Chronological Sequence of the Qur’ān

One difficulty that faces the student of the Qur’ān is that its order is not based on the principle of chronological sequence. Because of its relation to theological issues, Muslim scholars gave careful attention to the issue of arrangement of the Qur’ānic text. For example, in the field of abrogation, the verse that abrogates another cannot be ascertained without specifying the chronological sequence of the verses.

The earliest attempt of chronological sequencing is attributed to Ibn ‘Abbas (d. AH 68/AD 688), the traditional father of exegesis. Al-Baydawi (d. AH 716/AD 1316) highlighted this point in his commentary. Islamic research on the Qur’ān reached the pinnacle of its development in the hands of al-Suyuti (d. AH 911/AD 1505) in his book al-Itqan fi ‘Ulum al-Qur’ān, which became the starting point of Western study in regard to the arrangement of the Qur’ān.

In the modern era, a Muslim scholar named Muhammad al-Tahir Ibn ‘Ashur, in his commentary al-Tahrir wa al-Tanwir, resumed the issue of arranging the texts by attempting to address the problem of chronological sequence at the beginning of each sura.

The study of the arrangement of the Qur’ānic texts falls within a field of research in the study of the Qur’ān known as M‘arifat al-Mecci wa al-Medeni (“Knowing the Meccan and the Medinan”). Muslim Qur’ānic scholars coined the terms Meccan and Medinan and gave them three distinct definitions:

Meccan: The portion of the Qur’ān revealed in Mecca before and after the migration.

Medinan: The portion of the Qur’ān revealed in Medina.

Meccan: Each speech addressed to the people of Mecca.

Medinan: Each speech addressed to the people of Medina.

Meccan: The portion of the Qur’ān revealed in Mecca before the migration.

Medinan: The portion of the Qur’ān revealed after the migration, whether in Medina, or Mecca, or in any other place during the raids of Muhammad.

This last definition is the most popular one and is adopted by the majority of Muslim scholars of the Qur’ān, as well as by the Orientalists, the Western scholars of Middle Eastern Studies. Hence, we will use this last definition because it helps in defining the chronological succession—as opposed to the first two definitions that lack the chronological sequence. We have also chosen this third definition because the first definition is connected to the revelation only in terms of geography, and the second is concerned only with the identity of those to whom Muhammad spoke.

When examining the arrangement of the Qur’ān, there are three major issues that should be considered: the arrangement of the suras, the arrangement of the verses within the suras, and the dating of the Qur’ānic text. A grasp of all three issues is crucial to understanding the discontinuity of the Qur’ān. It is also important to examine the lack of arrangement of verses within the same sura, the intermingling of verses that belong to different periods, and the incoherence of verse succession within the ‘Uthmanic text as noted by Shiite scholars.

Arrangement of the Suras

According to a narrative attributed to Ibn ‘Abbas, the Meccan portion of the Qur’ān consists of eighty-five suras, while the Medinan portion is twenty-eight suras. It is noteworthy that the Ibn ‘Abbas total is only 113, not 114 suras. Perhaps the source of this view may have dropped al-Fatiha (Q 1) from his count, or it may be that his count relied on a certain copy that combined two suras. In some codices, al-Dhuha (Q 93) and al-Inshira (Q 94) are combined in one sura.

Here is a list of seventeen suras whose Meccan or Medinan origins are the subject of dispute:

al-Ra‘d (Q 13)

Muhammad (Q 47)

al-Rah.man (Q 55)

al-Hadid (Q 57)

al-Saff (Q 61)

al-Taghabun (Q 64)

al-Mutaffifin (Q 83)

al-Tin (Q 95)

al-Qadr (Q 97)

al-Bayyina (Q 98)

al-Zalzala (Q 99)

al-‘Adiyat (Q 100)

al-Takathur (Q 102)

al-Ma‘un (Q 107)

al-Ikhlas (Q 112)

al-Falaq (Q 113)

al-Nas (Q 114)

Regarding the arrangement of the Qur’ān, Islamic scholars have presented two opinions:

The arrangement of the Qur’ān is “instituted,” meaning by the order and guidance of Muhammad.

The arrangement of the Qur’ān is “adaptable,” based on the labors of the compilation committees.

A group of Islamic scholars also said that the arrangement of most of the suras is instituted.

However, academic examination of the Qur’ān reveals that the Qur’ān underwent simple systemic arrangement. After gathering the verses in an independent sura, the collectors decided to set a simple arrangement based on a quantitative basis—from longer to shorter. The current breakdown of the Qur’ān is based on four categories:

The “lengthy” (al-towal)—long suras (more than 100 verses)

The “one-hundreds” (al-ma’un)—which follow the seven longest suras, each containing approximately 100 verses

The “double digits” (al-mathani)—following the one-hundreds and containing less than one hundred verses each

The “sectioned” (al-mufassal)—following the double digits. These are the shortest of the suras. Scholars said this portion is named al-mufassal for the many divisions among the suras. Others said it was named so because these suras contain fewer abrogations.

Alternative Qur’ānic Arrangements

It is important to note that the current arrangement of the Qur’ān is not the only arrangement and that the overall arrangement of the Qur’ān—its suras, verses and sometimes even the arrangement of words within the verses—seemed of little importance to Muhammad.

In addition to the adopted text arranged by ‘Uthman’s committee, some references give us a list of other arrangements. We present here what Ibn Mas‘ud and Ibn Ka‘b arranged as the first fifteen suras of the Qur’ān:

Arrangement

of the

Codices

The Codex (Mushaf) of

Ibn Mas‘ud

(al-Fahrast 29)

The Codex (Mushaf) of Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b

(al-Fahrast 29-30)

1

al-Baqara (Q 2)

al-Fatiha (Q 1)

2

al-Nisa’ (Q 4)

al-Baqara (Q 2)

3

Al ‘Imran (Q 3)

al-Nisa’ (Q 4)

4

al-A‘raf (Q 7)

Al ‘Imran (Q 3)

5

al-An‘am (Q 6)

al-An‘am (Q 6)

6

al-Ma’ida (Q 5)

al-A‘raf (Q 7)

7

Yunus (Q 10)

al-Ma’ida (Q 5)

8

al-Tawba (Q 9)

Yunus (Q 10)

9

al-Nahl (Q 16)

al-Anfal (Q 8)

10

Hud (Q 11)

al-Tawba (Q 9)

11

Yusuf (Q 12)

Hud (Q 11)

12

Al-Isra’ (Q 17)

Maryam (Q 19)

13

al-Anbiya’ (Q 21)

al-Shu‘ara’ (Q 26)

14

al-Mu’minin (Q 23)

al-Hajj (Q 22)

15

al-Shu‘ara’ (Q 26)

Yusuf (Q 12)

Last sura

al-Ikhlas (Q 112)

al-Nas (Q 114)

Ibn Mas‘ud dropped Q 113 and Q 114 from his Qur’ān, which is why al-Suyuti says of him that he has 112 suras in his Qur’ān. However, the total number of suras in his Qur’ān must have been 111 because he does not add sura al-Fatiha (Q 1) either. On the other hand, we see in Ibn Ka‘b’s codex a total of 116 suras, because he added suras al-Hafd and al-Khal‘. Al-Suyuti says that the codex of Ibn Ka‘b contains only 115 suras, because he combined al-Fil (Q 105) and Quraysh (Q 106) as one sura.

Arrangement and Compilation of ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib’s Codex

According to al-Ya‘qubi, ‘Ali divided his codex (mushaf) into seven parts, using the following arrangement:

Part one

al-Baqara (Q 2), Yusuf (Q 12), al-‘Ankabut (Q 29), al-Rum (Q 30), Luqman (Q 31), Fussilat (Q 41), al-Dhariyat (Q 51), al-Insan (Q 76), al -Sajda (Q 32), al-Nazi‘at (Q 79), al-Takwir (Q 81), al-Infitar (Q 82), al-Inshiqaq (Q 84), al-A‘la (Q 87), al-Bayyina (Q 98)

Part two

al-Hajj (Q 22), Hud (Q 11), Al ‘Imran (Q 3), al-Hijr (Q 15), al-Ahzab (Q 33), al-Dukhan (Q 44), al-Rah.man (Q 55), al-Haqqa (Q 69), al-Ma‘arij (Q 70), ‘Abasa (Q 80), al-Shams (Q 91), al-Qadr (Q 97), al-Humaza (Q 104), al-Fil (Q 105), Quraysh (Q 106)

Part three

al-Nisa’ (Q 4), al-Nahl (Q 16), al-Mu’minin (Q 23), Ya Sin (Q 36), al-Shura (Q 42), al-Waqi‘a (Q 56), al-Mulk (Q 67), al-Mudaththir (Q 74), al-Ma‘un (Q 107), al-Masad [Lahab] (Q 111), al-Ikhlas (Q 112), al-‘Asr (Q 103), al-Qari‘a (Q 101), al-Buruj (Q 85), al-Tin (Q 95), al-Naml (Q 27)

Part four

al-Ma’ida (Q 5), Yunus (Q 10), Maryam (Q 19), al-Shur‘ara’ (Q 26), al-Zukhruf (Q 43), al-Hujurat (Q 49), Qaf (Q 50), al-Qamar (Q 54), al-Mumtahana (Q 60), al-Tariq (Q 86), al-Balad (Q 90), al-‘Adiyat (Q 100), al-Kawthar (Q 108), al-Kafirun (Q 109)

Part five

al-An‘am (Q 6), al-Isra’ (Q 17), al-Anbiya’ (Q 21), al-Furqan (Q 25), al-Qasas (Q 28), al-Ghafir [al-Mu’min] (Q 40), al-Mujadala (Q 58), al-Hashr (Q 59), al-Jumu‘a (Q 62), al-Munafiqun (Q 63), al-Qalam (Q 68), Nuh (Q 71), al-Jinn (Q 72), al-Mursalat (Q 77), al-Duha (Q 93), al-Takathur (Q 102)

Part six

al-A‘raf (Q 7), Ibrahim (Q 14), al-Kahf (Q 18), al-Nur (Q 24), al-Sad (Q 38), al-Zumar (Q 39), al-Jathiya (Q 45), al-Bayyina (Q 98), al-Hadid (Q 57), al-Muzammil (Q 73), al-Qiyama (Q 75), al-Naba’ (Q 78), al-Ghashiya (Q 88), al-Fajr (Q 89), al-Layl (Q 92), al-Nasr (Q 110)

Part seven

al-Anfal (Q 8), al-Tawba (Q 9), Ta Ha (Q 20), al-Saffat (Q 37), al-Ahqaf (Q 46), al-Fath (Q 48), al-Tur (Q 52), al-Najm (Q 53), al-Saff (Q 61), al-Taghabun (Q 64), al-Talaq (Q 65), al-Mutaffifin (Q 83), al-Falaq (Q 113), al-Nas (Q 114)

It is noteworthy, that al-Yaqubi’s sequence (above), does not contain these suras:

al-Fatiha (Q 1)

al-Ra‘d (Q 13)

al-Saba’ (Q 34)

Muhammad (Q 47)

Question: Did ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib pen a codex?

During the course of narrating the story of ‘Ali’s compilation of the Qur’ān, the Shiite sources state that ‘Ali compiled the Qur’ān in accordance with the chronology of the revelation. Immediately after the death of Muhammad, ‘Ali went into isolation in his home “for three days until he compiled the Qur’ān. It was the first Qur’ān he collected in one book from memory. That Qur’ān belonged to the people of Ja‘far”.

When subjecting the story to scrutiny, it appears to hold no credibility for the following collective or separate reasons:

The need for penning the Qur’ān emerged only after Muslim armies had expanded beyond the borders of the Arabian Peninsula, when the soldiers began to quarrel over the accuracy of their codices. This situation forced ‘Uthman to intervene and unify the Qur’ānic text. Many believe this unification was an act that the Islamic society of Medina did not need, neither during Muhammad’s life nor immediately following his death.

‘Ali was busily engaged in political conflicts with regard to governance since the death of Muhammad. Hence, he had no time for the task of compiling the Qur’ān.

The compiling of the Qur’ān required a committee of several individuals who worked diligently to examine the available texts and hear the testimony of the memorizers of the Qur’ān. How, then, would ‘Ali be able to accomplish what it took an entire committee to do? And further, how was he able to write down the Qur’ān in just a few days?

‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib received the reins of power after the murder of ‘Uthman. Why didn’t he impose his Qur’ān on all the regions during his caliphate period? Assuming that political conditions did not allow him to disseminate his Qur’ān, because of the prevailing unrest and chaos during his reign, why wasn’t his Qur’ān circulated and used by his Shiite followers?

Moreover, if we take the list transmitted by al-Ya‘qubi (above), we will find that Ali’s codex is not based on the chronological sequence. Rather, it leans toward the quantitative arrangement but according to different rules. For example, the seven long suras are distributed among the seven parts. The shorter suras are also distributed among the seven parts, and so on. It is clear that this categorization relied on “‘Uthman’s revision”. Therefore, it is a post-‘Uthmanic text, meaning the allegation that ‘Ali compiled the Qur’ān, let alone that he arranged it, is propaganda by the opposition to the Umayyads, aimed at belittling the status of the ‘Uthmanic codex.

Arrangement and Compilation of the Qur’ān Based on the Probable

The Qur’ān is organized by the length and not the chronology of its suras. To understand this unusual arrangement, one must understand the context regarding the beginnings of the Qur’ān and how it eventually reached the Muslims. Muhammad showed no interest in writing down the Qur’ān but would sporadically write parts of it at different times. He would add verses to this sura or that sura with no clear methodology. Sometimes, Muhammad appeared as if he did not care about the precision of the Qur’ānic text, which is an issue exposed by ‘Abd Allah Ibn Abi Sarh, who was a scribe for Muhammad.

‘Abd Allah Ibn Abi Sarh started having doubts when Muhammad recited, “We have created man from an extract of clay...” (Q 23.12-14). He said to Muhammad, “And blessed be God, the best of creators!” to which Muhammad replied, “Write it down! For it was revealed like that.” The phrase was added to the body of the verse’s text.

Consequently, Ibn Abi Sarh became suspicious of the call of Muhammad. He decided to test the veracity of Muhammad’s heavenly connection. One day, Muhammad dictated, “Exalted in Power, Wise.” In response, Ibn Abi Sarh wrote, “Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.” Then, when he read the changes, Muhammad said to him, “Yes, it is the same”.

In another story we read that Ibn Abi Sarh manipulated the revelation. When Muhammad dictated, “Heareth and knoweth all things,” Ibn Abi Sarh wrote, “Knoweth all things, Most wise.” And when Muhammad dictated, “Knoweth all things, Most wise,” Ibn Abi Sarh wrote, “Heareth and knoweth all things” This experience led Ibn Abi Sarh to reject Islam and return to the Quraysh, where he declared to them the falsehood of Muhammad’s prophetic claims.

Muhammad taunted him with this response:

Who is more unjust than he who devises against God a lie, or says, ‘I am inspired’, when he was not inspired at all? and who says, ‘I will bring down the like of what God has sent down;’ but didst thou see when the unjust are in the floods of death, and the angels stretch forth their hands, ‘Give ye forth your souls; today shall ye be recompensed with the torment of disgrace, for that ye did say against God what was not true, and were too proud to hear His signs. (Q 6.93)

In addition, Muhammad did not stick to the Qur’ānic text literally but was lenient with the readings. There are many reports of Muhammad’s negligence concerning the accuracy of the Qur’ān. We read in a narrative that ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab noticed, when he heard Hisham Ibn Hakeem reciting sura al-Furqan (Q 25), that he was reading it, “with many letters [i.e., words]” he had never heard before from Muhammad. When Hisham finished praying, Umar grabbed him by his garment and asked him who taught him the sura. He replied to him that it was Muhammad. Umar called him a liar. Then they went together to Muhammad who, after he heard the recitation of Hisham, said, “It was revealed like this”, and added, “This Qur’ān was sent down on seven letters [dialects]. Read ye, therefore, of the Qur’ān what is easy for you”.

Another story tells of a man that came to Muhammad and said to him, “Abdulla Ibn Mas‘ud taught me a sura,” then said, “Ubayy Ibn Ka‘b taught it to me, but their readings differed. Which of the readings should I take?” Muhammad kept silent and ‘Ali was next to him. ‘Ali replied, “Let each man read as he was taught. All are good and beautiful!”

Muhammad did not see the need to write down the Qur’ān precisely, which is why he did not put into effect any methodology to compile it. The task of accomplishing this mission and the laying down of its essential rules was left to his followers.

After Uthman’s committee compiled the Qur’ān, it used the quantitative arrangement (from longer to shorter). This arrangement relied, however, on what the eye estimated the size of the pages to be and not on the number of verses.

For example, sura al-Nisa’ (Q 4) consists of 176 verses, while sura al-A‘raf (Q 6) consists of 201 verses. This categorization was not accurate. Perhaps the editorial committee was dealing with manuscripts of different lengths and script sizes that concealed the true length of the suras.

Nonetheless, this categorization does not explain the strongest and most prominent violations against the quantitative principle mentioned here. For instance, we could not explain why al-Ra‘d (Q 13), Ibrahim (Q 14), and al-Hijr (Q 15), which do not exceed more than 3 or 3½ pages in length, were placed among suras whose lengths are about 7 pages each.

Also, it is not clear why al-Anfal (Q 8), which consists of 5 pages, was put before al-Tawba (Q 9) which consists of 10 pages, or, for that matter, why al-Sajda (Q 32), which consists of 1½ pages, was put before al-Ahzab (Q 33), which consists of 5⅓ pages.

Nöldeke presented one reason for this arbitrary ordering: “The motive behind this noteworthy method might be the fear of fully completing the task, which might incite the hidden evil forces. This myth is still widespread among the primitive people groups”.

Arrangement of the Verses

The arrangement or sequence of the verses in the Qur’ān is very unusual. Not only are the verses not in chronological order but verses from different eras (Meccan and Medinan) have been intermingled together in the same context or sura.

The lack of arrangement of verses within the same sura

In many cases, the arrangement of the verses lacks a chronological sequence. We find the first verses of a particular sura placed far from the beginning of that sura. For example, verses 15 and 16 are the first two verses to be revealed of sura al-Ma’ida (Q 5). According to chronological order, they should have been placed at the beginning of the sura and numbered verses 1 and 2.

The intermingling of verses that belong to different eras

There is another issue concerning the order of the verses. We find Medinan verses within Meccan suras and vice versa. Islamic sources reference the suras that are made up of different parts—mixed Meccan and Medinan verses:

The Islamic sources state that these Meccan suras contain Medinan verses:

al-An‘am (Q 6)

al-A‘raf (Q 7)

Ibrahim (Q 14)

al-Nahl (Q 16)

al-Isra’ (Q 17)

al-Kahf (Q 18)

al-Qasas (Q 28)

al-Zumar (Q 39)

al-Ahqaf (Q 46)

These Medinan suras contain Meccan verses:

al-Anfal (Q 8)

al-Tawba (Q 9)

al-Ra‘d (Q 13)

al-Hajj (Q 22)

al-Ma‘un (Q 107)

In fact, what is mentioned above does not include all the suras with intermingled verses. A methodological study reveals a kind of intermingling that requires the patience and careful detailed examination of the researcher. One observes that the inner structure of the intermingled suras lack unison and the method of organizing the verses shows that they were arranged, even within the same sura, without following any particular method. For example, the verse of usury (Q 2.278), “O ye who believe! fear God, and remit the balance of usury, if ye be believers” is placed at the end of al-Baqara (Q 2), even though it is a verse that belongs to the first two years of migration (Hijra).

In another example, some narratives say that the following text is the last verse of the Qur’ān: “They will ask thee for a decision; say, ‘God will give you a decision concerning remote kinship….’” (Q 4.176).

This verse is placed in sura al-Nisa’ (Q 4), a sura that belongs to the period between the third and fifth years of migration (Hijra), AH 3-5.

Shiite Observations

In addition to what is stated above, the Shiite scholars agreed that the verses are not properly arranged. They considered it evidence of the neglect in the arrangement of the verses in the ‘Uthmanic codex. They also considered it as evidence for the existence of intermittence and distortion in the text:

The natural succession of one verse is not found in the verse that follows. For it lost its way and showed up in a much farther place. Moreover, within the one verse, discontinuities in the relevance of the context prevail. The natural sequence or flow of the verse can only be brought back if we looked first for the other half that completes the verse somewhere far from where it is, and then combine what relates to one another of parts with long range divergences.

Here are some of the Shiites’ additional remarks:

The verse, “Said he [Moses], ‘Do ye ask what is meaner instead of what is best? Go down to Egypt,- there is what ye ask…’” (Q 2.61) must be followed by the verse, “They said, ‘O Moses! Verily, therein is a people, giants; and we will surely not enter therein until they go out from thence…’” (Q 5.22).

The verse, “But if ye fear that ye cannot do justice between orphans, then marry what seems good to you of women…” (Q 4.3) was sent down together with, “They will ask thee a decision about women; say, ‘God…’” (Q 4.127). Therefore, the verses must be read in this way: “They will ask thee a decision about women; say, ‘God decides for you about them, and that which is rehearsed to you in the Book; about orphan women to whom ye do not give what is prescribed for them, and whom ye are averse from marrying Then marry what seems good to you of women, by twos, or threes, or fours”.

Verses 104 of al-Nisa’ (Q 4) and 140 of al‘Imran (Q 3) must be placed in al‘Imran (Q 3), as both contexts are describing the battle of Uhud.

Verse 46 of al-Shu‘ara’ (Q 26) completes what is said in Ta Ha (Q 20) from verse 10 and on.

Verse 28 of al-Sajda (Q 32) belongs after verse 21 of the same sura.

Verse 24 of al-‘Ankabut (Q 29) should have come immediately after verse 18 of the same sura and the section that comes between these two verses has a place somewhere else. It has been placed where it is now [only] as a result of negligence during the compilation.

Verse 16 of Luqman (Q 31) must come immediately after verse 13 of the same sura and what is between them is an abnormal interruption to Luqman’s bequest for his son.

What came out of the mouth of Muhammad’s enemies about the Qur’ān, “‘Old folks’ tales, which he has got written down while they are dictated to him morning and evening,’” (Q 25.5) must be followed with (Q 29.48): “Thou couldst not recite before this any book, nor write it with thy right hand, for in that case those who deem it vain would have doubted”.

Regarding al-Qiyama (Q 75.16), al-Razi mentions in his commentary that some of the Shiites made this statement: “A group of the earliest rejecters claimed that this Qur’ān had been changed and altered, added to and taken from. They objected to it, saying that there is no correlation between this verse and the one before it; and if this arrangement was from Allah the matter will not be as such”.

Dating Qur’ānic Text

If the Qur’ān was not subject to a methodology in its arrangement, how then is it possible to conclude that a certain text (sura or verse) is Meccan or Medinan?

Muslims scholars found what they believed to be an honorable answer to this question in the study of the science of the revelation of the Qur’ān:

Of the most honorable sciences of the Qur’ān is the science of its revelation and its interpretation. The arrangement of: what was revealed in Mecca and Medina; what was sent down in Mecca while its authority is Medinan, and what was revealed in Medina while its authority is Meccan; what was sent down in Mecca concerning the people of Medina, and what was sent down in Medina concerning the people of Mecca; what is similar to the Meccan revelation in the Medinan, and what is similar to the Medinan revelation in the Meccan;…what was revealed in Ta’if, and what was revealed in Hudaybiya; what was revealed at night, and what was revealed in the day; what was revealed with other revelation, and what was revealed singularly; the Medinan verses in Meccan suras, and the Meccan verses in Medinan suras;…and what they differed about where some of them said: it is Medinan, while others said: it is Meccan.

Hence, they sought to know the arrangement of the text. They set out ideas for how to know what is Meccan and what is Medinan. Later, rules were developed by Western researchers. The Western school, started by Gustav Weil in his book, Historisch-Kritishce Einleitung in den Koran (1844), was improved upon by Nöldeke with his encyclopedic work, History of The Qur’ān; Geschichte des Qorāns (1860). This work was revised and published as a second edition by Schwally. Later, other Orientalists released a second and a third part of the History of The Qur’ān. Following that, Régis Blachère worked on refining and arranging Nöldeke’s book in his work, Introduction au Coran, which was published in three volumes in Paris (1947-1950).

Furthermore, the Orientalists presented their opinions regarding the arrangement of suras, among the most prominent being Hirschfeld in his book Composition and Exegesis (1902). Hirschfeld’s book used five critical criteria for understanding the Qur’ān (Confirmatory, Declamatory, Narrative, Descriptive, and Legislative). Muir, in his book, The Corân: Its Composition and Teaching (1875), also presented an arrangement free of Nöldeke’s influence and introduced a theory stating that some of the Qur’ānic texts belong to the period that preceded Muhammad’s declaration of prophethood.

We will summarize for the reader the general rules (based on the work by al-Haddad) of the Muslim scholars and the Orientalists for distinguishing the Meccan from the Medinan:

The Meccan message focused on the call to Allah and rejection of polytheism. In Medina, when Muhammad established a society submissive to his authority, he presented a message that had liturgical, regulative, and legislative aspects.

Every argument with the pagans is in Mecca and every debate with the People of the Book is in Medina.

Each verse that calls for forgiveness belongs to Mecca and each verse that encourages fighting belongs to Medina. All suras that contain a call to a defensive military stance belong to the early years of Muhammad’s stay in Medina. All suras that contain a call to an offensive military stance belong to the second period in Medina after the treaty of Hudaybiya (AH 6/AD 628).

The stories of prophets and ancient nations go back to the Meccan period. Also, all suras that talk about the story of Adam and Satan, with the exception of al-Baqara (Q 2), are Meccan.

The messages that warn about eternal consequences belong to the first Meccan period, while the messages that contain a campaign against idols are from the second Meccan period.

Suras that contain swearing (oaths) are Meccan. This style is absent in the Medinan suras.

Each passage that has the name “al-Rah.man: the Beneficent” is from the second period in Mecca.

All passages that show courtesy toward the Jews or cite them are Meccan. On the other hand, all passages that level accusations against the Jews are Medinan.

Citing the People of the Book is Meccan, while verses campaigning against them and their doctrines are Medinan.

In the Medinan period, terms like Emigrants, Helpers (Ansar), and the hypocrites (the opponents) are mentioned.

Short suras, in general, are from the first Meccan period, especially the ones with a fiery style, while the lengthy suras that appear calm, by comparison, are from the second period in Mecca. Long suras are Medinan.

In Mecca, Muhammad declared himself using descriptions that were acceptable to the Meccan polytheistic and scriptural environment, descriptions such as “bringer of good news” and “warner.” In Medina, when he became the obeyed master, he portrayed himself as a “Prophet and Messenger”.

In Mecca, when the Qur’ān refers to the past sacred books, in general, it calls them “the Book” without details. While in Medina the names of the books are specified—Torah, Injīl, Zabūr (Psalms), and al-Hikma (Wisdom). Therefore, the verses that contain the distinctive names of the books are Medinan, even if they were inserted into Meccan suras.

In Mecca and Medina the Qur’ān names those who have the Scriptures “the People of the Book,” “those who possess the Message [al-Dhikr],” and “those endowed with knowledge.” But when it calls them “the Jews” or “people of the Gospel,” this specification is Medinan, even though it was inserted in Meccan suras.

The Style:

Meccan suras tend to be in the rhymed prose, especially the suras of the first period, a style that is rare in the Medinan Qur’ān, whose verses are also longer.

The Meccan Qur’ān is narrative, similar to a novel, in nature. It tells of the hereafter, the angels, and the Jinn. On the other hand, this narrative style is rare in the Medinan Qur’ān.

The Meccan language is a fervidly poetic language, especially in the early stages of Mecca, while the Medinan language is determinative. It tackles referendums, legal questions, social questions, moral questions, family questions, and their legislative answers.

These are the general rules, though we might find deviations here and there. One example is particularly apparent in al-Baqara (Q 2), the first Medinan sura, where Muhammad initiated the formulation of his new language.

Conclusion

When reviewing the arrangement of suras in the codex of Ibn Mas‘ud and Ibn Ka‘b, we find the suras follow a quantitative arrangement, longer to shorter. We also find the quantitative rule applied in the alleged codex of ‘Ali. Since these versions of the Qur’ān, including the official ‘Uthmanic codex, relied on the quantitative rule, they indicate that this quantitative principle, from longer to shorter, was the best resolution, and maybe the only one, to the problem of Qur’ānic arrangement. This method allowed the compilers to bypass the dilemma of dating.

Arranging the Qur’ān according to a chronology was almost impossible. First of all, Muhammad left the written Qur’ānic texts scattered in pieces in the hands of Muslims. Most of the texts were merely committed to memory. Secondly, the Muslims did not have the knowledge or tools to perform the task of chronological sequencing.

The simplicity of the arrangement created a difficulty in investigating the chronological sequence of the suras. This difficulty was increased by the lack of context for the verses, because of the insertion of Medinan verses into Meccan suras and vice versa. Therefore, the Qur’ānic researcher must study carefully and thoroughly to understand the text.

In spite of this, the Sunni scholars sought to use this chaos as a sign of inimitability. They wrote books about the creative side in the arrangement of suras, the most prominent of which are al-Burhan fi Munasebet Tartib Suwar al-Qur’ān by Ja‘far Ibn al-Zubayr, Nuzhum al-Dur fi Tanasub al-Ayat wa al-Suwar by Burhan al-Deen al-Buqa‘i, and Asrar Tartib al-Qur’ān by al-Suyuti. While the authors of these books sought to defend the “correlation, cohesion, and unison in the arrangement of verses and suras,” it is likely these scholars were responding implicitly to the non-Muslim critics of the Qur’ān in general, and, specifically, to the Shiites who had proven the arbitrary nature of the arrangement of the Qur’ān.

References

1. Encyclopedia of the Qur’ān 1: 321-322. 2. al-Suyūt.ī, al-Itqān 45; al-Zarkashī 1: 187. 3. Ibn al-Nadīm 28. 4. al-Suyūt.ī, al-Itqān 428. 5. Encyclopedia of the Qur’ān 1: 322. 6. al-Suyūt.ī, Asrār Tartīb 68-72. 7. al-Zarkashī 1: 244-245. 8. Ibn al-Nadīm 29-30. 9. al-Suyūt.ī, al-Itqān 423; compare with al-Zarkashī 1: 251; Ibn al-Jawzī, Funūn al-Afnān 235- 236. 10. al-Suyūt.ī, al-Itqān 427.

11. al-Ya‘qūbī 2: 135. 12. Ibn al-Nadīm 30. 13. Nöldeke, Tārīkh al-Qur’ān 245. 14. al-Zamakhsharī 2: 372. 15. al-T. abarī 9: 406. 16. Ibid. 9: 405. 17. Ibn al-Jawzī, Funūn al-Afnān 197-198. 18. al-H. arīrī 140. 19. Nöldeke, Tārīkh al-Qur’ān 297-298. 20. Ibid. 298. 21. Ibn ‘Āshūr 6: 71. 22. al-Zarkashī 1: 199-203. 23. al-Suyūt.ī, al-Itqān 177; Ibn al-D. urays 36. 24. al-Suyūt.ī, al-Itqān 176; Ibn al-D. urays 35. 25. Goldziher 310. 26. Ibid. 311-312. 27. Sell 19. 28. al-Rāzī, Tafsīr 3: 222. 29. al-Suyūt.ī, al-Itqān 44. 30. Encyclopedia of the Qur’ān 1: 322. 31. al-H. addād, At.wār al-Da‘wa 291-298.