إشكالية القرآن المكيِّ في دراسات المستشرقين

Abstract

Purpose: The study aims to revisit some of the assumptions made by orientalist scholars about the nature of the differences between the Meccan and Medinan surahs (chapters) in the Qur'an; especially the claim that the Prophet was rewriting the Qur'an and re-editing it according to certain psychological and political developments that he was undergoing. The research seeks to identify the source of these assumptions by way of examining the works of four leading Orientalists in relation to the Meccan Qur’an, and then compare them with the texts of the Meccan Qur’an, so as to show the glare discrepancies between them.

Methodology: The study is based on the method of text analysis in line with Arabic rhetoric, as well as the historical approach, where texts are seen in light of the historical context in which they were produced.

Findings: The study concluded that the following three assumptions are incorrect: that the Prophet was rewriting the Qur'an in accordance with the psychological and political developments he was undergoing, that Hijra (migration to Medina) represented a radical development in the basic tenets of Islam, and that the Meccan surahs were pessimistic in their entirety. The falsity of such assumptions are exposed upon a close reading of the Meccan surahs texts, thus demonstrating the opposite.

Originality: The study highlights the fact that some of the orientalist’ studies depend on preconceived intellectual bases, and that some of them attempt to rearrange the Qur’anic Ayahs (verses) and its surahs according to those bases, which puts their scientific objectivity and intellectual honesty in question.