Origins of the Quran/Islam - various academic perspectives

[outhouse]

We don't even know he existed though. He might be a purely literary creation,

That's reaching though, they had no reason to create such a cousin

Waraka has historicity

 

[outhouse]

The Quran contains words with Syriac and Ethiopic roots

Which makes sense due to the people who collected muhammads collection and compiled it into its most recent form

 

[outhouse]

Most scholars don't focus on such narrow concepts as Waraqa teaching Muhammed as it is more specific than the evidence allows.

No one is saying Waraka is completely responsible, but a man like Muhammad did not create this Arabic plagiarism of the bible. Even if he was literate, he did not start it.

Like many things in life, you learn these things over decades. A man like him was part of the evolution, not just the only source or creator of a new religion from thin air.


So I see it as Waraka planting seeds, and nurturing his beliefs in his cousin. As an adult we know he had contact with other Christians or heretics that could have influenced his choices and faith. But often, as is today, faith is not changed by different theology. I think he had this Arabic heretical biblical theology his whole life, and had such faith he sold it to his part of the world by any means possible including bloodshed and war.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

The origin of the Koran is a disorganized mind. It's one of the most disappointing reads I've ever experienced. It's literally an incoherent collection of random thoughts. If it was handed in as an assignment in a writing class anywhere in the Western world it would be given an F. It's incoherence is passed off as profoundness in what is perhaps the human intellect's greatest humiliation in the history of the world.

 

[Augustus]

But if they were going to build us this for rhetorical purposes, they would have said or gave more details such as waraka the priest who confirmed him being a prophet. They were silent on all aspects of this. We only know about it from historical text... Waraka has historicity

His historicity is debated. For example, on trying to link him to 1st C AH traditions:

Nevertheless, there is no persuasive evidence that the full tradition complex, including the tahannut, iqra, ufuq, Khadija, and Waraqa episodes, can be ascribed to Urwa, and both approaches suggest instead that the various Quranic and other traditional elements are later additions, presumably effected in part by al- Zuhri. In Search of Urwa’s Sı ̄ra:
Some Methodological Issues in the Quest for “Authenticity” in the Life of Muhammad - Stephen J. Shoemaker

Al- Zuhri was writing in the time of Abd al-Malik which seems to be a pivotal period in the development of what we now views as Islam. So much new evidence appears during this time that some people even [incorrectly] claim Abd al-Malik 'invented' Islam.

The later the biographies of Muhammed, the more detailed they become. It is hard to know what is genuine and what is not.

For an argument that Waraqa features in much early traditions see: Andreas Görke, Harald Motzki, Gregor Schoeler - First Century Sources for the Life of Muhammad? A Debate

So I see it as Waraka planting seeds, and nurturing his beliefs in his cousin. As an adult we know he had contact with other Christians or heretics that could have influenced his choices and faith. But often, as is today, faith is not changed by different theology. I think he had this Arabic heretical biblical theology his whole life, and had such faith he sold it to his part of the world by any means possible including bloodshed and war.

This though falls into speculation rather than academic history though. Much has been done in the Sirah to isolate Muhammed from an existing monotheistic tradition and to create separation between the Arabs of Muhammed's environment and the Roman Empire. So even if Waraqa was a real person, he is still all that remains after much else has been forgotten, or been reimagined. As such, you are assuming he had a great significance whereas what is missing from the traditions is likely to be far more important than what remains.

Several of the Muslim accounts about the life of Muammad appear to be interpretations of the Quranic text and do not constitute independent sources, but rather seem to have grown from exegetic speculations. Other accounts clearly reflect later theological, legal or political debates, while yet others constitute what can be termed salvation history. Moreover, the accounts often contradict each other regarding chronology, the persons involved or the course of events. “The Reign of God Has Come”: Eschatology and Empire in Late Antiquity and Early Islam - Stephen J. Shoemaker

History in these times was not about preserving objective truth, but about explaining the present in recourse to the past. The 'history' of Islam is also mostly theology anyway. If Waraqa did exist there is still no way to verify any actual details about his life.

You want to say, with a high degree of certainty, that Waraqa was a key figure in Muhammed's religious development. There simply isn't enough evidence to do this.

"In particular, relying on some narratives in the Muslim tradition, it has been argued that Waraqa b. Nawfal was a Jewish Christian. One can find similar hypotheses about Zayd b. Ṯābit, or about the Jews of Medina, who are then supposed to be, not Jews, but Jewish Christians. The trouble is that there is simply no way to substantiate or disprove such suppositions, which are speculative and/or circular – the putative evidence is too shaky and meagre indeed to allow any conclusion." G. Dye - Jewish Christianity, the Qur’ān, and Early Islam

You still haven't mentioned which scholars you find insightful on this topic, despite rejecting basically the entire modern discipline of Islamic Studies. There must be a few of them you respect surely.

 

[Shad]

It was a normative description made to explain a point. The ideal scholar would have all of these, and the fact that it is all but impossible is a reason why Islamic Studies is so difficult. It's harder to make the links when you can only look at the issue from a narrower than ideal perspective.

There is more to the issue with Islamic Studies then this. A major issue is that many of the experts are theologians as well. So they fully believe what they study. This would cause an issue with any attempt to finding the source(s) of the Quran and what Mo did or did not know when the supernatural is already rejected.

It also contributes to false 'discoveries' where something looks good from maybe a linguistic perspective, but would be rendered implausible due to historical circumstances or vice versa.

Agreed. I think Puin, I think it was Puin, made such a claim which was popular for a bit but now seems to be rejected.

You must know that sometimes you read something that you think is amazing, then later on someone else says it's impossible. I've got no real way to judge who is correct, and the same can apply to people who actually are genuinely knowledgable in the field. If you can't make the judgement yourself, who should you trust?

If we are looking at ideas from within the historical method then certain answers are impossible as these rejected by the historical method. However I think we can make a number of sound conclusions. Many of the ideas in the Quran is addressing existed within the environment thus audience such as Quran 5:32. We know this environment included Jews and Christians of various sects. However I also think we should not rule out that some of the ideas within the Quran and Islamic tradition could be the product of Mo rather from an external source

It's much easier to be a scholar in say Byzantine History, than Early Islamic History.

True. However Byzantine studies have the advantage that the state and some of it's systems which aid scholars were already established even prior to the state itself. Keeping in mid Byzantium's links with Greece and Rome. While with Islamic studies the systems were not established until a later date. Such as ahadith and it's methods. For example the language was far more established prior to Byzantium than Arabic was prior to the Quran.

 

[Augustus]

Many of the ideas in the Quran is addressing existed within the environment thus audience such as Quran 5:32. We know this environment included Jews and Christians of various sects. However I also think we should not rule out that some of the ideas within the Quran and Islamic tradition could be the product of Mo rather from an external source

A couple of early non-Muslim sources seem to confirm he was viewed as a prophet and was preaching a particular message. Also some passages such as 18:83-101 can be pretty accurately dated to around 630, so I think it is safe to assume much was his teachings, even ones that relate to other sources seem to form some form of commentary.

I tend to find Shoemaker quite persuasive regarding the eschatological nature of his message, and 30:2-5 seem relevant also:

According to Theophylact, Khosrau II prophesied that “the Babylonian race will hold the Roman state in its power for a threefold cyclic hebdomad of years [591-612]. Thereafter the Romans will enslave the Persians in the fifth hebdomad of years [619-26]. When these very things have been accomplished, the day without evening will dwell among men and the expected fate will achieve power, when the transient things will be handed over to dissolution and the things of the better life hold sway.”66 The similarities of this prophecy to Kor 30, 2-5 are striking (at least according to the most widely accepted vocaliza- tion), particularly when one recalls that “the Command” (or “dominion, reign”: al-amr) is a Qurʾānic term for the eschaton: “The Greeks have been vanquished in the nearer part of the land; and, after their vanquishing, they shall be the victors in a few years. To God belongs the Command before and after, and on that day the believers shall rejoice in God’s help.”6

https://www.academia.edu/7800509/_T..._and_Empire_in_Late_Antiquity_and_Early_Islam

I'm not quite sure what to make of the parts of the Quran that 'only God knows the meaning of' such as the mystery letters or Surahs like 111 where the exegetes seem to be making stuff up to explain verses that otherwise make no sense:

In Chapter 111, for example, the Qur’an refers to “The Father of Flame,” who will not benefit from his money but “roast in a burning fire,” and his wife, “who carries firewood and has a fiber rope around her neck.” Karen Armstrong (a former nun and popular writer on Islam) explains, “Abu Lahab’s wife, who fancied herself as a poet, liked to shout insulting verses at the Prophet when he passed by. On one occasion she hurled an armful of prickly firewood in his path.”

Armstrong relies on Muslim traditions that make Abu Lahab’s wife historical, but without these traditions the chapter would seem to be an artful metaphor of a foolish rich man and his wife who carries the wood that will fuel her own punishment in hell. Instead, we are given historical claims of a Meccan woman who attacked Muhammad by hurling firewood (Armstrong invents the prickly part) at him. Reading the Quran through the Bible - GS Reynolds http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/11/reading-the-quran-through-the-bible

Some think these relate to archaic writings, others that much of Muhammed's early teachings were lost and later redactors compiled whatever fragments they could find. It's an interesting topic for discussion. Or perhaps God simply understood the rhetorical role of suspense and keeping people guessing so deliberately left them as indecipherable esoteric passages

 

[outhouse]

His historicity is debated

So do you have a list of names in order of whom he may have studied biblical text under?

Here is where one can excel or fail.

What religious beliefs did Muhammad have growing up, and into adulthood. Obviously it was not islam.


Its pretty obvious he had quite the interest in biblical traditions correct ?

 

[outhouse]

Armstrong

If its Karen, she has received a lot of criticism for these aspects. here work on god is quite good. I don't know here.

 

[Augustus]

If its Karen, she has received a lot of criticism for these aspects. here work on god is quite good. I don't know here.

It's in the context that at least some parts of the Sirah seem to have been manufactured for the purpose of exegesis because the exegetes have no idea about many verses are supposed to mean.

For example surah 111: Perish the hands of Abu Lahab, and perish he! (1)His wealth avails him not, neither what he has earned; (2)he shall roast at a flaming fire (3)and his wife, the carrier of the firewood, (4)upon her neck a rope of palm-fibre. (5)

interesting discussion of this here:

The Quran and its Biblical subtext

What religious beliefs did Muhammad have growing up, and into adulthood. Obviously it was not islam.


Its pretty obvious he had quite the interest in biblical traditions correct ?

What seems clear is that the audience of the Quran already understand scripture and religious teachings, as such it suggests a Christian environment to some degree.

So do you have a list of names in order of whom he may have studied biblical text under?

Here is where one can excel or fail.

This is where you start to get beyond what it is possible to know with any degree of certainty as it relies entirely on Sirah.

As regards scholarship:

There are not only a great many relevant inner-Qur’anic references, there are also a plethora of extra-Qur’anic references that can be found in Muslim religious literature, including Qur’anic commentary, prophetical traditions and historical writings. These references point to a variety of informants, who served as possible sources for the religious lore from which the Qur’an drew inspiration. There is Waraqa b. Nawfal, to whom Azzi has again drawn attention, but also ‘Ubayd Allah b. Jahsh and ‘Uthman b. al-Huwayrith, who have received less scholarly interest.53 To these may be added all those known as hanif, plural hunafa’,54 who are highlighted in the extra-Qur’anic literature as “God-seekers” standing in contrast to “those who have associated.” Much scholarly speculation surrounds this group of hanifs, on whom a great number of scholars have rendered widely differing judgments.55 Then there is the legend of the hermit Bahira, who is said to have predicted Muhammad’s prophetic destiny.56 Another group of possible informants of Muhammad has recently been re-examined and identified by Gilliot as “informant slaves.”57 These informant slaves were men of low birth and foreign origin who could read the scriptures and were in contact with Muhammad in Mecca in particular. Furthermore, the quest for the origins of the Qur’an may also have to take into account Zayd b. ‘Amr,58 who is pictured as Muhammad’s precursor. A very significant role in the final redaction of the Qur’an was played by Zayd b. Thabit,59 who served Muammad as his principal scribe in Medina and whose central role in the collection of the Qur’an needs a fresh analysis (together with those who assisted him in this task). Finally, more scholarly emphasis will have to be given to the first forty years of Muhammad’s life, the time before “his call” (approximately 570–610 CE). There are important and still open questions about this period that have been neglected by the recent scholarship on the construction of the Qur’an. For example, prior to his call, to what degree did Muhammad assimilate many of the religious ideas that became essential elements of his Qur’anic message? Prior to his call, to what degree had Muhammad mastered the style of rhymed prose that he uses so powerfully in his earliest Qur’anic proclamations? Can Muhammad have been under a significant Christian influence in the first forty years of his life even though the earliest Qur’anic proclamations in rhymed prose display hardly any decidedly Christian motifs or topics?

...The almost total absence in the Qur’an of direct parallels with the normative, midrashic or apoc- ryphal biblical traditions60 makes it impossible to argue for a direct dependence on written sources. Essential sections of the Qur’anic message were received from the oral lore of a variety of religious communities who were rooted in the widely dispersed and non-normative Jewish and Christian traditions. Not a single written source, whether scriptural or liturgical, however, has been identified that would satisfy the search for an underlying Ur-Qur’an, whether postulated as a Christian hymnal or a Syro-Aramaic lectionary, that served as a written source book for the Qur’an.


Recent research on the construction of the Quran - G Bowering

 

[outhouse]

as such it suggests a Christian environment to some degree.

Well of course there was, there had to be.

We know the religion was wide spread even in this part of the world. Just because most did not follow it, does not mean it was not already there. We know it was

As regards scholarship:

Again one opinion that echos everything I have been trying to tell you.

example

For example, prior to his call, to what degree did Muhammad assimilate many of the religious ideas that became essential elements of his Qur’anic message?

This was the reply your scholar gave, and it is just asking the same exact question I asked you.

it impossible to argue for a direct dependence on written sources.

He is not substantiating that.

Many of the verses on the koran are easily attributed to biblical text

the Qur’an drew inspiration. There is Waraqa b. Nawfal

Pretty important that your own scholar, uses Waraka as his first possible influence for muhammad

 

[Augustus]

Again one opinion that echos everything I have been trying to tell you.

No it doesn't. You have had a laser-like focus on Waraqa. You have stated it as fact he got most of his knowledge from Waraqa. I have been arguing that your view is unevidenced speculation and there are many other potential explanations.

He is discussing recent trends in scholarship, the same trends that you described as 'worthless' earlier in the thread.

This was the reply your scholar gave, and it is just asking the same exact question I asked you.

He's highlighting things that we don't know. You profess to know.

Pretty important that your own scholar, uses Waraka as his first possible influence for muhammad

He's highlighting potential sources of information, not making any judgements. He mentions Waraqa first because he discussed him earlier in the article concluding: "To sum up, Azzi’s study is highly speculative and poorly documented".

He is not substantiating that.

Many of the verses on the koran are easily attributed to biblical text

You seemed to stop reading after that sentence: Essential sections of the Qur’anic message were received from the oral lore of a variety of religious communities who were rooted in the widely dispersed and non-normative Jewish and Christian traditions. Not a single written source, whether scriptural or liturgical, however, has been identified that would satisfy the search for an underlying Ur-Qur’an, whether postulated as a Christian hymnal or a Syro-Aramaic lectionary, that served as a written source book for the Qur’an.

You still haven't mentioned which scholars you find insightful. Why are you evading such a simple question when you simply dismiss any of them who disagree with your speculation?

 

[outhouse]

He's highlighting things that we don't know. You profess to know.

He asked the same questions I have asked you add nauseam

Including using Waraka as his #1 name at the top of his list.

Maybe your unaware, there are no certainties here, but Waraka does have historicity as a heretic priest who had a life long relationship with his cousin muhammad.

 

[Augustus]

He asked the same questions I have asked you add nauseam

Including using Waraka as his #1 name at the top of his list.

Read my reply carefully, I explained there is no #1 on his 'list'. Better still, read the article as you don't seem to understand it yet. Discussing the Waraqa theory he said "To sum up, Azzi’s study is highly speculative and poorly documented", as I have been explaining to you.

He is not supporting the narrow argument you have been making.

The question you asked was 'where could the information in the Quran have come from if not Waraqa?' There is a long answer in post 2, but you dismissed it as worthless without explaining why.

Still not going to name some scholars you respect? It seems to me like you haven't read any as I can't think of any other reason to consistently ignore such a simple question. You also don't appear to be very familiar with any contemporary academic ideas.

If you have read some, just name them it's better for the discussion. Even just link to an article or two.

 

[Augustus]

Maybe your unaware, there are no certainties here

That's what I've been telling you. I can go and find your quotes expressing certainty if you would like.

 

[sun rise]

Augustus, I find your posts here to be exemplary and helpful. Given how often we see news reports today denied by people, historical scholarship in an area with deeply held beliefs is doubly hard.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..there are no certainties here, but Waraka does have historicity as a heretic priest who had a life long relationship with his cousin muhammad.

You speak as if you were there
Either Muhammad, peace be with him, was a prophet who received revelations, or He is a liar...
Presumably you believe the latter. You must be very clever indeed to detect this fraud when billions of Muslims can't. They fear God and perform their daily worship .. all for nothing, apparently. Nevermind .. it keeps them out of mischief

 

[paarsurrey]

You speak as if you were there
Either Muhammad, peace be with him, was a prophet who received revelations, or He is a liar...
Presumably you believe the latter. You must be very clever indeed to detect this fraud when billions of Muslims can't. They fear God and perform their daily worship .. all for nothing, apparently. Nevermind .. it keeps them out of mischief

You make a good point.
Regards

 

[outhouse]

I can go and find your quotes expressing certainty if you would like.

But this is a certainty, please stay in context.

Waraka does have historicity as a heretic priest who had a life long relationship with his cousin muhammad.

 

[outhouse]

Either Muhammad, peace be with him, was a prophet who received revelations, or He is a liar...

This is where islam is failing society in my opinion.

People are refusing reality here in my opinion.

Your context here in these sentences, are not in context.

Back then good or religious thoughts were deemed divine and holy, basically your own conscious thought made you a prophet.

prophet is also out of context to what it used to be. It used to mean spokesperson for god [good thoughts] not one of predicting the future.


Academic knowledge shows biblical mythology was used in the making of the koran, its not up for debate. If he did receive revelation then your saying an angel copied the bible