Creating the Qur’an: A Historical-Critical Study

I was fascinated by the exploration of the various traditions and sources of the Qur'an's compilation, as well as the issues with carbon dating. I also learned about the Kathisma Church (The Church of the Seat of Mary) between Jerusalem and Bethlehem, which was a Byzantine Church that appears to have been an inspiration for the Dome of the Rock. The caliph Abd al-Malik borrowed architects from Byzantium to help with the Dome of the Rock's construction, so it makes sense that this early church has a similar architectural layout. I totally recommend this book, I could not stop reading once I started, and I am already restarting it. Shoemaker explains everything in a very clear way, and I look forward to future studies. I also recommend books and articles by Robert G. Hoyland, Hugh Kennedy, Fred Donner, the late Patricia Crone, James Howard-Johnston, and Tommaso Tesei. I am grateful this book is free for kindle, there is so much information available, and this availability will benefit current and future students, or anyone who is interested in Islamic / Qur'anic Studies, traditional or critical.

This book is a courageous, thorough, and careful analysis of the history of the creation of the Koran. What a great analysis of the formation of the Koran, with careful analysis of the history of the region, and the history of the book itself. The author provides the reader with a who done it type analysis and does a very forensic analysis of the history of the region and the people who lived in the area of Medina, Meca, modern day Syria and Jerusalem, as well and the rest of the Levant. Everyone interested in the history of the Koran should read this book.

It is clear from the get-go that the people to whom Stephen Shoemaker is appealing in "Creating the Qur’an" are neither practicing Muslims nor Evangelical Christians; rather this book is directed primarily towards skeptical religious-studies scholars who have been scouring every aspect of Christianity from a naturalistic viewpoint, with some categorizing it as a religion based on legendary development and pseudepigraphal documents. By taking a similar approach to Islam, Shoemaker’s book aims to follow in the "Religionsgeschichte" tradition of the German critics of the Bible during the last 200 years, as well as the recent work of Bart Ehrman. This approach is something very few academics have taken towards Islam, so kudos to Shoemaker for bucking the trend. Shoemaker’s book surprised me in a couple of ways. First was the breadth of technical research that he undertook in order to expose some of the lazy scholarship that has undergirded conventional wisdom regarding the Quran. Shoemaker considered every facet of traditional Quranic assumptions and found that science is not the friend of most academic views currently in vogue. By delving deeply into the accuracy of radiocarbon dating, Shoemaker collapsed the claim that we have 7th century Quran manuscripts going back to the time of Uthman. Furthermore, he compiled a litany of research on memory science, all to demonstrate that Islamic claims of perfect preservation through oral tradition hold little to no chance of being true. In reality, the actual words spoken by Muhammad would have been tainted by errors of memory or intentional corruption until they were finally penned under a caliphate many years later. Where Shoemaker misses his mark in my eyes is in two areas. First, he assumes a bit too much when it comes to the historicity of Muhammad. He asserts that significant portions of the Qur’an are based upon the sayings of an early 7th century Arabian warlord who lived in Medina and Mecca (even though he acknowledges that evidence for 7th century Mecca is sketchy at best). But if the Qur’an is the speech of Muhammad from the early 7th century, why don’t we have any written hadith from the mouth of the prophet until 200 to 500 years later? Prior to the 9th century, there is almost nothing about the Muhammad of Islam in print, and the Qur’an which Shoemaker believes to contain his sayings actually says very little about ‘MHMD’. Secondly, Shoemaker repeatedly describes the Quran as almost a 7th century equivalent of the Bible, as though both had identical problems with their textual origins. Christians believe two things in particular set the text of the Bible above all other religious literature including the Quran. Number one is fulfilled prophecy, which the Bible contains in abundance and is the mark of divine inspiration. Second of all, we are not beholden to miraculously retained human memory over multiple generations as the avenue by which God preserved his scripture, as Islam requires in order for any of its sources to be trustworthy. Rather, the eyewitness written testimonies were inspired by the Holy Spirit who brought to their authors’ memories those things that needed to be written for posterity. This was the promise of Jesus himself (John 14:26), and evidence of such inspiration is the aforementioned prophetic fulfillment and internal consistency in a volume of 66 books by 40 authors over 1500 years. Since Shoemaker fails to give the Bible even an iota of credit for its unique marks of divine inspiration (lest his intended audience dismiss his work as biased), I believe we should add such a caveat whenever we recommend this book to others.

Fascinating analysis of the historical development of the Quran. Obviously not theological. Somewhat repetitive but very well written. I enjoyed it.

Shoemaker’s book posits some interesting ideas while applying the historical-critical method pioneered to explain the formation of the Torah to the forming of the Qur’an, setting the collection of the holy book of Islam into the reign of Abd Al-Malik rather than that of Uthman. However, Shoemaker does this with a self-certainty that does not befit such a sketchy method of finding the origins of such an important religious work. The book itself could have been half as long as the author constantly repeats his ideas, as if he needs to convince even himself of their validity. He also shows significant disdain for anyone who wants to take an alternative perspective from his on the collection of the book. His tacit acceptance of the historical-critical method as the only explanation for the collection of the other monotheistic holy books also rankles, because Shoemaker, as an historian of religion fully committed to the historical-critical method, seems to deny the possibility of any supernatural influence in the creation of holy books. As a conservative Christian, I can understand how this book will likely anger my conservative and not-so-conservative Muslim friends. Shoemaker’s tone as he discusses the conservative views of the formation of the Tanakh, the New Testament, and the Qur’an is dismissive and will shut down any but the most open-minded of conservative scholars towards his core thesis of when the Qur’an was assembled, which, to my mind, seems sound. While Shoemaker’s explanation of the state of memory science and the logical conclusions he draws from these regarding the formation of the Qur’an in particular are interesting, I question whether the memory scientists are being anachronistic in their application of what is today to the state of affairs to 1100+ years ago. However, as much as Shoemaker tries to use memory science to argue for his position of late a late assembly full of contemporary re-imaginings of events long past, I find that it actually might defeat his thesis, resulting in a strong argument to an earlier written record not just of the Qur’an, but of all the monotheistic religious books. If you’re interested in just getting to the gist of this unnecessarily long book, read the introduction, chapters 2, 5, 8, 9 and the conclusion. There is enough repetition in the book to be able to understand the central thesis and the arguments that Shoemaker makes without subjecting yourself to his scathing criticism of those he doesn’t agree with. For me personally, I’d say it was time well-spent, though I will most likely not read it again. I would give it 2.5 stars, but the rating system does not allow that, so I’ll grudgingly round up to three.

This is hopefully the start to a new era of Qur’anic studies. One that allows us to fully appreciate the wonders of human history and how we function as a species. It is a must read not only for people interested in the history of early Islam, but to everyone with a keen interest in history and religious studies.

This is a rigorous, honest, respectful, and scholarly exegesis of the origins of the Quran. It is thought-provoking and challenging. I would imagine that everyone will come away having learned something new, no matter how familiar you are with the topic.

Comprehensive and systematic in his analysis of the Qur’an. Not easy reading but well done. Worth reading and impact on the theory of the Qur’an inscribed forever on a tablet in heaven

This book is thoroughly researched, informed and iconoclastic. It rigorously follow the evidence according to the historical-critical method. Where the evidence isn’t conclusive Shoemaker offers reasoned hypotheses, while also ruling out theories and beliefs about the Quran’s origin that are clearly contrary to the evidence. It is sure to ruffle feathers at popular and academic levels alike, but that appears to be largely a byproduct of the author’s commitment to the historical-critical task. As Shoemaker notes, the Quran’s origin is still shrouded in mystery. Nonetheless in this book that shroud has been partially removed.

If you are a Muslim and adhere to the standard Islamic account of the origins of your religion, fasten your seatbelt before reading this book. It is however a gem, demonstrating beyond all reasonable doubt that the standard Islamic narrative is not tenable by the standards of normal enquiry. This is important, because many non-Muslims accept the standard Islamic narrative. In my view the book is worth reading for its excellent sections on human individual and social memory alone. Of course what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and we should apply impartiality the same principles to any belief system or field of enquiry. Indeed Shoemaker is at pains to point out that he does not condemn Muslims, past or present, for beliefs also widely held held outside the context of Islam and explained by normal human psychology. Shoemaker barely touches on whether the Muhammad of Islam really existed (though on balance he accepts that) and covers whether Islam originated in Mecca and Medina or a long way to the north only insofar as it relates to his main topic, but academic enquiry necessarily requires focus. There is a large amount of repetition in the book, perhaps explained by its countercultural argument and a perceived need to cover each part of the argument thoroughly.. That said, I found this book a delight of academic virtuosity.

Not great presentation for casual reading. Presented like advanced college textbook

The perspective opened up by this book was entirely new to me - even after having dipped in and out of Islamic history for decades. I experienced the sense of freedom that comes of throwing off hidebound ideas and even modes of behaviour. The pernicious influence of approaching religious texts from an emotional or pietistic point of view was laid out very clearly by Shoemaker. The goal of any honest person must surely be to follow the evidence wherever it leads. I also enjoyed the writing style very much and found it direct and clear. I see the work of scholarship as exemplified in this book as being a source of liberation for those interested in getting to the truth rather than something with the intention to injure people of faith. I look forward to reading more on this topic ... but I plan to stay clear of works by believers as I have found them to be naive and downright gullible as they strain to fit square pegs in round holes.

A good read for someone who want to understand how the Qur'an came about.