Changes

The study of the origins and development of early Islam can be said to fall into two major schools of thought. The first view  is the [[traditionalist]] [[Muslim]] [[pious]] view which argues that the Islam is unquestionably a work of divine origins revealed by the [[Islamic]] deity [[Allah]] to a 7th century [[Arab]] trader [[Muhammad]]. The other view is a [[secular]] scholastic view which seeks examine evidence and primary sources and apply the [[historical method]] to the study of the early origins and development of [[Middle Eastern]] religions.  

The study of the origins and development of early Islam can be said to fall into two major schools of thought. The first view  is the [[traditionalist]] [[Muslim]] [[pious]] view which argues that the Islam is unquestionably a work of divine origins revealed by the [[Islamic]] deity [[Allah]] to a 7th-century [[Arab]] trader [[Muhammad]]. The other view is a [[secular]] scholastic view which seeks examine evidence and primary sources and apply the [[historical method]] to the study of the early origins and development of [[Middle Eastern]] religions.  

This article will examine the secular scholastic aaproach to the study of early development of the Islamic religion leaving the traditionalist religious point of view to other articles.

This article will examine the secular scholastic aaproach to the study of early development of the Islamic religion leaving the traditionalist religious point of view to other articles.

Islamic chronicles and literary sources starting in the 8th century present a vast collection of  anecdotal material from which pious religionist authors  have drawn from in order to forge a storyline for early Islam.<ref>The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia  "Mohammed and Mohammedanism  

Islamic chronicles and literary sources starting in the 8th century present a vast collection of  anecdotal material from which pious religionist authors  have drawn from in order to forge a storyline for early Islam.<ref>The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia  "Mohammed and Mohammedanism  

"The sources of Mohammed's biography are numerous, but on the whole untrustworthy, being crowded with fictitious details, legends, and stories. None of his biographies were compiled during his lifetime, and the earliest was written a century and a half after his death. The Koran is perhaps the only reliable source for the leading events in his career. His earliest and chief biographers are Ibn Ishaq (A.H. 151=A.D. 768), Wakidi (207=822), Ibn Hisham (213=828), Ibn Sa'd (230=845), Tirmidhi (279=892), Tabari (310-929), the "Lives of the Companions of Mohammed", the numerous Koranic commentators [especially Tabari, quoted above, Zamakhshari 538=1144), and Baidawi (691=1292)], the "Musnad", or collection of traditions of Ahmad ibn Hanbal (241=855), the collections of Bokhari (256=870), the "Isabah", or "Dictionary of Persons who knew Mohammed", by Ibn Hajar, etc. All these collections and biographies are based on the so-called Hadiths, or "traditions", the historical value of which is more than doubtful.</ref> Secular scholars at first received traditionalist narratives at face value but more recently in the last centuries they have begun apply [[historical method]]ology to the history of the [[Middle East]] and have begun the task of  separating fact from fiction from traditional accounts.  

"The sources of Mohammed's biography are numerous, but on the whole untrustworthy, being crowded with fictitious details, legends, and stories. None of his biographies were compiled during his lifetime, and the earliest was written a century and a half after his death. The Koran is perhaps the only reliable source for the leading events in his career. His earliest and chief biographers are Ibn Ishaq (A.H. 151=A.D. 768), Wakidi (207=822), Ibn Hisham (213=828), Ibn Sa'd (230=845), Tirmidhi (279=892), Tabari (310-929), the "Lives of the Companions of Mohammed", the numerous Koranic commentators [especially Tabari, quoted above (Zamakhshari 538=1144), and Baidawi (691=1292)], the "Musnad", or collection of traditions of Ahmad ibn Hanbal (241=855), the collections of Bokhari (256=870), the "Isabah", or "Dictionary of Persons who knew Mohammed", by Ibn Hajar, etc. All these collections and biographies are based on the so-called Hadiths, or "traditions", the historical value of which is more than doubtful.</ref> Secular scholars at first received traditionalist narratives at face value but more recently in the last centuries they have begun apply [[historical method]]ology to the history of the [[Middle East]] and have begun the task of  separating fact from fiction from traditional accounts.  

The task of recovery of verifiable historical events has been made difficult by a general unwillingness of the Islamic theological community to subject its accounts to historical methodology and scrutiny. In response to the examination of its cultural roots by non traditionalistic scholars, Muslim [[polemic]]ists have in many cases adopted an [[adversarial]] position aimed at discrediting and refuting any and all research that challenges traditional Islamic narration.<ref>Ibn Warraq The Need for Qur’anic Criticism "In recent years, Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries (for example, Brunei) have established chairs of Islamic Studies in prestigious Western universities, which are encouraged to present a favorable image of Islam. Scientific research, leading to objective truth, no longer seems to be the goal. Critical examination of the sources or the Qur’an is discouraged. Scholars such as Daniel Easterman have even lost their posts for not teaching about Islam in the way approved by Saudi Arabia."</ref>

The task of recovery of verifiable historical events has been made difficult by a general unwillingness of the Islamic theological community to subject its accounts to historical methodology and scrutiny. In response to the examination of its cultural roots by non traditionalistic scholars, Muslim [[polemic]]ists have in many cases adopted an [[adversarial]] position aimed at discrediting and refuting any and all research that challenges traditional Islamic narration.<ref>Ibn Warraq The Need for Qur’anic Criticism "In recent years, Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries (for example, Brunei) have established chairs of Islamic Studies in prestigious Western universities, which are encouraged to present a favorable image of Islam. Scientific research, leading to objective truth, no longer seems to be the goal. Critical examination of the sources or the Qur’an is discouraged. Scholars such as Daniel Easterman have even lost their posts for not teaching about Islam in the way approved by Saudi Arabia."</ref>

==Problems of early Islamic sources ==

==Problems of early Islamic sources ==

The dates given for Mohammed's life are 570-632 AD. [[Ibn Ishaq]] who wrote the first biography of Mohammed was born about 717 and died in 767 . He thus wrote his acount over 100 years after Mohammed lived, making it impossible to have gained any information from eyewitnesses to the Sira as they would have all died themselves in the intervening century. Furthermore, no copies exist of Ibn Ishaq's work. All that survives are quotations of it in the History of [[al-Tabari]], who himself lived over two centuries after Ibn Ishaq (he died in 992). Thus the earliest biography of Mohammed of which copies still exist was written some 350 years after Mohammed lived.  

The dates given for Mohammed's life are 570-632 AD. [[Ibn Ishaq]] who wrote the first biography of Mohammed was born about 717 and died in 767 . He thus wrote his account over 100 years after Mohammed lived, making it impossible to have gained any information from eyewitnesses to the Sira as they would have all died themselves in the intervening century. Furthermore, no copies exist of Ibn Ishaq's work. All that survives are quotations of it in the History of [[al-Tabari]], who himself lived over two centuries after Ibn Ishaq (he died in 992). Thus the earliest biography of Mohammed of which copies still exist was written some 350 years after Mohammed lived.  

While much credence is granted to [[Ibn Ishaq]] and ([[al-Tabari]] 's accounts of the life of Muhammad by Islamic traditionalist scholars , secular scholars have argued that their late placement on the Islamic historical timeline fails to corroborate any of the early events of the nascent religion and instead can only attest to the narrative that was adopted centuries later by [[Arabian]] transmitters.<ref>The Formation of Islam: Religion and Society in the Near East, 600-1800  By Jonathan Porter Berkey Published 2003 Cambridge University Press  p59 The earliest surviving Muslim sources are comparatively late, and so reflect less what happened than what later Muslims wanted to remember as having happened. This is a point which has been a staple of at least Western scholarship since lgnai Goldzihcr’s pioneering study of hadish (i.e., the “traditions” which purport to record the deeds and words of Muhammad and his companions), in which he demonstrated that many hadith were later fabrications, although the degree of the material’s unreliability has always been a matter of some debate. The point may be illustrated by a later and more precise, although more limited, discussion of one particular aspect of the narrative of Islamic origins. in which Crone pointed out how much of that narrative was a product of traditions which served to explain Koranic verses which, to later Muslim audiences, seemed opaque. In other words, the Koran and the exegetical problems it poses in some sense generated the stories that were used to explain them</ref>  

While much credence is granted to [[Ibn Ishaq]] and ([[al-Tabari]] 's accounts of the life of Muhammad by Islamic traditionalist scholars, secular scholars have argued that their late placement on the Islamic historical timeline fails to corroborate any of the early events of the nascent religion and instead can only attest to the narrative that was adopted centuries later by [[Arabian]] transmitters.<ref>The Formation of Islam: Religion and Society in the Near East, 600-1800  By Jonathan Porter Berkey Published 2003 Cambridge University Press  p59 The earliest surviving Muslim sources are comparatively late, and so reflect less what happened than what later Muslims wanted to remember as having happened. This is a point which has been a staple of at least Western scholarship since lgnai Goldzihcr’s pioneering study of hadish (i.e., the “traditions” which purport to record the deeds and words of Muhammad and his companions), in which he demonstrated that many hadith were later fabrications, although the degree of the material’s unreliability has always been a matter of some debate. The point may be illustrated by a later and more precise, although more limited, discussion of one particular aspect of the narrative of Islamic origins. in which Crone pointed out how much of that narrative was a product of traditions which served to explain Koranic verses which, to later Muslim audiences, seemed opaque. In other words, the Koran and the exegetical problems it poses in some sense generated the stories that were used to explain them</ref>  

Furthermore as the earliest Islamic sources are dated between one hundred and fifty to three hundred years after the events which they purport to describe, legitimate questions can be raised as to their [[veracity]] and accuracy.<ref>[[Yehuda D. Nevo]] "Towards a Prehistory of Islam," Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, vol.17, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1994 p.108</ref><ref>[[John Wansbrough]] The Sectarian Milieu: Content and Composition of Islamic Salvation History, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1978 p,119</ref><ref>[[Patricia Crone]] Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam, Princeton University Press, 1987 p.204</ref>

Furthermore, as the earliest Islamic sources are dated between one hundred and fifty to three hundred years after the events which they purport to describe, legitimate questions can be raised as to their [[veracity]] and accuracy.<ref>[[Yehuda D. Nevo]] "Towards a Prehistory of Islam," Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, vol.17, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1994 p.108</ref><ref>[[John Wansbrough]] The Sectarian Milieu: Content and Composition of Islamic Salvation History, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1978 p,119</ref><ref>[[Patricia Crone]] Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam, Princeton University Press, 1987 p.204</ref>

Another problem with the traditional narratives is that not only are they dated centuries after the fact, they are not supported by any archeological evidence. For instance secular scholars have argued that despite its momentous place in Islamic history no copies of the Qur'an dated from within the first century in which it was claimed to have been compiled has even been discovered. Earlier than 750 A.D. (thus for more than 100 years after Muhammad's death) there exists no verifiable [[Islamic]] documents to [[corroborate]] the origins of the Islam.  

Another problem with the traditional narratives is that not only are they dated centuries after the fact, they are not supported by any archeological evidence. For instance secular scholars have argued that despite its momentous place in Islamic history no copies of the Qur'an dated from within the first century in which it was claimed to have been compiled has even been discovered. Earlier than 750 A.D. (thus for more than 100 years after Muhammad's death) there exists no verifiable [[Islamic]] documents to [[corroborate]] the origins of the Islam.  

<ref>[[John Wansbrough]] The Sectarian Milieu: Content and Composition of Islamic Salvation History, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1978 p,58-59</ref><ref>[[Francis Edwards Peters]] "Methodological Approaches to Islamic Studies" ''Since external evidence is necessary to [[corroborate]] a view derived solely from the [[Muslim]] literary account, lack of such corroboration is an important argument against that account's [[historicity]]. This approach is therefore more open than the 'traditional' to acceptance of an [[argument from silence|argumentum e silentio]]. For if we are ready to discount an uncorroborated report of an event, we must accept that there may be nothing with which to replace it: that the event simply did not happen. That there is no evidence for it outside of the "traditional account" thus becomes positive evidence in support of the [[hypothesis]] that it did not happen. A striking example is the lack of evidence, outside the Muslim literature, for the view that the Arabs were Muslim at the time of the Conquest.''</ref>  

<ref>[[John Wansbrough]] The Sectarian Milieu: Content and Composition of Islamic Salvation History, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1978 p,58-59</ref><ref>[[Francis Edwards Peters]] "Methodological Approaches to Islamic Studies" ''Since external evidence is necessary to [[corroborate]] a view derived solely from the [[Muslim]] literary account, lack of such corroboration is an important argument against that account's [[historicity]]. This approach is therefore more open than the 'traditional' to acceptance of an [[argument from silence|argumentum e silentio]]. For if we are ready to discount an uncorroborated report of an event, we must accept that there may be nothing with which to replace it: that the event simply did not happen. That there is no evidence for it outside of the "traditional account" thus becomes positive evidence in support of the [[hypothesis]] that it did not happen. A striking example is the lack of evidence, outside the Muslim literature, for the view that the Arabs were Muslim at the time of the Conquest.''</ref>  

As to the question of how were the stories transmitted , Muslim scholars posit that the foundational stories of early Islam would have been transmitted orally by storytellers allegedly over more than a century. Secular researchers argue that the oral method of transmission from storyteller to storyteller is problematic as such a medium can be reasonably expected to have been colored with local prejudices and tailored to the moods, needs, and expectations of their audiences.  

As to the question of how were the stories transmitted, Muslim scholars posit that the foundational stories of early Islam would have been transmitted orally by storytellers allegedly over more than a century. Secular researchers argue that the oral method of transmission from storyteller to storyteller is problematic as such a medium can be reasonably expected to have been colored with local prejudices and tailored to the moods, needs, and expectations of their audiences.  

<ref>Patricia Crone, Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam ''The sound historical tradition to which they are supposed to have added their fables simply did not exist''</ref> Patricia Crone's notes that the traditions have been reshaped by a progression of storytellers over hundreds of years <ref>Patricia Crone, Slaves on Horses, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1980 pg 3</ref>

<ref>Patricia Crone, Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam ''The sound historical tradition to which they are supposed to have added their fables simply did not exist''</ref> Patricia Crone's notes that the traditions have been reshaped by a progression of storytellers over hundreds of years <ref>Patricia Crone, Slaves on Horses, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1980 pg 3</ref>

== Skepticism about authorship of the Qur'an==

== Skepticism about authorship of the Qur'an==

One of the more contentious findings of secular scholars is that historical evidence suggests that the Qur'an as it exists today differs significantly from the text that was in existence in the late seventh century, the evidence suggesting that the text was a work still in progress over the eighth and ninth centuries,<ref>John Wansbrough,  Quranic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1977 pg.160-163</ref> for instance one of the early [[Arab]] observers in the late 7th century Ummayad court [[John of Damascus]] commented in his writings on sections of the Qur'an that existed during the age of  the [[Umayyad]] caliphate which have vanished in modern versions.<ref>John of Damascus "Concerning Heresy" (peri aireseon) – (Chapter 101) On the Heresy of the Ishmaelites. Circa 720 AD ''Then there is the book of The Camel of God. [112] About this camel he says that there was a camel from God and that she drank the whole river and could not pass through two mountains, because there was not room enough. There were people in that place, he says, and they used to drink the water on one day, while the camel would drink it on the next. Moreover, by drinking the water she furnished them with nourishment, because she supplied them with milk instead of water. Then, because these men were evil, they rose up, he says, and killed the camel. However, she had an offspring, a little camel, which, he says, when the mother had been done away with, called upon God and God took it to Himself. Then we say to them: ‘Where did that camel come from?’ And they say that it was from God. Then we say: ‘Was there another camel coupled with this one?’ And they say: ‘No.’ ‘Then how,’ we say, ‘was it begotten? For we see that your camel is without father and without mother and without genealogy, and that the one that begot it suffered evil. Neither is it evident who bred her. And also, this little camel was taken up. So why did not your prophet, with whom, according to what you say, God spoke, find out about the camel—where it grazed, and who got milk by milking it? Or did she possibly, like her mother, meet with evil people and get destroyed? Or did she enter into paradise before you, so that you might have the river of milk that you so foolishly talk about? For you say that you have three rivers flowing in paradise—one of water, one of wine, and one of milk. If your forerunner the camel is outside of paradise, it is obvious that she has dried up from hunger and thirst, or that others have the benefit of her milk—and so your prophet is boasting idly of having conversed with God, because God did not reveal to him the mystery of the camel. But if she is in paradise, she is drinking water still, and you for lack of water will dry up in the midst of the paradise of delight. And if, there being no water, because the camel will have drunk it all up, you thirst for wine from the river of wine that is flowing by, you will become intoxicated from drinking pure wine and collapse under the influence of the strong drink and fall asleep. Then, suffering from a heavy head after sleeping and being sick from the wine, you will miss the pleasures of paradise. How, then, did it not enter into the mind of your prophet that this might happen to you in the paradise of delight? He never had any idea of what the camel is leading to now, yet you did not even ask him, when he held forth to you with his dreams on the subject of the three rivers. We plainly assure you that this wonderful camel of yours has preceded you into the souls of asses, where you, too, like beasts are destined to go. And there is the exterior darkness and everlasting punishment, roaring fire''</ref>

One of the more contentious findings of secular scholars is that historical evidence suggests that the Qur'an as it exists today differs significantly from the text that was in existence in the late seventh century, the evidence suggesting that the text was a work still in progress over the eighth and ninth centuries,<ref>John Wansbrough,  Quranic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1977 pg.160-163</ref> for instance one of the early [[Arab]] observers in the late 7th century Umayyad court [[John of Damascus]] commented in his writings on sections of the Qur'an that existed during the age of  the [[Umayyad]] caliphate which have vanished in modern versions.<ref>John of Damascus "Concerning Heresy" (peri aireseon) – (Chapter 101) On the Heresy of the Ishmaelites. Circa 720 AD ''Then there is the book of The Camel of God. [112] About this camel he says that there was a camel from God and that she drank the whole river and could not pass through two mountains, because there was not room enough. There were people in that place, he says, and they used to drink the water on one day, while the camel would drink it on the next. Moreover, by drinking the water she furnished them with nourishment, because she supplied them with milk instead of water. Then, because these men were evil, they rose up, he says, and killed the camel. However, she had an offspring, a little camel, which, he says, when the mother had been done away with, called upon God and God took it to Himself. Then we say to them: ‘Where did that camel come from?’ And they say that it was from God. Then we say: ‘Was there another camel coupled with this one?’ And they say: ‘No.’ ‘Then how,’ we say, ‘was it begotten? For we see that your camel is without father and without mother and without genealogy, and that the one that begot it suffered evil. Neither is it evident who bred her. And also, this little camel was taken up. So why did not your prophet, with whom, according to what you say, God spoke, find out about the camel—where it grazed, and who got milk by milking it? Or did she possibly, like her mother, meet with evil people and get destroyed? Or did she enter into paradise before you, so that you might have the river of milk that you so foolishly talk about? For you say that you have three rivers flowing in paradise—one of water, one of wine, and one of milk. If your forerunner the camel is outside of paradise, it is obvious that she has dried up from hunger and thirst, or that others have the benefit of her milk—and so your prophet is boasting idly of having conversed with God, because God did not reveal to him the mystery of the camel. But if she is in paradise, she is drinking water still, and you for lack of water will dry up in the midst of the paradise of delight. And if, there being no water, because the camel will have drunk it all up, you thirst for wine from the river of wine that is flowing by, you will become intoxicated from drinking pure wine and collapse under the influence of the strong drink and fall asleep. Then, suffering from a heavy head after sleeping and being sick from the wine, you will miss the pleasures of paradise. How, then, did it not enter into the mind of your prophet that this might happen to you in the paradise of delight? He never had any idea of what the camel is leading to now, yet you did not even ask him, when he held forth to you with his dreams on the subject of the three rivers. We plainly assure you that this wonderful camel of yours has preceded you into the souls of asses, where you, too, like beasts are destined to go. And there is the exterior darkness and everlasting punishment, roaring fire''</ref>

Secular scholars, such as [[John Wansbrough]], [[Michael Cook (historian)|Michael Cook]] and [[Patricia Crone]], have challenged traditionalistic notions that the text of the Qur'an would have been collected under Uthman per traditional accounts, since the earliest surviving copies of the complete Qur'an are centuries later than Uthman. (The oldest existing copy of the full text is from the ninth century.<ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/texts/quran_1.shtml The Qur'an], ''bbc.co.uk'', retrieved February 17, 2007</ref>)  

Secular scholars, such as [[John Wansbrough]], [[Michael Cook (historian)|Michael Cook]] and [[Patricia Crone]], have challenged traditionalistic notions that the text of the Qur'an would have been collected under Uthman per traditional accounts, since the earliest surviving copies of the complete Qur'an are centuries later than Uthman. (The oldest existing copy of the full text is from the ninth century.<ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/texts/quran_1.shtml The Qur'an], ''bbc.co.uk'', retrieved February 17, 2007</ref>)  

According to Islamic tradition, the caliph Suleyman, who reigned as late as 715-717, went to Mecca to ask about the HAJJ. He was not satisfied with the response he received there, and so chose to follow Abd al-Malik (i.e. travelling to the Dome of the Rock). This fact alone, points out Dr. Hawting, indicates that there was still some confusion as where the sanctuary was to be located as late as the early 8th century. One can understand why, according to the tradition, WALID I, who reigned as Caliph between 705 and 715 wrote to all regions ordering the demolition and enlargement of the mosques. Could it be that at this time the Qiblas were then aligned towards Mecca ? If so it points to a glaring contradiction in the Quran.

According to Islamic tradition, the caliph Suleyman, who reigned as late as 715-717, went to Mecca to ask about the HAJJ. He was not satisfied with the response he received there, and so chose to follow Abd al-Malik (i.e. travelling to the Dome of the Rock). This fact alone, points out Dr. Hawting, indicates that there was still some confusion as where the sanctuary was to be located as late as the early 8th century. One can understand why, according to the tradition, WALID I, who reigned as Caliph between 705 and 715 wrote to all regions ordering the demolition and enlargement of the mosques. Could it be that at this time the Qiblas were then aligned towards Mecca ? If so it points to a glaring contradiction in the Quran.

The Dr. John Wansbrough, an absolute authority on early Islamic tradition, found interesting observances as to this man Muhammad was. The best non-Muslim sources on this period which we have are those provided by the Arabic rock inscriptions scattered all over the Syro-Jordanian deserts and the Peninsula , especially the Negev desert. The late Yehuda Nevo, from the University of Jerusalem, made extensive research and published his results in 1994 book Toward a Prehistory of Islam, which I'll refer.

The Dr. John Wansbrough, an absolute authority on early Islamic tradition, found interesting observances as to this man Muhammad was. The best non-Muslim sources on this period which we have are those provided by the Arabic rock inscriptions scattered all over the Syro-Jordanian deserts and the Peninsula, especially the Negev desert. The late Yehuda Nevo, from the University of Jerusalem, made extensive research and published his results in 1994 book Toward a Prehistory of Islam, which I'll refer.

Nevo has found in the Arab religious texts, dating from the first century and a half of Arab rule (7th to 8th century) a monotheist creed demonstrably not Islam, but a creed from which Islam could have developed.

Nevo has found in the Arab religious texts, dating from the first century and a half of Arab rule (7th to 8th century) a monotheist creed demonstrably not Islam, but a creed from which Islam could have developed.

Another school of secular study of the origins of the Qur'an has focused on the examination of the vast body of the [[Greek]], [[Armenian]], [[Hebrew]], [[Aramaic]], [[Syriac]] and [[Coptic]] accounts of non-Muslim neighbors the 7th and 8th centuries which in many cases contradict the traditional Islamic narratives. Historian Patricia Crone for instances argues that the consistency of the non-Muslim sources spread over a large geographic area would tend to rule out a non-Muslim anti-Islamic motive to these sources.<ref>[[Patricia Crone]], [[Slaves on Horses]], pp. 15-16. ''All the while that Islamic historians have been struggling with their inert tradition, they have had available to them the Greek, Armenian, Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac and Coptic literatures of non-Muslim neighbors and subjects of the Arab conquerors, to a large extent edited and translated at the end of the last century and the beginning of the present, and left to collect dust in the libraries ever since. It is a striking testimony to the suppression of the non-Islamic Middle East from the Muslim sources that not only have these literatures been ignored for questions other than the chronology of the conquests and the transmission of Greek philosophy and science, but they have also been felt to be rightly ignored. Of course these sources are hostile, and from a classical Islamic view they have simply got everything wrong; but unless we are willing entertain the notion of an all-pervading literary conspiracy between the non-Muslim peoples of the Middle East, the crucial point remains that they have got things wrong on very much the same points. That might not, it is true, have impressed the medieval Muslims who held the Jews and Christians capable of having maliciously deleted from their scriptures precisely the same passages relating to the coming of Islam; but as the Jews and Christians retorted, given their wide geographical and social distribution, they could scarcely have vented their anti-Muslim feelings with such uniform results. It is because there is agreement between the independent and contemporary witnesses of the non-Muslim world that their testimony must be considered; and it can hardly be claimed that they do not help: whichever way one chooses to interpret them, they leave no doubt that Islam was like other religions the product of a religious evolution.''</ref>

Another school of secular study of the origins of the Qur'an has focused on the examination of the vast body of the [[Greek]], [[Armenian]], [[Hebrew]], [[Aramaic]], [[Syriac]] and [[Coptic]] accounts of non-Muslim neighbors the 7th and 8th centuries which in many cases contradict the traditional Islamic narratives. Historian Patricia Crone for instances argues that the consistency of the non-Muslim sources spread over a large geographic area would tend to rule out a non-Muslim anti-Islamic motive to these sources.<ref>[[Patricia Crone]], [[Slaves on Horses]], pp. 15-16. ''All the while that Islamic historians have been struggling with their inert tradition, they have had available to them the Greek, Armenian, Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac and Coptic literatures of non-Muslim neighbors and subjects of the Arab conquerors, to a large extent edited and translated at the end of the last century and the beginning of the present, and left to collect dust in the libraries ever since. It is a striking testimony to the suppression of the non-Islamic Middle East from the Muslim sources that not only have these literatures been ignored for questions other than the chronology of the conquests and the transmission of Greek philosophy and science, but they have also been felt to be rightly ignored. Of course these sources are hostile, and from a classical Islamic view they have simply got everything wrong; but unless we are willing entertain the notion of an all-pervading literary conspiracy between the non-Muslim peoples of the Middle East, the crucial point remains that they have got things wrong on very much the same points. That might not, it is true, have impressed the medieval Muslims who held the Jews and Christians capable of having maliciously deleted from their scriptures precisely the same passages relating to the coming of Islam; but as the Jews and Christians retorted, given their wide geographical and social distribution, they could scarcely have vented their anti-Muslim feelings with such uniform results. It is because there is agreement between the independent and contemporary witnesses of the non-Muslim world that their testimony must be considered; and it can hardly be claimed that they do not help: whichever way one chooses to interpret them, they leave no doubt that Islam was like other religions the product of a religious evolution.''</ref>

:Of course these sources are hostile, and from a classical Islamic view they have simply got everything wrong; but unless we are willing entertain the notion of an all-pervading literary conspiracy between the non-Muslim peoples of the Middle East, the crucial point remains that they have got things wrong on very much the same points. That might not, it is true, have impressed the medieval Muslims who held the Jews and Christians capable of having maliciously deleted from their scriptures precisely the same passages relating to the coming of Islam; but as the Jews and Christians retorted, given their wide geographical and social distribution, they could scarcely have vented their anti-Muslim feelings with such uniform results. It is because there is agreement between the independent and contemporary witnesses of the non-Muslim world that their testimony must be considered; and it can hardly be claimed that they do not help: whichever way one chooses to interpret them, they leave no doubt that Islam was like other religions the product of a religious evolution.<ref>[[Patricia Crone]], [[Slaves on Horses]], pp. 15-16</ref>

:Of course these sources are hostile, and from a classical Islamic view they have simply got everything wrong; but unless we are willing entertain the notion of an all-pervading literary conspiracy between the non-Muslim peoples of the Middle East, the crucial point remains that they have got things wrong on very much the same points. That might not, it is true, have impressed the medieval Muslims who held the Jews and Christians capable of having maliciously deleted from their scriptures precisely the same passages relating to the coming of Islam; but as the Jews and Christians retorted, given their wide geographical and social distribution, they could scarcely have vented their anti-Muslim feelings with such uniform results. It is because there is agreement between the independent and contemporary witnesses of the non-Muslim world that their testimony must be considered; and it can hardly be claimed that they do not help: whichever way one chooses to interpret them, they leave no doubt that Islam was like other religions the product of a religious evolution.<ref>[[Patricia Crone]], [[Slaves on Horses]], pp. 15-16</ref>

The anti-traditionalist banner dropped by Crone and Cook has been taken up by scholars such as [[Christoph Luxenberg]], who supports claims for a late composition of the Qur'an, and traces much of it to [[The Syro-Aramaic Reading Of The Koran|sources other than Muhammad]]. Luxenberg in particular is well-known for his claims that the Qur'an is merely a re-working of an earlier Christian text, a [[Syriac language|Syriac]] [[lectionary]]. See also [[Gerd R. Puin]].<ref>The Syro-Aramaic Reading Of The Qur'an 2007 English edition</ref>

The anti-traditionalist banner dropped by Crone and Cook has been taken up by scholars such as [[Christoph Luxenberg]], who supports claims for a late composition of the Qur'an, and traces much of it to [[The Syro-Aramaic Reading Of The Koran|sources other than Muhammad]]. Luxenberg in particular is well known for his claims that the Qur'an is merely a re-working of an earlier Christian text, a [[Syriac language|Syriac]] [[lectionary]]. See also [[Gerd R. Puin]].<ref>The Syro-Aramaic Reading Of The Qur'an 2007 English edition</ref>

[[Fred Donner]] has argued for an early date for the collection of the Qur'an, based on his reading of the text itself. He points out that if the Qur'an had been collected over the tumultuous early centuries of Islam, with their vast conquests and expansion and bloody incidents between rivals for the caliphate, there would have been some evidence of this history in the text. However, there is nothing in the Qur'an that does not reflect what is known of the earliest Muslim community.<ref>''Narratives of Islamic Origins: The Beginnings of Islamic Historical Writing'', Donner, Darwin Press, 1998, p. 60., ISBN 0-87850-127-4</ref>

[[Fred Donner]] has argued for an early date for the collection of the Qur'an, based on his reading of the text itself. He points out that if the Qur'an had been collected over the tumultuous early centuries of Islam, with their vast conquests and expansion and bloody incidents between rivals for the caliphate, there would have been some evidence of this history in the text. However, there is nothing in the Qur'an that does not reflect what is known of the earliest Muslim community.<ref>''Narratives of Islamic Origins: The Beginnings of Islamic Historical Writing'', Donner, Darwin Press, 1998, p. 60., ISBN 0-87850-127-4</ref>