From: The Origins of the Koran, Classic Essays on Islam's Holy Book, Ed. Ibn Warraq, Prometheus Books
The traditional image of a Muslim warrior wielding a sword and the Koran is an oversimplification. Devout Muslims revere the Koran deeply, handling it with care—never with the left hand, reserved for mundane tasks—and treating it as a sacred object. As Guillaume notes, "It is the holy of holies. It must never rest beneath other books, but always on top of them, one must never drink or smoke when it is being read aloud, and it must be listened to in silence. It is a talisman against disease and disaster."
Western perspectives vary. Gibbon called it an "incoherent rhapsody of fable," Carlyle found it challenging, and Salomon Reinach remarked:
"From the literary point of view, the Koran has little merit. Declamation, repetition, puerility, a lack of logic and coherence strike the unprepared reader at every turn. It is humbling to consider that this text has inspired extensive commentary and study."
This analysis adopts a historical, not theological, approach, focusing on evidence derived from rational inquiry and scientific examination.
In 1937, Arthur Jeffery observed, "Critical investigation of the text of the Qu'ran is a study which is still in its infancy." By 1977, John Wansbrough noted its limited exposure to Biblical criticism techniques. In 1990, Andrew Rippin highlighted a persistent issue:
"I have often encountered individuals who come to the study of Islam with a background in the historical study of the Hebrew Bible or early Christianity, and who express surprise at the lack of critical thought that appears in introductory textbooks on Islam."
Many texts assume "Islam was born in the clear light of history," yet fail to apply rigorous methods like source criticism or literary analysis, common in Judeo-Christian studies. This suggests a reluctance to approach Islam with full academic scrutiny.
Key questions include: How was the Koran compiled and transmitted? When and by whom was it written? What are its sources? What defines its authenticity, given the absence of a definitive original text?
The traditional narrative holds that the Koran was revealed to Muhammad gradually until his death in 632 CE, often through an angel. It’s unclear how much was recorded during his lifetime, though he likely dictated portions to secretaries. After his death, several accounts describe its compilation.
The Collection Under Abu Bakr: During Abu Bakr’s caliphate (632–634), ‘Umar, fearing the loss of Koran memorizers after the Battle of Yamama, urged a collection. Zayd ibn Thabit gathered it from diverse materials—papyrus, stones, leaves, and memory—producing sheets (suhuf) handed to Abu Bakr, then ‘Umar, and later Hafsa. Variants attribute the initiative to others, question its feasibility in two years, and note its lack of official status, suggesting it may have been a later story to shift credit from ‘Uthman.
The Collection Under ‘Uthman: Under ‘Uthman (644–656), disputes over readings prompted Zayd to revise the text, aligning it with Hafsa’s version and the Quraysh dialect. Copies were distributed, and others destroyed. Critics note inconsistencies—e.g., the Koran’s Arabic isn’t dialect-specific, and personnel lists vary—yet many scholars accept this account without robust justification.
Muslim orthodoxy claims ‘Uthman’s Koran preserves all revelations unchanged, but early scholars like As-Suyuti (d. 1505) acknowledged losses. Ibn ‘Umar al Khattab said, "Much of the Quran has been lost," and A’isha noted missing verses from the Prophet’s time. Uba ibn Ka’b recalled longer chapters reduced under ‘Uthman.
The unpointed script (scripta defectiva) and lack of vowels in early texts led to numerous variant readings. By the late ninth century, a standardized script emerged, but earlier codices (e.g., Ibn Mas’ud’s) persisted. Ibn Mujahid (d. 935) canonized seven readings, though others recognized up to fourteen. Today, Hafs (from Asim) and Warsh (from Nafi) dominate, reflecting substantial textual diversity.
Charles Adams notes, "Far from a single inviolate text, thousands of variant readings existed in the first three Muslim centuries."
Traditional accounts rely on late Muslim sources—Ibn Ishaq’s biography (750 CE, 120 years post-Muhammad) survives only through Ibn Hisham (d. 834)—and Hadiths, compiled centuries later (e.g., Bukhari, d. 870). Goldziher and Schacht argue these are unreliable, shaped by later theological and political agendas rather than historical fact.
Wansbrough and successors like Cook and Crone propose the Koran evolved over two centuries, influenced by Judeo-Christian traditions outside Arabia, not as a seventh-century Arabian revelation. Non-Muslim sources (Greek, Syriac, Armenian) suggest a different narrative, linking early Islam to Jewish messianism and a Palestinian focus, with Mecca’s role emerging later.
This collection, largely from over fifty years ago, standardizes spellings (e.g., "Koran," "Muhammad") for clarity, aligning with modern usage while simplifying diacritics for accessibility.
Source: http://www.secularislam.org/research/origins.htm (Site dead.)
Acknowledgment: I’d like to thank Grok, an AI by xAI, for helping me draft and refine this article. The final edits and perspective are my own.
