse is in Sura 16:102. Here , the Arabic says: “Allah has sent the Spirit of the Holy from the Lord truly to strengthen those who believe.” Again, it simply says: “Allah sent the Spirit of the Holy from your Lord (he said it to Muhammad) truly that he will strengthen all those who believe.”

The commentators explain that Allah sent the angel Gabriel to strengthen the believer with the help of the Qur’an. This is the Muslim exposition, but it has a different meaning for the Jews, for the Christians, and for the Muslims, because there is no word of angel Gabriel. Gabriel is only brought up by the commentators, not by Muhammad. The verse states that Allah sent the spirit of the Holy to strengthen the believers. It does not speak of the Holy Spirit but of the spirit of the Holy, which means not the Spirit who is holy in himself but the spirit who is a slave of the Holy. Muslims understand it as the Spirit who is holy, meaning they should interpret him as the Holy Spirit, as should commentators and translators. And they do, except they call him the angel Gabriel.

I believe I have provide sufficient evidence that the wording in every Wiki page that references the Angel Gabriel as Holy SPirit and as the being who presented himself to the prophet needs to be corrected or include notations to distinguish between the two Gabriels.

Thank you! Respectfully Submitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:58B:C502:1260:8D8:2F94:E9C:E99 (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)