The best Muslim/Non-Muslim scholarship on the Quran somewhat supports this site

[Zack]

Hello friends,

This is partly a question for Br. Joseph, the site moderators, and the rest of us. Is anyone familiar with IQSA (International Quran Studies Association:  https://iqsaweb.wordpress.com/about/mission/ ) ? In my view it is one of the best loose networks serious about studying the Quran from an academic viewpoint. The network was created after unbalanced radical re-thinking concerning the Quran by people such as Wansbrough and others. Some general overall views from what I understand (although varied) are:

- The Qur'an at the time of Muhammad is basically as we have it today.... although the Quran text is awkward due to it being intended for oral communication.
- Over 50% of Qur'an words are from a non- Arabic origin, primarily Syriac. (The Foreign Vocab of the Quran: Jeffrey).... I would be interested in hearing Br Josephs view on this, as his articles would seem to de-emphasize the importance of Arabic.
- Islam was not a distinct religion until possibly 50 years after Muhammad, and with the original Shahadat on coins etc. not including Muhammad.
- The Islamic writings in the classical era is not considered a reliable source for reconstructing the Origins of Islam
- Arabia just before the time of Muhammad was somewhat monotheist, and not Jahiliyah as often suggested.
- The purpose of the Quran was to preach a message through using stories known by the Arab community. The stories may or may not be historically accurate. The truth of the Quran's stories is not the point, the point is the preaching of a message.

Anyway just to say that this is based on an academic viewpoint where the inspired revelation is not assumed. I would love to hear from some of the moderators about this.

Wasalam
Zack

[Joseph Islam]

Dear Zack,

As-salamu alaykum

Yes, I am aware of IQSA.

However, in response to the views that you have kindly shared in blue italics below; please kindly allow me to share my own humble perspectives as they stand today from my own humble studies and scrutiny of material from a variety of sources within academia.

I will of course not attempt to elaborate, as each point could arguably have a thesis of its own dedicated to it to elucidate. I simply present my simple stance / point of view.

- The Qur'an at the time of Muhammad is basically as we have it today.... although the Quran text is awkward due to it being intended for oral communication.

The Quran revealed is as we have it today. This is the most likeliest / probable position. The Quran's own testimony even as a historical record supersedes that of latter extant sources. To argue otherwise places more / unwarranted reliance on secondary sources which were much later in provenance to that of the Quran. I have already discussed this in much detail.

- Over 50% of Qur'an words are from a non- Arabic origin, primarily Syriac. (The Foreign Vocab of the Quran: Jeffrey).... I would be interested in hearing Br Josephs view on this, as his articles would seem to de-emphasize the importance of Arabic.

I find academic work in this area very tenuous and arguably, pointless. Many languages today and throughout history acquire words and nuances which are 'foreign'. That's how languages often work. Furthermore and again, we have no comprehensive sources from the Quraysh contemporaneous to the Quran to compare with. Academia is once again restricted to later sources for comparison / interpretation. No matter how erudite a particular area of study, it is arguably only as good as its best source / sources, its lowest common denominator.

More importantly from my humble perspective however, there appears to be no meaningful purpose to argue for whether the Quran had foreign words or not. The whole drive behind such studies has often felt dubious to me. The Quran was simply revealed in a vernacular that was known to the primary audience. Whether later generations retained / completely understood the complete nuance of those words is a separate debate, often protracted.

- Islam was not a distinct religion until possibly 50 years after Muhammad, and with the original Shahadat on coins etc. not including Muhammad.

Again, much reliance is being placed on latter sources / or the existence of latter sources to interpret earlier events. The Quran itself should be used as the earliest historical source to interpret this period. However having said that, the main testimony in the Quran does appear to be as follows:

003:018
“There is no God but He (Arabic: La illa ha illa hu): That is the witness of God, His angels, and those endued with knowledge, standing firm on justice. There is no God but He, the Exalted in Power, the Wise”

- The Islamic writings in the classical era is not considered a reliable source for reconstructing the Origins of Islam

This is possibly quite true to some extent, yet quite ironically (and at times hypocritically), this forms the basis of much interpretation of both Modern and classic Arab scholarship. However, what I will say is that albeit it can be argued that later sources are of dubious content in terms of authenticity / reliability, they nevertheless do give us a good understanding / arguably accurate portrayal of how people of the time of these sources understood Islam / peddled their views / opinions within the sectarian milieu in which these sources found provenance. There is also the argument of not throwing the baby out with the bathwater!

- Arabia just before the time of Muhammad was somewhat monotheist, and not Jahiliyah as often suggested.

Certainly the immediate audience / contingent that the Quran primarily addressed appeared in the main, to be Jahilliya. This of course does not automatically imply the whole of Arabia, granted, but what proportion this accurately represented is a debate outside the remit of this response. However, Arabia was certainly not all Jahiliyah. This is attested by the Quran itself that once again remains the earliest extant historical source from the Arab people of that community / period. For example, the Quran is often in dialogue with Arab Jews living in Arabia that were monotheists.
 
- The purpose of the Quran was to preach a message through using stories known by the Arab community. The stories may or may not be historically accurate. The truth of the Quran's stories is not the point, the point is the preaching of a message.

How does one argue today that a particular narrative never occurred or was conjured out of the sheer necessity to present a story embellished almost to appeal?

The references to stories are argued by the Quran on a factual basis, the source of the information being argued as from an All-Knowing God. It affirms many narratives found in earlier Books and inspired writings which are also argued as factually true. For example, did a man called 'Joseph' actually exist who was incarcerated for a crime he did not commit cannot be 'proved' true or 'false' whether it is a book called the Bible or the Quran. An astute reader / believer arguably accepts the veracity of these narratives not on the basis of the story itself, but on the claims of the Book in multifaceted ways which convince them that the Book is inspired by a Divine entity, hence true.

The purpose of the ‘stories’ is to derive lessons and not simply conjure narratives without basis. Some stories are referenced in a manner as if they were already known to the Arab community but are also presented as elucidations of truth. The narratives presented around the the story of the People of the Cave is one such example in Surah 18 along with others such as the travels of Dhul Qurnain. Whether the historical narratives can be proven true or not is another matter. Please see my thoughts on the story of the People of the Cave for example [1] However yes, the overarching purpose appears to be the 'message' being delivered.

Regards,
Joseph


REFERENCE:

[1] THE SLEEPERS OF THE CAVE - THE QURAN, HISTORICAL SOURCES AND OBSERVATION
http://quransmessage.com/travelogues/seven%20sleepers%20FM3.htm

[Zack]

Hello Br. Joseph and friends,

Thank you for the time you took in your reply to the original post. I will reply to your responses briefly below, but before that to add the following…

-   Just so to be clear, my points relating to IQSA were fairly random, and from what I understand there is a general direction in their scholarly research but no “official position.” I also understand there has been significant progress relating to the origins of Islam, but the origins of the Qur’an and how it evolved is more of a mystery. You mentioned:

The Quran's own testimony even as a historical record supersedes that of latter extant sources.

Certainly I think that is the view of credible scholars today. HOWEVER, do we accept the contents of the Qur’an primarily based upon:

-   HEART BELIEF: That is, a heart and emotional allegiance to the Qur’an, with the view that because the Qur’an says something, I accept it as having eternal application no matter what… OR
-   HEAD BELIEF: I accept the Qur’an because it is stands up from an academic perspective. It also should be analyzed in its context, deconstructed, so to get its original meaning in its context.

The recent book “When Muslims first met Christians” analyses over 150 pages of interaction / comments between Eastern Syriac Christians and “Arab occupiers” from 635AD – 670AD, 100 years before the earliest Muslim commentaries. The conclusion is that the expansion of the Arab Empire was political, and had little emphasis on a spiritual message, with little or no reference to the Qur’an in this period. There was also not major disruption to life during the invasion in the 630’s by Arabs.

In my view, at best the Qur’an at this time was an internal Arab oral message primarily for Arab warriors, possibly with it being transcribed by the 630’s, but not readily accessible. Was it ever meant to be a Book beyond Arabia, I am not sure? Rec-creating the context and removing the mysticism of the Qur’an can only be a healthy thing, and I believe create a more global acceptance of the Qur’an from non-Muslims. Back to the responses of a couple of the previous comments..

- Over 50% of Qur'an words are from a non- Arabic origin, primarily Syriac. (The Foreign Vocab of the Quran: Jeffrey).... I would be interested in hearing Br Josephs view on this, as his articles would seem to de-emphasize the importance of Arabic. I find academic work in this area very tenuous and arguably, pointless.

The issue of foreign vocab in the Quran more relates to Islamic traditions that viewed Arabic as a superior and heavenly language..... when the reality is that the Arabic of the Quran incorporated many foreign words into their language.

- Islam was not a distinct religion until possibly 50 years after Muhammad, and with the original Shahadat on coins etc. not including Muhammad. Again, much reliance is being placed on latter sources / or the existence of latter sources to interpret earlier events. The Quran itself should be used as the earliest historical source to interpret this period.

I believe the evidence is from the non-usage of Muhammad in the Shahadat, as well as the non-usage of the word "Caliphate" PRIOR to the end of the 7th century, whilst AFTER the century the standard Shahadat and referring to the Caliphate changed. This is evident on inscriptions etc. (See Book "Muhammad and the Believers"

- Arabia just before the time of Muhammad was somewhat monotheist, and not Jahiliyah as often suggested.

Certainly the immediate audience / contingent that the Quran primarily addressed appeared in the main, to be Jahilliya. This of course does not automatically imply the whole of Arabia, granted, but what proportion this accurately represented is a debate outside the remit of this response.

Actually I was referring to indigenous Arab tribal peoples.... Their position was one of associating other lesser deities with God. (ie. stars, angels, saints etc.). In other words, those who were considered in Jahiliyah lived in compromised monotheism, already knowing Bible characters. In this, the degrading of pre-Muhammad Arabia to "Jahiliyah" is seen as a means of elevating the Messenger.
 
- The purpose of the Quran was to preach a message through using stories known by the Arab community. The stories may or may not be historically accurate. The truth of the Quran's stories is not the point, the point is the preaching of a message.

How does one argue today that a particular narrative never occurred or was conjured out of the sheer necessity to present a story embellished almost to appeal?

Again, this is partly how you approach the Quran text.  This is not to imply that the Qur'an is incorrect... but to educate listeners with historical information is not the goal;... the issue is using known stories, whether factual or not, to call people to repentance.

Wasalam
Zack