I have posted, on numerous occasions, questions regarding the origins of the Qur’an, without (I might add) anyone so much as making a comment. However – I see a number of people do read the post, and as such, I can only assume that no one has the slightest idea where the Qur’an originated from or maybe no one has an interest – “like hey it fell out of the sky – works for me!” sort of approach I see among some/many Christians as to how the Bible came about.
This sort of follows from a post I had about the Sana’a fragments
Anyway, the following quotes are from the An Atheist's Guide to Mohammedanism a quick review of the history of the Qur’an. I find the comments agree with what I read about the Sana’a fragments (which, by the way, was also from a Muslim site).
Unfortunately, the writer here is a little to sarcastic in some places (in typical Atheist fashion), however – the quotes are all properly cited and, when indicated, shown in smaller paragraphs and within quotation marks to indicate when taken from the book cited.
So –Qur’anic accounts outside of the Arabic communities. Given the animosity between Muslims and Christians (as you can see here) the interesting thing is that, at the time, there were no accounts. Apparently, at that time either Christians didn’t care or didn’t know about the Qur’an?
Do you think the second quote, regarding Mohammed as a military figure, is reminiscent of Julius Caesar’s deification after he died?
So apparently Christian historians during the entire seventh century had no idea that the “Hagarite” conquerors had a sacred book. Which may not mean much! But it is reminiscent of the Greek/other historians not knowing about Jesus at the time of his life. So not that surprising – assuming history now has been rewritten in typical fashion.
So what do famous Muslim historians have to say? Well, according to this site: some book was written around the year 835 CE by a certain al-Kindi, whose work was discussed in Alphonse Mingana's "The Transmission of the Koran," which has been reprinted by Ibn Warraq in his extremely useful book The Origins of the Koran. 11 Al-Kindi gives details of the stories circulating among the Muslims some two centuries after the death of Mohammed:
as-Suyuti [d. 1505 CE](apparently one of the most famous Muslim commentators on the Qur'an) quoted Ibn Umar al-Khattab as saying,
This sort of follows from a post I had about the Sana’a fragments
Anyway, the following quotes are from the An Atheist's Guide to Mohammedanism a quick review of the history of the Qur’an. I find the comments agree with what I read about the Sana’a fragments (which, by the way, was also from a Muslim site).
Unfortunately, the writer here is a little to sarcastic in some places (in typical Atheist fashion), however – the quotes are all properly cited and, when indicated, shown in smaller paragraphs and within quotation marks to indicate when taken from the book cited.
So –Qur’anic accounts outside of the Arabic communities. Given the animosity between Muslims and Christians (as you can see here) the interesting thing is that, at the time, there were no accounts. Apparently, at that time either Christians didn’t care or didn’t know about the Qur’an?
… an examination of Christian accounts from the early centuries of the Arab conquests can give us a clue. The Monophysite patriarch of Antioch, John I, recording lengthy religious discussions with General ‘Amr b. al-‘As on 9 May 639 CE says nothing that would indicate that the 'Hagarians' or 'Ishmailites' (the earliest non-Muslim names for Muslims) had a sacred book of their own - even though the general had been shown the Torah, the Prophets, and the Gospels of the Jews and Christians. 8 This was, of course, only around seven years after the death of Mohammed, during the fifth year of the caliphate of ‘Umar. Around 647 CE, during ‘Uthman's caliphate, the patriarch of Seleucia, Isho‘yahb III, wrote a letter which betrays no knowledge of the existence of the Qur’an, and scholars familiar with this famous character are certain he would have mentioned or quoted the Hagarian book if he had known of it or even simply had heard of it. 9
Do you think the second quote, regarding Mohammed as a military figure, is reminiscent of Julius Caesar’s deification after he died?
More than thirty years later still, in 680 CE, an anonymous writer from the time of the Umayyad caliphate of Yazid ibn Mu‘awiah discussed the Arabs as the simple descendants of Ishmael who still practiced the ancient Abrahamic faith and treated Mohammed as a purely military man, betraying no awareness of any religious function or role played by the conqueror. Even in 690 CE, John Bar Penkaye — although an eyewitness of part of the Arab conquest - knows nothing of any Arabian sacred book existing during the caliphate of ‘Abdul-Malik [685-705]. 10
So apparently Christian historians during the entire seventh century had no idea that the “Hagarite” conquerors had a sacred book. Which may not mean much! But it is reminiscent of the Greek/other historians not knowing about Jesus at the time of his life. So not that surprising – assuming history now has been rewritten in typical fashion.
So what do famous Muslim historians have to say? Well, according to this site: some book was written around the year 835 CE by a certain al-Kindi, whose work was discussed in Alphonse Mingana's "The Transmission of the Koran," which has been reprinted by Ibn Warraq in his extremely useful book The Origins of the Koran. 11 Al-Kindi gives details of the stories circulating among the Muslims some two centuries after the death of Mohammed:
al-Kindi writes:It [the Qur’an] was not at first collected in a volume, but remained in separate leaves. Then the people fell to variance in their reading; some read according to the version of ‘Ali, which they follow to the present day [i.e., c835 CE]; some read according to the collection of which we have made mention [a collection made by Abu Bakr himself]; one party read according to the text of Ibn Mas‘ud, and another according to that of Ubai ibn Ka‘ab.
Then followed the business of Hajjaj b. Yusuf, who gathered together every single copy he could lay hold of, and caused to be omitted from the text a great many passages. Among these, they say, were verses revealed concerning the House of Umayyah with names of certain persons, and concerning the House of Abbas also with names. Six copies of the text thus revised were distributed to Egypt, Syria, Medina, Mecca, Kufa, and Basra. After that he called in and destroyed all the preceding copies, even as ‘Uthman had done before him. The enmity subsisting between ‘Ali and Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman is well known; now each of these entered in the text whatever favored his own claims, and left out what was otherwise. How, then, can we distinguish between the genuine and the counterfeit? And what about the losses caused by Hajjaj? The kind of faith that this tyrant held in other matters is well-known; how can we make an arbiter as to the Book of God a man who never ceased to play into the hands of the Umayyads whenever he found opportunity?(12)
as-Suyuti [d. 1505 CE](apparently one of the most famous Muslim commentators on the Qur'an) quoted Ibn Umar al-Khattab as saying,
"Let no one of you say that he has acquired the entire Koran, for how does he know that it is all? Much of the Koran has been lost; thus let him say, 'I have acquired of it what is available'."At some point apparently, Uthman, the third caliph, commissioned to have the Qur’an canonized. But . . . this didn’t appear to do the trick and so . . .
under the direction of the Qur’anic scholar Ibn Mujahid [d. 935 CE], 16 there was a canonization of a specific consonantal system and a limit was placed on the vowels that could be used. This resulted in seven officially sanctioned systems for reading of the Qur’an, although some scholars accepted ten readings and still others found fourteen of merit. In the end, just three systems prevailed: the Medina system of Warsh [d. 812 CE], the Kufa system of Hafs [d. 805], and the Basra system of ad-Duri [d. 860].
Well where does this lead me ultimately? No where really
I just wanted to get an idea of how the Qur’an came about. Honestly, I couldn’t care if it was written in one place and never altered thereafter (as a few Muslim have told me) or altered on a daily bases (say as new insights occur). One way is not inherently better than the other – in this matter anyhow. To me it appears that the Qur’an has run the typical gauntlet as probably all religious works of gathering past stuff then writing, rewriting, re-rewriting, and finally canonization. That’s pretty much the route of most things. Which doesn’t take away from what it contains – as I understand it sounds quite beautiful and poetic if one understands Arabic.
So that’s that.