Can We Trust the Traditional Chronology of the Qur'an? W/ Prof. Nicolai Sinai
2023 ж. 16 Қаң.
4 599 Рет қаралды
This is a clip about the scholarly debate as to the usefulness of following the chronology of revelation in traditional Islamic sources. Professor Sinai and I discuss some issues with the traditional chronology and to what degree it can be trusted to explain the development of the Qur'an. This clip is taken from my interview with Professor Nicolai Sinai. If you enjoyed this video, please subscribe to the channel and like the video! Please be sure to check out the full interview, here: • Nicolai Sinai: Histori...
Thanks to put the Mythvision podcast in your channel Gabriel.
Even unlearned Muslim will tell u that a chapter named Makkan can also contain Madinan verses and vice versa. It's not strange at all. Because Quran was revealed in bits and parts depending on the situation and events on the ground. Every Muslim knows that.
One issue is that the current form shows that Muhammad did not carefully track his edits and changes. Other people did that, which is why you get parallel passages that once had the same base but got modified in different directions.
@@toomanymarys7355 The Quran has been meticulously revealed, recited and arranged and wrote down. It was the work of Angel Gabriel to bring down the revelation, recite to Muhammad and indicate which chapter and of which order the verses should be. As Allah says: Quran chapt.75 "Indeed, upon Us is its collection [The Quran] and [to make possible] its recitation. So when We have recited it [through Gabriel], then follow its recitation. Then it is surely upon Us to make it clear ˹to you˺" So you see, Muhammad and his companions had No input in the Quran's revelation, collection, recitation and explanation. All of this was done by Allah through Angel Gabriel. Allah being the revealer, Gabriel being the agent and Muhammad as the teacher of the companions. All of this was oral recitation. But the companions wrote it down. The sequence of the verses were pre-arranged through revelation but the chapters were Not. Similar chapters were grouped together depending on their length, subject or period of revelation. Both during the time of the Prophet and after his death. There is nothing called editing or changing the Quran. Not even a single letter was changed or edited. Marely the arrangements of the Chapters and Not the sequence of the verses.
I have always wondered why they just did not arrange the whole book chronologically. The way it is right now does not flow at all.
@@dogukan7406 The Quran is a spider's web. Unlike any other book the mankind ever wrote. It's like God was shattering our conception of literary work and language use. If Muhammad or indeed any other person was the author, they would have followed the literary traditions of the time and would have writen just like the Torah or the gospel. The Quran is unique work and employs several literary techniques unknown to mankind. 1: The web-like arrangement of the Book. 2: the repetitions of ideas and concepts 3: The self-referentiality, 4: The poetry, 5: and many more.
Hope to see professor Reynolds on MythVision podcast again.
Yes, next time please deliberate on the authorship of Quran.
Dr. Steven Shoemaker says quran compilation & standardisation started during the reign of Umayyad ruler Abd Al-Malik (685-705AD) . Arabs compiled quran from pre-Isalmic arabic literature mostly derived from Christian syro-aramaic texts & folklores and Babylonian Talmud.
I think Shoemaker accidentally proves that the Qur'an was primarily written but just disorganized and contradictory and incoherent before Abdul-Malik.
@@toomanymarys7355 true..quran was hastily compiled from existing Arabic material and then edited over time..
@@roshlew6994 The results of the hasty compilation are in thr Sanaa palimpsest. The final editorial form is the standard rasm, though the early rasm isn't the same as Ibn Mujahid's rasm. There actually weren't many CHANGES made by al-Hajjaj--he chose among existing choices. But the exclusion of the Shia compilation and the enforcement of the Sunni compilation was very significant. There were two main forms of hasty early compilations, and all Shia codices, which were way longer, were gathered over centuries and destroyed.
He was a cobbler before he studied religions?
@roshlew6994 do you ever investigate things for yourself or just blindly copy what you have heard.
So, the historical critical method is just the latest stage of Orientalism?
certainly a lot of bold claims being put forth... always interesting to hear unique perspectives.. but a little dismayed at some of the inaccuracies which then undermine the credibility of the whole thesis. for example the verse in baqarah regarding "ambiguous verses" which contradicts other areas where the quran is described as clear... the translation ambiguous is completely incorrect and is widely understood as metaphorical/allegorical speech used to describe the unseen (as opposed to other verses which deal in concrete terms). It's common practice to use metaphor to make something relatable but metaphors can be taken too far by the reader or misunderstood altogether, and sometimes purposely twisted to suit one's purposes which is more the intent of the verse in question (hence the admonition).
We should tabulates all the verses in the Quran and harmonise them according to the established chronology of the Bible and work out the rest the best we can. I suspected they're composed un- chronologically on purpose to avoid critics or verification, to give a sense of religiosity without being sensical, or just by ignorance.
very critical Bible - nothing to see here.
Christians: Our scriptures are messy so Muslims' scriptures must be like ours because we at year 2000 are more technologically advanced and powerfull. They forget that their ancesstors were backward for 1800 years.
In view of the fact that recent carbon dating of earliest scrolls and books of the Quran confirms the Moslem narrative that the Quran was canonized at the rein of Othman. This narrative though isn’t examined fully! The narrative had been examined under a criteria that Muslims established 2 centuries later. Part of the criteria called Mutawater meaning multi stringed in Arabic. Looking in detail at this criteria we come to understand that any tradition text of Quran or Sunnah has to have separate source narrations with identical resulting texts to be in this class and is determined to be logically devoid of error or manipulation. The criteria of the professor ignores this scientific historical phenomena. At compilation of the Quran the numbers of companions of Mohammad whom heard him and are still alive are considerable. The number of objectors to the canon are less than the fingers of a hand. Wouldn’t it be prudent to employ this criteria to confirm the validity of the first verse of Sura Iqra’e. Had the Quran had humanistic styles it could have been bettered or matched. All such attempts have failed historically. Shouldn’t the video include these criterion.
When will you explore the Bible?
Professor Reynolds have made interviews with other professors or scholars solely focused on the Bible. There was one such video 6 days ago. And one by Gary Anderson as an example.
Thousands of scholars have already explored the Bible. The Qur'an is still in its infancy in regard to critical analysis
46 min in Mythvision: The writing of the Quran has short circuited the writing of the Bible in Arabic. As it was targeted toward Christians Arabs and no one else, it did the job for what it was purported with the help of the circumstances (30 years old Persian war vs Constantinople 602-628). It was then the first to emerge in Arabic playing enormously on the Arab identity to rally Arabs which had not any Bible in Arabic . I consider that it is clear that if Arabs had an Arabic Bible, the Quran would have never existed. It would have been to late for its writers to try to remove Arabs from Christianity.
This is a very delusional reply😅... Many parts of the world with deep rooted traditions- both Christian and non-christian- have been completely transformed by Qur'an and Islam. Let's start from Egypt to Syria to Anatolia to Central Asia to South and South East Asia... On the contrary, the Bible never ever had the capacity to change anything anywhere, except for the name of a deity that people call towards. It remained always flexible enough for people to interpret it according to their political, social and economic interests. On some occasions, it only pulled the society backward like in Roman empire or Europe during dark ages, where clearly the clergy feudal system led the society to utter destruction... Only when any society removed Christianity from its public and political sphere, they achieved even some kind of material success. That's the tragedy of Christianity - it became such a horrendously backward force for human beings, so much so that Europeans hate every religion like they hate Christianity, because they think that every religion is like Christianity.
@@aismail8321 1/'Dark Age' is not a scholarly expression. The expression is 'Middle age' 2/ Christianism has changed everything in the Antique world, I think you have been badly instructed: for example Internet is its product, medicine, another one, all sciences and technics with borrowings of Indian numbers and Persian maths during the Middle age. All these are not European findings , but it is them who have used them to develop what I have mentioned. 3/ 'Middle Age' was a Golden age in Europe, (8th to 13th c., before the Black Death) beginning of science, literature, etc. 4/ They hate what made them that is why it is so fun. And if they hate it now it is because they were influenced by those who hated it to death. I really think Ishmael that you have to read some books to understand how things happened. 5/ Your statements have nothing to see with mine to which you responds.
@@aismail8321 excellent
The Quran compilation of Ali ibn Abi Talib was chronologically ordered, with Surah 96 (al-Alaq - the one quoted here) as the first - at least the first six lines. And why should it not be the first? I don't get the argument about the angel. The story of it being in Hira is something else. Listening to some people reminds me of the orientalists I've read! ... and, btw, words like 'jihad' have more than one meaning, as we all know, and the way they would have been understood then, so if it appears in a Meccan surah, what does that prove? Scribal editing can always be considered but trying to prove any of this would be very subjective, I bet. BTW, 'asbaab-un-nuzuul' cannot be ignored. That would be 'irresponsible'! Here is one verse, as an example, for a specific occasion: *Aayat-ul-Ghadeer* *Verse of Ghadeer* as was ORIGINALLY worded in the compilation of Abdullah ibn Mas'uud -one of the first of the three earliest Quran compilers (the other two were Ali ibn Abi Talib and Ubayy ibn Ka'b) which is linked to the Event of Ghadeer. *Jalaaluddin as-Suyuuti and ash-Shaukani, both SUNNI & both well-known scholars are referring to ibn Mas'uud ORIGINAL version of verse 67, Surah al-Ma'idah in their respective exegeses* : يا ايها الرسول بلغ ما انزل اليك من ربك ان عليا مولى المؤمنين وان لم تفعل فما بلغت رسالته والله يعصمك من النلس Surah al-Maa'idah, 67 " *O'Prophet* ! *Convey what has been revealed to you from your Lord that Ali is the mawlaa (master / leader) of the believers* and if you do not then you have conveyed God's message, a God will protect you from the people (who mean harm)." *Ali mentioned in this verse as mawlaa-ul-mo'mineen = leader of the believers. This being from one of the earliest Quran compilations means we have to give it weight on the historical event of Ghadeer* ! *Also readable here, in the original* ! books.google.nl/books?id=hzdMDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT522&lpg=PT522&dq=%D8%A7%D8%AE%D8%B1%D8%AC+%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%86+%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%8A+%D8%AD%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%85,+%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%86+%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%8A%D8%A9 *...and here in Tafseer Fath-ul-Qadeer of al-Shaukaani. SAYS THE SAME* ! books.google.nl/books?id=vsR9DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT488&lpg=PT488&dq=%D8%A7%D8%AE%D8%B1%D8%AC+%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%86+%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%8A+%D8%AD%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%85 More here: *Aayat-ul-Ghadiir was revealed in favour of Imam Ali Ibn Abi Talib just as the two above sources say and as the 'asbaab-un-nozuul' below says* : *Asbaab-un-Nuzul by Al-Wahidi - SUNNI TAFSEER SURAH AL-MAA'IDAH* *VERSE 67* www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=86&tSoraNo=5&tAyahNo=67&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2 *Those people keep saying the Ali's name is not in the Quran ought to know this. If it was removed (in the Uthmanic recension) obviously it won't be there. The event of Ghadeer was a historical event and this verse is directly linked to it, which is Asbaab-un-Nuzul, causes of revelation* ! BTW, the reference to ambiguous (mutashaabihaat) verses vs clear (muhkamaat) versus [Surah Aal-e-Imran; Verse 7] doesn't necessarily mean later editing and interpolation. I hope I didn't get this wrong as being a possible example being mentioned of a later editing (by some scribe). We all know society is complex and composed of people with varying levels of understanding so inevitably some passages may appear obscure to some, perhaps to many. Not sure we can take the view that God's / Quran's pronouncement as a 'clear message' applies universally to every single verse. Besides there is a warning against those who would want to take advantage of the ambiguous vs the clear, i.e. some will try to distort and because of ulterior motives, AND a declaration that only people of knowledge & understanding know what they mean: هُوَ الَّذِىٓ أَنزَلَ عَلَيۡكَ الۡكِتَـٰبَ مِنۡهُ ءَايَـٰتٌ۬ مُّحۡكَمَـٰتٌ هُنَّ أُمُّ الۡكِتَـٰبِ وَأُخَرُ مُتَشَـٰبِهَـٰتٌ۬ۖ فَأَمَّا الَّذِينَ فِى قُلُوبِهِمۡ زَيۡغٌ۬ فَيَتَّبِعُونَ مَا تَشَـٰبَهَ مِنۡهُ ابۡتِغَآءَ ٱلۡفِتۡنَةِ وَابۡتِغَآءَ تَأۡوِيلِهِۦۗ وَمَا يَعۡلَمُ تَأۡوِيلَهُ ۥۤ إِلَّا اللَّهُۗ وَٱلرَّٲسِخُونَ فِى الۡعِلۡمِ يَقُولُونَ ءَامَنَّا بِهِۦ كُلٌّ۬ مِّنۡ عِندِ رَبِّنَاۗ وَمَا يَذَّكَّرُ إِلَّآ أُوْلُواْ الۡأَلۡبَـٰبِ (٧) Surah Aal-E-Imran He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: *in it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are not of well-established meaning. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is not of well-established meaning. Seeking discord, and searching for its interpretation, but no one knows its true meanings except Allah, and those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in it; the whole of it is from our Lord"; and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding* . (Surah Aal-E-Imran; verse 7) [Yusuf Ali Translation] There have always been few "uulu-l-al-baab اُوْلواْ الالباب " at any time or place, *and some if us know who this term, uulu-l-al-baab, is referring to* !
👏.🙂
The Quran is both composed, collected and edited. There really is no chronological order to it - the “later suras” like Baqara are written by a person (possibly edited collectively), then the suras that mention the biblical accounts are added to it (and edited) and also the “pagan-poetic” suras are also added to it (and edited to suit the “biblical stories”. As far as we know - this could have happened in 6 months - but because the style is so different- a story was invented how “prophet Muhammad had his Quran revealed to him in over two decades”. As far as we know - “Muhammad” just wrote few suras, and then he thought to himself- “well, I better add some biblical accounts to make it sound legit” and after that, he thought to himself “dang, that book still too short to be important” as added some old poetry, editing it a bit. Wild speculation???? … as good as any …
I guess you also believe in the Atlantis and think the Aliens used to land on the pyramids as well? You're genius, quickly write an article and publish it, I'm sure it will pass the peer review validation process, hands down. They might send you the reviwers team to congratulate you as well.. they will be dressed in white scrubs and will come in an ambulance.. just follow them xx
Why should it have a chronology , say, like the Bible - a book heavily edited over a very long time. The two are very different. Sorry to say, the rest of your post is full of the same speculations I've read from others (e.g. reference to pagan poets etc), and mostly amateurs! BTW I've read lot of pagan poets (bet you haven't) and their poetry is very different. It's about the tribe and extolling its virtues, one's lineage and clan, certain manly virtues and an over abundance of 'hamasah'. Nothing like the Quran in style and content!
@@zeustn9525 the “peer validation” has no credibility in this case - because the whole edifice on the persona of “prophet Muhammad” and how the Quran was written - is one big guess. Otherwise - you have one fartsy scholar reading and “peer reviewing” other fartsy scholar - and they will each nod and clap in admiration to each other. Now - I’m not saying that ALL the history of Islam can not be validated by events or archeological discoveries- but as far as we know - it is not the case with the historicity of Muhammad or the story behind the Quran. And yes - I do acknowledge the existence of aliens. Do you really think humans are the only life form in existence??
@@Zarghaam12 the poetry of the Quran -/ however you call it - does fill into certain patterns that is not religious, and is neither Christian nor Jewish. I have read some pre-Islamic poetry- and even if the Quran does not lament lovers nor animals nor does it praise the valor of fighters and bravery of battle - it is still poetry. It is adjusted to religious themes - granted. It could very well be the case that the writer of the Quran added poetry to his main writings - edited them to look religious, incorporated themes of disasters to reflect apocalyptic longings - and there is absolutely no way for us to know. There is no such thing as the “chronology of the Quran” since we don’t know who and how the Quran came to be. We don’t even know if “Muhammad” was a name proper or a nickname, the “Praised one”.
@@MBiernat0711 I specifically talked about aliens using the pyramids as a landing site.. oh well why do I even bother?! The Academia is a farce to you.. but your own fanciful theories are not.. hmm ok well have fun in your parallel universe, sounds really fun there xx
Conjecture without evidence, pure bias
The esteemed guest couldn't find examples of post-prophetic editing of the Qur'an? Really?! Of course Q. 3:7 is obviously a somewhat later interpolation, but what about _Sura An-Najn_ , Q. 53:6-18, which describes the prophet in the past tense? Even Q. 53:1-6 are written in the present perfect! Clearly, the first 18 verses of _The Star_ are interpolations. Furthermore, what about the closing verses of _Sura, Al-Baqarah_ , Q.2:285-6? Whoever wrote v. 285 was surely addressing a different audience: it reads as though it were an epistle, speaking of the prophet and his fellow believers in the third person! And v. 286 is a prayer _to_ Allah. Obviously vv. 285-6 are not revelations from God. These, too, are most likely textual interpolations. There are so many to choose from that to claim that such interpolations, probably by several redactors, are hard to find in the Qur'an is truly hard to believe.
But serious scholarship can't identify these "obvious" interpolations so who are you again? That said the Islamic tradition mentions a sort of "editing" by the Prophet himself so there might has been some verse rearranging but there is no proof that it was done after the text was widespread..furthermore, any sort of late editing is highly unlikely because we know that the text was stable as early as 650, probably earlier even
@@zeustn9525 "We know ... probably..." If you have to qualify a statement as a probability, then it isn't something you can know for certain, is it! What is the antithesis of 'serious scholarship'? Sometimes scholars are more concerned about not causing too much controversy: it isn't often beneficial for their careers! I happen to have a philology degree, so I am qualified to ask such questions and have the necessary skills to identify textual indicators for interpolations, such as comparing differences in syntax, lexis, register, thematic coherence; as well as using tools such as Structural Functional Linguistic programs. Literary criticism also has a role to play: genre, intertextuality, orthography, identifying an audience, etc. So, yes, when a series of verses shift to refering to the prophet in the third person past tense, it's a pretty obvious giveaway that it wasn't Muhammad who spoke those words! It has by no means been shown beyond doubt that the text of the Qur'an had been fixed by 650 CE. Not one example of an Uthmanic Qur'an exists! Al-Hajjaj edited the text of the Qur'an around 700 CE. The second canonisation of the Qur'an occurred under Ibn Mujahid in 936 CE. Indeed, the final canonisation of the Qur'an didn't occur until 1924 in Cairo.
@@gavinjames1145 oh I see, you're still clinging on this ludicrous thesis of the late standardisation theory. I don't want to sound too harsh, but with all the manuscripts that we have, it is certain that by 650 the consonantal text was fixed. So it's a pretty ridiculous statement you're making to be honest.. unless you're still giving any credit to Guillaume Dye et al and you don't trust carbon dating etc... philology is great but when you have physical manuscripts that clearly contradict it, I trust Physics every time!
@@zeustn9525 Why are you being so prejudicial?! So foolish! So impulsive! Actually, I think that the main consonantal text of the Qur'an was largely fixed by mid-to-late 7th Century, but the text was not fully fixed until al-Malik and al-Hajjaj at the earliest. The composition of the Qur'an most likely occurred in stages, incorporating Jewish and Christian source texts (through an oral tradition) by around 650CE. But there wasn't a single fixed text until 'Uthman' (although I suspect Umar began the composition of the Qur'an - which seems to be corroborated by Islamic tradition/Hadiths). Regarding interpolations, which others have identified too, they almost certainly occurred after around 650 CE but before 705 CE.
@@gavinjames1145 oh bless you, didn't mean to hurt your delicate feelings. I'm not being prejudicial but I don't like people who throw silly conspiracy theories with no proof other than conjectures and questionable premises. That the early muslim community went on to invent a prophet, compose a mishmash of Jewish and Christian oral traditions and invent a whole sacred history to legitimise their empire, I'm sorry but it's the same level of those claiming the pyramids were built by aliens!! Anyway, your theory (I should say Dye's and wansbrough and the rest of the extreme revisionists) is rejected by the carbon dating results of the early manuscripts.. move on or update your theory, it's no longer tenable! How can the rasm be fixed by 650 if there were interpolations afterwards?! Interpretation is by definition an alteration of the rasm. Plus it's all well that others noted interpolations and point to a multi authorship theory but as Sinai said, no-one managed to present a convincing model or bring a compelling proof of it.. so unless you present more than some wishful thinking, I'm going to continue mocking these absurd conspiracy theories
Can you please tell me who wrote the Quran? Who is the author of the Quran? The book has an author. For example, the Bible has 35 different authors. So who wrote down the Quran in papers and books.
Sir , next time please deliberate on the authorship of Quran.
Simple answer: God is the author. For those who don’t believe this, they have the burden of proof to prove authorship from someone else.
@@mahdiahmad Not sure thats how the burden of proof works. If you assert its author is God, then you have to proof that is the case. Simply asserting God, doesnt prove anything, anyone can just assert that proposition for their supposed book
@@squarecircles4846 maybe you don’t see the irony of your statement. If you say that a human is the author, then you can point out who was the author. Who was the author of the Quran? If you see as human, then who?
@@mahdiahmad I havent said or asserted anything either way, you have. You say the book is of divine source, so what are the proofs for that
@@mahdiahmad "God is the author. For those who don’t believe this, they have the burden of proof to prove authorship from someone else." L O L