The Quran is an oral tradition, not a written document.

[Magnus]

The Quran is an oral tradition, not a written document.

I fully realize that this idea is not in any way original, and to many people seemingly obvious. Nevertheless, I felt it a good idea to post about it after a long absence from this site.
This notion of the oral Quran has become an increasingly strong conviction of mine, and I write it down here mainly to see if I can straighten out the arguments for myself, since the subject has come up again recently. I also want to know if there is any valid criticism against this idea. I am no scholar or linguist, and there are undoubtedly many things I do not know. I?m just a guy who?s been thinking about the Quran for many years, and someone who likes to ponder where different assumptions must logically lead.

1: What exactly was sent down?

I believe what the Messenger received must have been a series of words to be uttered. This means that the Quran first appeared in this world as sounds uttered and heard by those present when Muhammed spoke those words. Regardless of who first wrote these words down, I think it is a mistake to consider any written version of the Quran as particularly authoritative, whether early or late, popular or obscure. Unless God sent the Messenger a series of letters to be written down just so in a particular script, it is reasonable to assume that any and all written down texts should be considered as arbitrarily constructed memory aids serving to remember the words of the Quran, which in turn is and always was an oral tradition rather than any combination of ink and paper.

It makes little sense to argue which written Quran is the ?real? one. If I?m correct the answer would rather be that the ?oral consensus* ?  is the authority, and thus what has actually been preserved and protected. It doesn?t matter that there have been scores of different written ?versions? of the Quran throughout history, or that most of those were arbitrarily destroyed, or that we have a handful of slightly different versions remaining in print today. It only becomes natural that things like additional vowel marks have been added relatively recently. It?s not a matter of whether they were there originally, it?s a question of whether the script used today is a good set of tools to accurately and clearly describe how the Quran is recited.

(* I believe this to be a thing that exists, please correct me if I am wrong in assuming this)

2: What exactly is a book?

The word ?kitab? might be best translated as ?book?, but what exactly is a book? Only ink on paper, bound up in a neat stack? I think not. I read books on the screens of electronic devices. I also listen to recordings of other people reading books. These records are called e-books and audiobooks respectively, and I consider them books just like the paper and ink kind, even if the record is called forth and presented to my eyes and ears from a digital file.
The Quran speaks of books in a manner that makes me think ?kitab? has a broader meaning than paper and ink. For example: If there is a perfect heavenly record of all my earthly deeds, it seems unlikely that it?s paper and ink kind.

3: The word ?Quran? itself, which as I understand it might well be translated to ?recitation?. I?m not sure how good of an argument this actually is, I?m just throwing it out there.

4: what are the consequences of this if correct?

I realize this view of an oral Quran is incompatible with many ideas more or less firmly held by users of this forum.
The discussion that brought this up for me most recently was whether ?Alif lam ra? was actually supposed to be pronounced ?aller?, which would supposedly shed some light on the meaning of the phrase/letters. Such an interpretation is invalid according to my current views. Nor is any counting or analysis of letters or verse numbers at all meaningful to me, since I consider them more or less arbitrary. I am sure the same will be true for certain conclusions based on the grammatical consequences of a single letter that may not accurately represent the recitation.

For me this is more than OK. Bad ideas should be discarded or there can never be any progress of understanding. Pride or dogma should ideally never enter into a person?s thinking. So if this idea of mine (and others here I am sure) is bad, please let me know why and I will reconsider it yet again. Surely this method is the way forward.

[huruf]

I agree with your main idea. I do think that nobody dictated to the prophet while he listened so that he could record everything properly. I think it was indeed a recitation, and was taken down as writing may be immediately or close after being received, but that the message was perceived as sounds even if mentally only. That is sounds that came to the mind-heart of the receiver.

The fact that no significantly discordant recitations of the Qur'an have been around nor are around is, as far as I am concerned, together with the content, a guaranty that the Qur'an indeed in its integrity is sound and the same as was revealed.

Salaam

[hicham9]

I beg to disagree, as this would contradict 29:48, &c.

[Magnus]

I beg to disagree, as this would contradict 29:48, &c.

I'm not so sure. These verse contradicts the notion of the oral Quran only if we decide to use one specific interpretation of 29:48. As I understand it the verse doesn't actually say that Muhammad wrote down a Quran with his own hand, only that he never had done anything of the kind before its revelation. You can argue that such a post-revelatory action is implicit, and I cannot disprove this, but I don't think it explicitly states what you claim it does? Also I could just as easily claim that the very same verse implicitly states that the Quran was recited!

Furthermore, even if we are to assume that the verse clearly states that Mohammed wrote the Quran down with his right hand (which arguably it doesn't), the question remains whether this was an "inscription" or a "transscription", i.e. if the written letters became the physical manifestation of the actual revelation sent down, or if they rather constituted a more or less arbitrary representation of the sounds forming the words.

Also, if we assume that Muhammed himself wrote down a text whose very letters were sent down by God, this begs the question; where is this text now?

[reel]

Let me add the etc lines of hicham 
29:51 And is it not sufficient for them that We revealed to you the Book (l-kitāba) which is recited to them? Indeed in that is a mercy and reminder for a people who believe.
25:5 And they say, "Legends of the former peoples which he has written down, and they are dictated to him morning and afternoon."

We can publish multiple copies of Quran and even memorize it. I don't find anything mysterious about how it exists.

[Timotheus]

1. The Quran is the Quran. the Kitab is the Kitab, one is a recitition, and one is a book of that recitition. more or less.
God says he Sent down the Quran, He also refers to it as The Book.

2. a book is a book. an audio book is a recitation of a book (i.e. Quran) an e-book is just a book on a computer.

3. I dont understand if this is a question, statement or neither or both?

4.
[3:7] He sent down to you this scripture, containing straightforward verses―which constitute the essence of the scripture―as well as multiple-meaning or allegorical verses. Those who harbor doubts in their hearts will pursue the multiple-meaning verses to create confusion, and to extricate a certain meaning. None knows the true meaning thereof except GOD and those well founded in knowledge. They say, "We believe in this―all of it comes from our Lord." Only those who possess intelligence will take heed.

what is evident to me is that A.L.M and such is a test for people. its a grat distraction from the whole message of the Quran which is nothing mythical, mystical or hidden, its just clear and straightfoward.