Quran might predate Muhammad?

[siam]

Wait. What? Where in the world are you getting this idea?
I don't even...What are you talking about? The context of our conversation is reputable contemporary historians, correct? Which reputable contemporary historians do you know consider Christopher Columbus either a genocidal maniac or an American hero in their academic publications?

You have a very peculiar view of modern historical scholars. I'm not sure what it's born out of, but it's not representative of how things actually are.

I don't understand what this sentence has to do with the topic that we're talking about. We're talking about mainstream academic historians here, right? We're not talking theologians.

The only constraint on Western scholars is leaving theology to theologians.

None of these are examples of constraints on Western scholars. Western scholars (and hopefully Eastern scholars as well) are free to accept or reject any of these theories. Who told you that Western scholars were restrained by these ideas?

Again, this is not a constraint. In fact, it doesn't even make sense to me that one would assert that historians must need choose between creativity and tradition. Sure modern historians are always looking for ways to push on the boundaries of accepted ideas, but that's how people learn, and how we grow. You seem to be suggesting that all historians should have stopped studying all history at some predetermined time, and that, in fact, Muslim scholars have done just that. They have nothing more to study, no new insights, because it's all been learned. It's a very strange approach to...anything. Whether it be astrophysics, medicine, baking, or history.

This sentence doesn't make any sense either. Historians are not looking for evidence that leads to God. They're attempting to reconstruct history as best as they can. Most decent historians will leave off the God question altogether in their academic work, neither addressing it positively or negatively, and leaving it to theologians or perhaps philosophers to discuss questions about God. The academic study of history is not the study of God. That's a different branch of study altogether.

Agreed.

I agree, but what does that have to do with historians in their academic publications? They neither presume that God exists or does not exist. That's not their job.

Can you name some Western historians of Islam that believe it is necessary to not believe in God's existence in order to do good history?

It doesn't sound to me like you understand the Western position at all. I don't know who told you these things, but I would strongly ignore them if I were you.

Absolutely. Who could ask for more?

I don't know much about Christianity and its origins/history or contemporary debates on various issues...but there are many historical positions such as the Jesus Seminar and Mythicist....and they all claim to be scholars....?......

Christopher Columbus---America had a holiday for this guy right?....
Here are some myths about American heroes that are debunked....
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Hi...ing_LMTTM.html

[siam]

"I agree, but what does that have to do with historians in their academic publications? They neither presume that God exists or does not exist. That's not their job."

This is an important point---and I agree that there is a division of "knowledge" in Modern Academia. However, this division of knowledge is an arbitrary position imposed because of a culture of secularism. For example, in the East, there was no division between "theology" and philosophy---this is a "Western" division. Now--because of Modernism---knowledge is divided into various spheres.....

In the Islamic world view---All knowledge is from God---just as the Quran is from God. So, the pursuit of knowledge is the pursuit of understanding "God". In modern academia Muslim scholars have to abide by the arbitrary division of knowledge that is imposed. That is ok...its how things are.....and there are advantages to this methodology.
Muslims are free to conclude or interpret evidence in ways that enhance understanding of God---but Non-Muslims are not free to do so---and this constraint of modern scholarship has to be understood.....so, if both God and Muhammed are not acceptable candidates--because of constraints and bias--- the question of "who wrote the Quran" is going to remain unanswered and this would be a limitation....IMO, this is good...not all questions have to be answered and not all answers have to be the same....

[siam]

Quantum biology is an interesting field of knowledge that combines/unites the various sciences---which were previously divided into different spheres....

from wiki--
"Quantum biology refers to applications of quantum mechanics and theoretical chemistry to biological objects and problems. Many biological processes involve the conversion of energy into forms that are usable for chemical transformations and are quantum mechanical in nature. Such processes involve chemical reactions, light absorption, formation of excited electronic states, transfer of excitation energy, and the transfer of electrons and protons (hydrogen ions) in chemical processes such as photosynthesis and cellular respiration. Quantum biology uses computation to model biological interactions in light of quantum mechanical effects."


Possibly in the future---the pursuit of knowledge will have less divisions in them and this will enhance our understanding far more than the "Modernist" approach with its limitations....

[Adrift]

I don't know much about Christianity and its origins/history or contemporary debates on various issues...but there are many historical positions such as the Jesus Seminar and Mythicist....and they all claim to be scholars....?......

I don't understand what your point is here. In the West, historians are free to go in whatever direction the evidence leads them. They don't all have to be in lock step with one another. That's a good thing.

Christopher Columbus---America had a holiday for this guy right?....
Here are some myths about American heroes that are debunked....
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Hi...ing_LMTTM.html

What does any of this have to do with what contemporary academic historians say about Columbus? Do you honestly imagine there is great debate between modern academic historians over whether or not Columbus was a genocidal maniac or an American hero? If so, can you actually cite something from their academic work? And what does Sut Jhally or Edward Said have to do with anything? They're not historians.

[Adrift]

"I agree, but what does that have to do with historians in their academic publications? They neither presume that God exists or does not exist. That's not their job."

This is an important point---and I agree that there is a division of "knowledge" in Modern Academia. However, this division of knowledge is an arbitrary position imposed because of a culture of secularism. For example, in the East, there was no division between "theology" and philosophy---this is a "Western" division. Now--because of Modernism---knowledge is divided into various spheres.....

In the Islamic world view---All knowledge is from God---just as the Quran is from God. So, the pursuit of knowledge is the pursuit of understanding "God". In modern academia Muslim scholars have to abide by the arbitrary division of knowledge that is imposed. That is ok...its how things are.....and there are advantages to this methodology.

So essentially what you're saying is that Muslim scholars (at least, those in the East) are incapable or unwilling to be objective in their historical analysis of the evidence. That's frightening.

Muslims are free to conclude or interpret evidence in ways that enhance understanding of God---but Non-Muslims are not free to do so---and this constraint of modern scholarship has to be understood.....so, if both God and Muhammed are not acceptable candidates--because of constraints and bias--- the question of "who wrote the Quran" is going to remain unanswered and this would be a limitation....IMO, this is good...not all questions have to be answered and not all answers have to be the same....

That's not at all the case. Non-Muslims say nothing one way or the other about God because the study of God is itself an entirely separate venture. If the evidence leads towards or away from God, the responsible historian comes to no conclusion one way or the other in his academic work, but let's others come to those conclusions. This frees historians to do history, and theologians to do theology. This says nothing about whether or not the Quran originated with Muhammad. A historian does not have to be burdened with religious bias to come to that conclusion, or the opposite conclusion.

[Adrift]

Quantum biology is an interesting field of knowledge that combines/unites the various sciences---which were previously divided into different spheres....

from wiki--
"Quantum biology refers to applications of quantum mechanics and theoretical chemistry to biological objects and problems. Many biological processes involve the conversion of energy into forms that are usable for chemical transformations and are quantum mechanical in nature. Such processes involve chemical reactions, light absorption, formation of excited electronic states, transfer of excitation energy, and the transfer of electrons and protons (hydrogen ions) in chemical processes such as photosynthesis and cellular respiration. Quantum biology uses computation to model biological interactions in light of quantum mechanical effects."


Possibly in the future---the pursuit of knowledge will have less divisions in them and this will enhance our understanding far more than the "Modernist" approach with its limitations....

[shunyadragon]

Thanks. I have no depth in this topic so I appreciate your indulgence. From a bit of quick reading is appears that Holland is more of a novelist and documentary filmmaker than historian. Apparently, he relied upon Patrician Crone, who was more of an Islamic scholar at Princeton. Is her scholarship more credible in your opinion?

In my opinion Patrician Crone is most definitely a first rate Islamic Scholar. She passed away earlier this year at 70. From what I know of her work she did not come to the conclusions that Holland made. I will try and post more after I check her out. I will not rely on my memory here.

[shunyadragon]

I did do a search of what she wrote on this subject and she wrote an interesting article in 2008.

Source: https://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-europe_islam/mohammed_3866.jsp

It is notoriously difficult to know anything for sure about the founder of a world religion. Just as one shrine after the other obliterates the contours of the localities in which he was active, so one doctrine after another reshapes him as a figure for veneration and imitation for a vast number of people in times and places that he never knew.

In the case of Mohammed, Muslim literary sources for his life only begin around 750-800 CE (common era), some four to five generations after his death, and few Islamicists (specialists in the history and study of Islam) these days assume them to be straightforward historical accounts. For all that, we probably know more about Mohammed than we do about Jesus (let alone Moses or the Buddha), and we certainly have the potential to know a great deal more.

There is no doubt that Mohammed existed, occasional attempts to deny it notwithstanding. His neighbors in Byzantine Syria got to hear of him within two years of his death at the latest; a Greek text written during the Arab invasion of Syria between 632 and 634 mentions that "a false prophet has appeared among the Saracens" and dismisses him as an impostor on the ground that prophets do not come "with sword and chariot". It thus conveys the impression that he was actually leading the invasions.

. . .

Everything else about Mohammed is more uncertain, but we can still say a fair amount with reasonable assurance. Most importantly, we can be reasonably sure that the Qur'an is a collection of utterances that he 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. Those who deny the existence of an Arabian prophet dispute it, of course, but it causes too many problems with later evidence, and indeed with the Qur'an itself, for the attempt to be persuasive.

The text and the message

For all that, the book is difficult to use as a historical source. The roots of this difficulty include unresolved questions about how it reached its classical form, and the fact that it still is not available in a scholarly edition. But they are also internal to the text. The earliest versions of the Qur'an offer only the consonantal skeleton of the text. No vowels are marked, and worse, there are no diacritical marks, so that many consonants can also be read in a number of ways.

Modern scholars usually assure themselves that since the Qur'an was recited from the start, we can rely on the oral tradition to supply us with the correct reading. But there is often considerable disagreement in the tradition – usually to do with vowelling, but sometimes involving consonants as well – over the correct way in which a word should be read. This rarely affects the overall meaning of the text, but it does affect the details which are so important for historical reconstruction.

In any case, with or without uncertainty over the reading, the Qur'an is often highly obscure. Sometimes it uses expressions that were unknown even to the earliest exegetes, or words that do not seem to fit entirely, though they can be made to fit more or less; sometimes it seems to give us fragments detached from a long-lost context; and the style is highly allusive.

© Copyright Original Source

[siam]

I did do a search of what she wrote on this subject and she wrote an interesting article in 2008.

Source: https://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-europe_islam/mohammed_3866.jsp

It is notoriously difficult to know anything for sure about the founder of a world religion. Just as one shrine after the other obliterates the contours of the localities in which he was active, so one doctrine after another reshapes him as a figure for veneration and imitation for a vast number of people in times and places that he never knew.

In the case of Mohammed, Muslim literary sources for his life only begin around 750-800 CE (common era), some four to five generations after his death, and few Islamicists (specialists in the history and study of Islam) these days assume them to be straightforward historical accounts. For all that, we probably know more about Mohammed than we do about Jesus (let alone Moses or the Buddha), and we certainly have the potential to know a great deal more.

There is no doubt that Mohammed existed, occasional attempts to deny it notwithstanding. His neighbors in Byzantine Syria got to hear of him within two years of his death at the latest; a Greek text written during the Arab invasion of Syria between 632 and 634 mentions that "a false prophet has appeared among the Saracens" and dismisses him as an impostor on the ground that prophets do not come "with sword and chariot". It thus conveys the impression that he was actually leading the invasions.

. . .

Everything else about Mohammed is more uncertain, but we can still say a fair amount with reasonable assurance. Most importantly, we can be reasonably sure that the Qur'an is a collection of utterances that he 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. Those who deny the existence of an Arabian prophet dispute it, of course, but it causes too many problems with later evidence, and indeed with the Qur'an itself, for the attempt to be persuasive.

The text and the message

For all that, the book is difficult to use as a historical source. The roots of this difficulty include unresolved questions about how it reached its classical form, and the fact that it still is not available in a scholarly edition. But they are also internal to the text. The earliest versions of the Qur'an offer only the consonantal skeleton of the text. No vowels are marked, and worse, there are no diacritical marks, so that many consonants can also be read in a number of ways.

Modern scholars usually assure themselves that since the Qur'an was recited from the start, we can rely on the oral tradition to supply us with the correct reading. But there is often considerable disagreement in the tradition – usually to do with vowelling, but sometimes involving consonants as well – over the correct way in which a word should be read. This rarely affects the overall meaning of the text, but it does affect the details which are so important for historical reconstruction.

In any case, with or without uncertainty over the reading, the Qur'an is often highly obscure. Sometimes it uses expressions that were unknown even to the earliest exegetes, or words that do not seem to fit entirely, though they can be made to fit more or less; sometimes it seems to give us fragments detached from a long-lost context; and the style is highly allusive.

© Copyright Original Source

This is a good summary---and pretty close to what Muslims also say....

There is a lot of myths and legends in the Muslim account which most modern historians weed out when presenting early "Islamic" history.
Also---the most recent evidence leads to a confirmation of the outline (as in, minus whatever is considered "myth") presented in the Muslim sources. That is, though these sources may have been written down later, they do represent what actually took place as far as the compilation of the Quran after death of the Prophet is concerned.---but there are also scholars who put the Quran at an earlier time period....

Pretty much everyone agrees that the Quran we have today is the Uthmani Codex.

There are a few points of contention (within Islam)as far as the accounts of the actual revelation are concerned....
1) Whether the phrase "In the name of God, the most merciful, the most compassionate" is or is not part of the Quranic revelation
2) Surah titles
3) verse separation
4) order of Surahs (Most Muslims believe the order is according to what the Prophet wanted---and this is shown by the partnering of the Surahs in literary analysis---that is, the structure of the Quran is such that thematically and in other ways surah are paired and support each other---also, the verses are put together in the order that the Prophet indicated they should be)

a few errors in the above summary
Disagreement on readings---An inaccuracy in the above summary is about disagreement with various reading ---7 of the readings were approved by the Prophet so there is no disagreement---additionally, I think there are a few, 3 or 4 readings which are considered "not approved"----but allowed....(within Islam)

Historical source---The Quran is difficult to use as a historical source because it is vague about names, locations, time periods and other historical details.....such details are only mentioned if and when they add important information to the story---otherwise they are omitted....this omission works as a tool to emphasize the message/point of the story rather than distracting from it by (historical) details...
However scholars such as Neuwirth and others are looking at the subject matter of the stories to determine the historical "culture"....
Muslims read the Quran with an understanding of the Biography of the Prophet in order to ground it (Quran) in history.....(for example---the Quran mentions the details of what happened at the battle of Badr---but the title "battle of Badr"---is not mentioned----ofcourse such a title may have come about later in history....at any rate---which battle the Quran is talking about comes from Islamic sources)
The Quran was also interactive at the time of revelation---so if the community of listeners had questions---they could ask and where necessary the Prophet replied with a revelation---(the questions are not recorded in the Quran---only answers) so the circumstances of revelation have to be understood---this information comes from Islamic sources.....
that is why the Quran itself is not best suited as a source of history---but it still can be studied for whatever information it does have....

Sayings of the Prophet--these are called Hadith (ahadith) and are understood to be completely separate from the Quran---(comparison of literary style will make this obvious). However, it is correct that there is no other candidate as author of the Quran so Western historians can work on the presumption that the author is unknown or that it is the Prophet....

Obscure---The Quran itself says some parts of it are clear---others are metaphors (unclear---in that, it has multiple interpretations) for example, where the Quran is talking about laws/ethics/morality---it is clear---when it talks about creation of the soul, heaven/hell, and other subjects beyond human understanding or experience---it uses metaphors....
(the Quran also uses "borrowed" words---but these are defined within the Quran itself so that the meaning is clear.....)

Patricia Crone---The revisionist theory was called Hagarism and it had an impact on Western Islamic studies---as I mentioned---scholars in the West need to establish "reputations" by coming up with creative theories based on speculation---which means they have to discard "Islamic sources". Cook and Crone later distanced themselves from this work.....
see---https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagarism

Even "reputable" scholars such as Crone have biases.....I don't see any problem with acknowledging such a fact....

[siam]

So essentially what you're saying is that Muslim scholars (at least, those in the East) are incapable or unwilling to be objective in their historical analysis of the evidence. That's frightening.



That's not at all the case. Non-Muslims say nothing one way or the other about God because the study of God is itself an entirely separate venture. If the evidence leads towards or away from God, the responsible historian comes to no conclusion one way or the other in his academic work, but let's others come to those conclusions. This frees historians to do history, and theologians to do theology. This says nothing about whether or not the Quran originated with Muhammad. A historian does not have to be burdened with religious bias to come to that conclusion, or the opposite conclusion.

No, I am not saying Today's Eastern scholars are not "Modern" (but pre-Modern Muslim scholars were not "Modern"---they came from a different style of academia/scholarship)

I agree that Modern Historians should be free to pursue knowledge as they see fit---as long as it is done fairly and evidence is properly established. Modern historians should also be able to freely contest or debate any theories their colleagues have...but that aside, Muslims and Non-Muslims as people are also free to use such knowledge to come to their own conclusions. Freedom of conscience should be a right of all people...

------------------------------a completely separate issue from "Quranic history" -----is the philosophy of "objectivity"---------------
objectivity---definition
Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met and are "bias-free"; that is, existing without biases caused by, feelings, ideas, etc. of a sentient subject. A second, broader meaning of the term refers to the ability in any context to judge fairly, without bias or external influence; this second meaning of objectivity is sometimes used synonymously with neutrality.

You feel that as long as the "Western Criteria" is followed---that "history" can be "objective"----I feel that the "Western" aspect of a criteria already makes it biased and therefore presuming an "objectivity" to history may be incorrect....That does not mean that there is anything wrong with a "western criteria" in doing history----just that there can be other ways of looking at and understanding "reality"/"truth"

[Adrift]

You feel that as long as the "Western Criteria" is followed---that "history" can be "objective"----I feel that the "Western" aspect of a criteria already makes it biased and therefore presuming an "objectivity" to history may be incorrect....That does not mean that there is anything wrong with a "western criteria" in doing history----just that there can be other ways of looking at and understanding "reality"/"truth"

To be clear, I am not saying that as long as Western criteria is followed that history will, necessarily, be objective. I acknowledge that all historians come to history with certain presuppositions. The honest historian recognizes this fact, and attempts, as best he can, to divorce himself from his bias, and remain as objective as best he can. What you've told me about Eastern Muslim scholars is that they are unwilling to divorce themselves from their bias. That, in fact, they embrace their bias, and use it to paint their understanding of history. I believe that this is severely problematic.

[siam]

To be clear, I am not saying that as long as Western criteria is followed that history will, necessarily, be objective. I acknowledge that all historians come to history with certain presuppositions. The honest historian recognizes this fact, and attempts, as best he can, to divorce himself from his bias, and remain as objective as best he can. What you've told me about Eastern Muslim scholars is that they are unwilling to divorce themselves from their bias. That, in fact, they embrace their bias, and use it to paint their understanding of history. I believe that this is severely problematic.

Biased history is what Western Revisionist history IS about.....the very word "Revisionist"---explains the bias!!.....
what is problematic is that some "versions" of history are claimed to be "objective"---when they actually have bias....this is not right....

The honest historian recognizes this fact, and attempts, as best he can, to divorce himself from his bias, and remain as objective as best he can. ---I agree with this....it is an important criteria...but even the best will generate bias because we are human beings....and accepting this fact is more correct and beneficial (in terms of tolerance for different perspectives) than some artificially imposed criteria of uniformity of thought.....

For example: The pre-Modern Islamic scholars preserved all perspectives---whatever their personal bias may have been, and whether or not they agreed with those perspectives----But---the Modern historian for example---discards the "myths" in order to preserve a "version" of history that conforms to a particular worldview---and then calls this process "objective"......

[robrecht]

Biased history is what Western Revisionist history IS about.....the very word "Revisionist"---explains the bias!!.....
what is problematic is that some "versions" of history are claimed to be "objective"---when they actually have bias....this is not right....

The honest historian recognizes this fact, and attempts, as best he can, to divorce himself from his bias, and remain as objective as best he can. ---I agree with this....it is an important criteria...but even the best will generate bias because we are human beings....and accepting this fact is more correct and beneficial (in terms of tolerance for different perspectives) than some artificially imposed criteria of uniformity of thought.....

For example: The pre-Modern Islamic scholars preserved all perspectives---whatever their personal bias may have been, and whether or not they agreed with those perspectives----But---the Modern historian for example---discards the "myths" in order to preserve a "version" of history that conforms to a particular worldview---and then calls this process "objective"......

Not really. Either or both the accepted/Muslim account/history or a revisionist history can be biased. If you say or imply the accepted/Muslim account is necessarily unbiased, then you are merely unaware of or disguising your own bias. In my opinion.

[siam]

Not really. Either or both the accepted/Muslim account/history or a revisionist history can be biased. If you say or imply the accepted/Muslim account is necessarily unbiased, then you are merely unaware of or disguising your own bias. In my opinion.

exactly

bias exists---why?---because in history physical evidence has to be interpreted....

[Adrift]

Biased history is what Western Revisionist history IS about.....the very word "Revisionist"---explains the bias!!.....

"Western history" is only biasedly revisionist if it attempts to pervert the historical record. You haven't shown that that is the goal of "Western history". Also I reject any distinction between Western and Eastern historians. I'm certain that there are historians, both in the East and the West with similar goals.

what is problematic is that some "versions" of history are claimed to be "objective"---when they actually have bias....this is not right....

even the best will generate bias because we are human beings....

And that's where checks and balance systems like peer review step in. No doubt even peer review is also occasionally prone to error, but it's better than accepting facts on blind faith.

and accepting this fact is more correct and beneficial (in terms of tolerance for different perspectives) than some artificially imposed criteria of uniformity of thought.....

I have no idea what you mean by "artificially imposed criteria of uniformity of thought". In Biblical studies, for instance, the gamut runs wide on acceptable views. To the one who is willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads, this shouldn't be overly problematic.

For example: The pre-Modern Islamic scholars preserved all perspectives---whatever their personal bias may have been, and whether or not they agreed with those perspectives----

You've already inferred that pre-Modern Islamic scholars held to particular biases. That Islamic studies must needs lead to a particular perspective. No doubt those perspectives differed in the details, but you've more or less said that they could only come to certain conclusions on major issues.

But---the Modern historian for example---discards the "myths" in order to preserve a "version" of history that conforms to a particular worldview---and then calls this process "objective"......

That isn't the case. There are plenty of examples of modern historians who are Jewish or Christian (or even Islamic scholars like Reza Aslan), who may or may not accept the theological "myth" of the Old and/or New Testament, yet still retain a certain level of objectivity when delving into the historical record. This is not an impossible task, and often times, those who are thoroughly devout on one level, are also those who are most critical. Again, a good historian leaves theology to theologians in their academic work (though they may diverge into theology in their more popular works), and focus on the historical record. There is no reason that Islamic scholars, as a general rule, cannot do the same.