A fascinating new article by the neotraditionalist Nicolai Sinai (allied with Sadeghi/Hoyland/Neuwirth) on the date of the Qur'an's composition.
http://www.academia.edu/7372306/_When_did_the_consonantal_skeleton_of_the_Quran_reach_closure_forthcoming_in_Bulletin_of_the_School_of_Oriental_and_African_Studies_77_2014_I think Sinai does far too much special pleading here, particularly in trying to diminish the strength of the tradition when it comes to the role of al-Hajj in compiling the Qur'an (pp. 15-18); if those extensive and comparatively early accounts are unreliable in the way he contends, then Muslim tradition has essentially failed to accurately record *any* information about the Qur'an's compilation. So why, having shown that Muslim tradition totally botched the relatively late history of the Qur'an's compilation, would one presume that Muslim tradition nonetheless got the earliest and least documented part (Mohammed's own life) right? The argument is backwards. If the traditional accounts about al-Hajj and his role in Qur'anic composition are cast aside or redefined away in the way Sinai does, then we must admit that Muslim tradition has preserved essentially no reliable information at all about the Qur'an's early compilation.
But despite his unjustifiable adherence to the traditional accounts, his article is great reading overall, and I don't really disagree with the central argument that the main Qur'anic texts were compiled relatively early, around the 660s or so, with relatively minor reworkings and new shorter surahs being added thereafter. Otherwise there is no way to square the Qur'an's conservative and deeply composite nature with a later drafting. Why so few references to MHMD? Why only one reference to Makkah? Why so little clarity, and so many textual problems? These puzzles are inconceivable if the Qur'anic texts were largely written after the Second Fitna, when you would expect them to be chock full of MHMD this and Islam that; only small interpolations and revisions could have been involved at that point. Sinai's arguments about the weight of Islamic tradition are borderline useless, but his text-critical arguments and linguistic arguments (pp. 42-51) carry the day for me in terms of a relatively early composition of the Qur'anic texts and fairly conservative redactions and interpolations thereafter.
Of great interest is Sinai's discussion of the critical historical fact that the Qur'an was probably written relatively early, yet there is strong evidence that almost nobody paid much attention to the Qur'an until relatively late, at which time much of the text was no longer well understood. There is a gap, in other words, between its codification (650s/660s) and its canonization (700-720). Sinai attempts to give some explanations for this, focusing on different communities being involved. They are far from compelling, but he is on the right track! Much better explanations for the peripheral nature of the Qur'an until Abd al Malik's era are required.
Overall, I think Sinai's efforts to bend over backwards to support the traditional Muslim accounts of the Qur'an's composition are not methodologically justifiable. Why would we trust accounts about Qur'anic composition way back in the 620s/630s, when it has been demonstrated that those same traditional accounts got it badly wrong about what happened in the 650s/660s and 700s/720s? Certainly that approach would not be accepted in critical NT studies, or any other field of religious history. But I admire his thorough and careful discussion of so many of the key issues, and he makes many valid points that are surely correct. A must read overall, IMO.
Topic: Qur'anic studies today