Dr. Daniel C. Peterson, Who wrote the Koran?

[_Polygamy-Porter]

Dr. Peterson, do you believe the Koran what Muhammad claims it to be, or do you think he wrote it?

[_Daniel Peterson]

What, exactly, did Muhammad claim it to be? I would be interested to see your exposition of that.

I believe that Muhammad put into his own poetic language thoughts that came to him, thoughts that he regarded as (and that may have been) inspiration. This is not the orthodox Islamic position.

My view is essentially that of Richard Bell and W. Montgomery Watt in their classic Introduction to the Qur’an (Edinburgh University Press), so, if you would like to read about it in detail and with supporting evidence from the early sources, I suggest their book.

Your dichotomy is too simple. I do not believe -- and I'm aware of no serious Islamicist of the past century or so who believes -- that Muhammad was a deliberate fraud.

[_Polygamy-Porter]

Thank you Dr. Peterson for your response.

What, exactly, did Muhammad claim it to be? I would be interested to see your exposition of that.

He claimed it was he recording revelations from Allah to Muhammad verbally through the angel Gabriel.

Your dichotomy is too simple. I do not believe -- and I'm aware of no serious Islamicist of the past century or so who believes -- that Muhammad was a deliberate fraud.

You believe that Muhammad truly believed in what he was doing was divine?

[_Daniel Peterson]

He claimed it was he recording revelations from Allah to Muhammad verbally through the angel Gabriel.

Not exactly. See Bell and Watt on Gabriel as the agent of revelation. And "verbally"? No, this is current Islamic dogma. It's not at all clear, though, that Muhammad made that claim. Again, see Bell and Watt.

You believe that Muhammad truly believed in what he was doing was divine?

I do.

[_emilysmith]

I was under the impression that there was no way Muhammed could have written the Quran. This wan't due just to his illiteracy, but due to the fact that it was compiled over many years after his death. I was also under the impression that there may have been several Muhammeds rolled into one story.

Am I completely mistaken?

A number of differing Qurans have been discovered, though, in general, they have been destroyed to protect the religion. When the warlords in Saudi Arabia came into power, their particular version of Islam has spread and gained power, as they have the resources to control the propaganda and media in the Muslim world. Their money was able to begin controlling all of the interests around Mecca, which might as well be the Disneyland of Islam considering how it is being treated. Old has been replaced by new with no care for any kind of archeological excavation that might detract from the current status quo.

We do not have material in the Qur'an to compose a biography of Muhammad because the book is a disjointed discourse, a pastiche [imitation, parody] of divine monologues that can be assembled into a homily [lecture, sermon] or perhaps a catechism [snippets of dogma] but that reveals little or nothing about the life of Muhammad and his contemporaries.... The Qur'an give us no assurance that its words and sentiments are likely to be authentic in the light of the context they were delivered and in the manner of their transmission. There are no clues as to when or where or why these particular words were being uttered.... The Qur'an is of no use whatsoever as an independent source for reconstructing the life of Muhammad. The Qur'an is not terribly useful even for reconstructing the Meccan milieu much less the life of the man who uttered its words; it is a text without context.

Which means we must turn to other archeological evidence of which is a heavily charged issue in the Muslim world, so little is accomplished.

Independent scholars studying the Qur'an and Hadith, have concluded that the Islamic scripture was not revealed to just one man, but was a compilation of later redactions and editions formulated by a group of men, over the course of a few hundred years. The Qur'an which we read today is not that which was in existence in the mid-seventh century, but is a product of the eighth and ninth centuries. It was not conceived in Mecca or Medina, but in Baghdad. It was then and there that Islam took on its identity and became a religion. Consequently, the formative stage of Islam was not within the lifetime of Muhammad but evolved over a period of 300 years.

I found Abul Kasem's words to be particularly informative:

By analysing, dissecting and carefully interpreting the contents of the Qur'an, the Ahadith (Muhammad's traditions) and Sirah (Muhammad's biography) the author has identified several parties who had undoubtedly contributed to the composition of the Qur'anic verses. It was not Allah who wrote the Qur'an; it was not even Muhammad alone who did this either. The Qur'an is not the creation of a single entity or a single person. There were several parties involved in the composition, scribing, amending, inserting and deleting the Qur'anic verses. The most important personalities involved in the creation of the Qur'an were: Imrul Qays, Zayd b. Amr, Hasan b. Thabit, Salman, Bahira, ibn Qumta, Waraqa and Ubayy b. Ka'b. Muhammad, himself, was involved in the make-up of a limited number of verses, but the most influential person who motivated Muhammad in the invention of Islam and the opus of the Qur'an, perhaps, was Zayd b. Amr who preached 'Hanifism'. Muhammad later metamorphosed Zayd's 'Hanifism' into Islam. Therefore, the assertion that Islam is not a new religion stands to be true. However, the important finding is that the Qur'an is definitely not the words of Allah-it is a human-made scripture which Muhammad simply passed off as Allah's final words to mankind. Another important aspect of this essay is that among the ancient religions that the writers of the Qur'an incorporated in it, perhaps the practices of the Sabeans is crucial. In fact, the rituals of 5 prayers and the 30-day fasting were actually adapted from the Sabeans. The Qur'an, thus, is a compilation of various religious books that existed during Muhammad's time. Muhammad, not Allah, simply adopted, picked and chose from various sources and created the Qur'an. While many parties contributed to the Qur'an, Muhammad became its chief editor-to say it plainly.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I was under the impression that there was no way Muhammed could have written the Quran. This wan't due just to his illiteracy, but due to the fact that it was compiled over many years after his death. I was also under the impression that there may have been several Muhammeds rolled into one story.

Am I completely mistaken?

You're certainly very far distant from the overwhelming scholarly consensus on those subjects.

Was Muhammad "illiterate"? The answer depends upon the meaning of the Arabic word ummi, which is applied to him in early sources and is often translated as "illiterate." (Ummiyya in modern Arabic definitely refers to "illiteracy.")

For a number of reasons, though, most scholars of the subject, including myself, do not believe that that was the word's original meaning, and do not believe Muhammad to have been illiterate. However, even if he were, that would not affect my stance (or Bell/Watt's stance) on the process by which the Qur’an was revealed.

A number of differing Qurans have been discovered, though, in general, they have been destroyed to protect the religion.

There were some variant versions (probably not spectacularly different) that were destroyed when the ‘Uthmanic rescension of the Qur’an was established ca. 650 AD. A very, very, very small number of scholars doubt ‘Uthman's edition of the text, but I'm not among them.

Since then, the Qur’anic text has been pretty secure.

When the warlords in Saudi Arabia came into power, their particular version of Islam has spread and gained power, as they have the resources to control the propaganda and media in the Muslim world.

The Wahhabis are a modern phenomenon. The text of the Qur’an has been established for many centuries.

Their money was able to begin controlling all of the interests around Mecca, which might as well be the Disneyland of Islam considering how it is being treated. Old has been replaced by new with no care for any kind of archeological excavation that might detract from the current status quo.

Sadly true.

We do not have material in the Qur'an to compose a biography of Muhammad because the book is a disjointed discourse, a pastiche [imitation, parody] of divine monologues that can be assembled into a homily [lecture, sermon] or perhaps a catechism [snippets of dogma] but that reveals little or nothing about the life of Muhammad and his contemporaries.... The Qur'an give us no assurance that its words and sentiments are likely to be authentic in the light of the context they were delivered and in the manner of their transmission. There are no clues as to when or where or why these particular words were being uttered.... The Qur'an is of no use whatsoever as an independent source for reconstructing the life of Muhammad. The Qur'an is not terribly useful even for reconstructing the Meccan milieu much less the life of the man who uttered its words; it is a text without context.

I think this is far too skeptical a view.

Which means we must turn to other archeological evidence of which is a heavily charged issue in the Muslim world, so little is accomplished.

See above.

Independent scholars studying the Qur'an and Hadith, have concluded that the Islamic scripture was not revealed to just one man, but was a compilation of later redactions and editions formulated by a group of men, over the course of a few hundred years. The Qur'an which we read today is not that which was in existence in the mid-seventh century, but is a product of the eighth and ninth centuries. It was not conceived in Mecca or Medina, but in Baghdad. It was then and there that Islam took on its identity and became a religion. Consequently, the formative stage of Islam was not within the lifetime of Muhammad but evolved over a period of 300 years. . . .

By analysing, dissecting and carefully interpreting the contents of the Qur'an, the Ahadith (Muhammad's traditions) and Sirah (Muhammad's biography) the author has identified several parties who had undoubtedly contributed to the composition of the Qur'anic verses. It was not Allah who wrote the Qur'an; it was not even Muhammad alone who did this either. The Qur'an is not the creation of a single entity or a single person. There were several parties involved in the composition, scribing, amending, inserting and deleting the Qur'anic verses. The most important personalities involved in the creation of the Qur'an were: Imrul Qays, Zayd b. Amr, Hasan b. Thabit, Salman, Bahira, ibn Qumta, Waraqa and Ubayy b. Ka'b. Muhammad, himself, was involved in the make-up of a limited number of verses, but the most influential person who motivated Muhammad in the invention of Islam and the opus of the Qur'an, perhaps, was Zayd b. Amr who preached 'Hanifism'. Muhammad later metamorphosed Zayd's 'Hanifism' into Islam. Therefore, the assertion that Islam is not a new religion stands to be true. However, the important finding is that the Qur'an is definitely not the words of Allah-it is a human-made scripture which Muhammad simply passed off as Allah's final words to mankind. Another important aspect of this essay is that among the ancient religions that the writers of the Qur'an incorporated in it, perhaps the practices of the Sabeans is crucial. In fact, the rituals of 5 prayers and the 30-day fasting were actually adapted from the Sabeans. The Qur'an, thus, is a compilation of various religious books that existed during Muhammad's time. Muhammad, not Allah, simply adopted, picked and chose from various sources and created the Qur'an. While many parties contributed to the Qur'an, Muhammad became its chief editor-to say it plainly.

This is the opinion of a tiny minority, a small handful of writers (if that), and has found no real acceptance among others. (I assume that you're drawing, directly or indirectly, upon the theories of Patricia Crone and Michael Cook.)

[_Joey]

You're certainly very far distant from the overwhelming scholarly consensus on those subjects.

And its quite telling that the Koran can draw interest from the broad secular scholarly community in regards to its history and provenance while the Book of Mormon remains ignored by the very same group!

[Guest]

Violating, very briefly, my policy of not responding to joeymissions:

And its quite telling that the Koran [sic] can draw interest from the broad secular scholarly community in regards to its history and provenance while the Book of Mormon remains ignored by the very same group!

That might conceivably have something to do with the fact that Islam has been an enormously significant factor in world history for approximately fourteen hundred years, and that Islam's roughly 1.5 billion adherents dominate areas from Morocco to Indonesia and the Philippines and from Central Asia to Kenya and Nigeria, while Mormonism reached its first million (mostly rural, agrarian) adherents only in 1947 and has only recently begun to have any significant presence beyond the isolated Great Basin area of the western United States.

[_Buffalo]

Violating, very briefly, my policy of not responding to joeymissions:

And its quite telling that the Koran [sic] can draw interest from the broad secular scholarly community in regards to its history and provenance while the Book of Mormon remains ignored by the very same group!

That might conceivably have something to do with the fact that Islam has been an enormously significant factor in world history for approximately fourteen hundred years, and that Islam's roughly 1.5 billion adherents dominate areas from Morocco to Indonesia and the Philippines and from Central Asia to Kenya and Nigeria, while Mormonism reached its first million adherents only in 1947 and has only recently begun to have any significant presence beyond the isolated Great Basin area of the western United States.

That's a fair point.

[_Joey]

Violating, very briefly, my policy of not responding to joeymissions:

And its quite telling that the Koran [sic] can draw interest from the broad secular scholarly community in regards to its history and provenance while the Book of Mormon remains ignored by the very same group!

That might conceivably have something to do with the fact that Islam has been an enormously significant factor in world history for approximately fourteen hundred years, and that Islam's roughly 1.5 billion adherents dominate areas from Morocco to Indonesia and the Philippines and from Central Asia to Kenya and Nigeria, while Mormonism reached its first million adherents only in 1947 and has only recently begun to have any significant presence beyond the isolated Great Basin area of the western United States.

That makes very little or no sense if, as you have claimed, the Book of Mormon is an accurate translation of an ancient and original source describing an ancient people. It should be drawing a huge, significant and overwhelming interest from the very same secular academic community who devote lifetimes studying ancient histories and societies! After all, doesn't this claimed history and people date back to about fourteen hundred years ago as well???

While your statement lacks any intellectual foundation, I do believe it has a very significant purpose for LDS church firesides.