I have few questions for you if you do not mind:
Peace GL,
you have something in mind when you ask your questions, and I have something in mind when I read them, and both do not necessarily match.
So I will answer with what I have in mind.
1- Who wrote(authored) Qoran and where exactly in the middle east? Please provide some kind of solid evidence ?
Who, personally, was the author of Qur'an, we, or at least I, don't know, since he did not chose to speak much of himself in Qur'an.
On the other hand, I believe that his ideas, expressed in Qur'an, are more important than who he was.
Of course, the Islamic tradition has a lot of to say on him, but this was put in writing at least 150 years after the events, so it is a bit like historians of the 20th CE would write an account of Napoleon 1st from hearsay narrated by the great-great-...-great-grandsons of his acquaintances.
There could be some truth deeply buried inside this story but packaged and surrounded by a fictitious narrative.
The earliest chronicles that we know are not Arabic but Armenian, Greek, Syriac, or Coptic, see
http://www.christianorigins.com/islamrefs.html but the true reference is Robert Hoyland, Seeing Islam as Others Saw it, from which the chronicles of this website were extracted.
(Of course, for Robert Hoyland, what those ancient chroniclers saw was emerging Islam, and on this point, I don't agree. I don't necessarily interpret those texts the same way as R. Hoyland and others do).
What is intriguing is that when those texts explicitly mention a person with the name "Muhammad", we can roughly classify those texts into one of those two categories: those who saw Muhammad as a warlord, and those who saw him as a teacher of the divine Law and knowledgeable in the Scriptures (i.e. the Jewish Scriptures), but never both at the same time.
It looks like there could have been two different persons in the first half of the 7th CE, a successful Arab warlord, and a successful Arab teacher of the Scriptures, and both figures merged later as a kind of trade-off among various traditions.
Where Qur'an was written is not easy to determine, but it sounds that it was in Hijaz, as the Muslim tradition states.
My argument is based on linguistic evidences, it's really long to explain, but let's do it.
As noted in this forum, e.g. by Dr. Ayman Mohamed and others, there exist some divergences between Qur'anic grammar and Classical Arabic grammar, e.g. verse 2:177 sabirin instead of sabirun.
Among contemporary linguists, one of the those who are reference in Arabic is Kees Versteegh who wrote a book "Arabic Language" on the origins of the Arabic language (
https://books.google.fr/books?id=RiarBgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false)
According to K. Versteegh, on the eve of Islam in the 7th CE, the Arabic language was roughly divided into two major families of dialects, the western dialects, and the eastern dialects.
Western dialects included the Old Hijazi dialect, spoken in Hijaz.
Eastern dialects were mainly spoken in Iraq.
Veerstegh notes that Arab grammarians wrote a lot on the western variants of Arabic and less on eastern variants. He explains this by the fact that finally Classical Arabic was build on top of eastern talks, and therefore were less in the radar of grammarians.
According to Versteegh, Qur'an Arabic seems to have initially been the one of an eastern dialect that had to be adapted for writing by scribes of Hijaz. In support of this theory, Versteegh mentions that the glottal stop ('hamza'), was natural in eastern dialects but absent from western dialects.
This theory, if correct, implies that the Qur'an messenger spoke an Arabic dialect containing a glottal stop, i.e. an eastern dialect. He couldn't originate from Mecca.
In fact, this problem arose for ancient Arab grammarians, who thought to solve this issue the following way: it existed an Arabic language of prestige, the one of the classical poetry, a koiné (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koin%C3%A9_language) close to Classical Arabic and including this famous glottal stop.
Then Qur'an would have been revealed in this koiné to put it at the same standard than classical poetry.
But there is no historical trace of this so-called koiné before the 7th CE, and even this theory of the great classical pre-islamic poetry could be seriously challenged.
On this forum, Dr. Ayman Mohamed already expressed doubts about the existence of this classical pre-islamic poetry. At best it could have been folk songs.
And on the other hand, the historian Fred Donner showed in his book Narrative of the Islamic Origins (
https://books.google.fr/books/about/Narratives_of_Islamic_Origins.html?id=4GEMAQAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y) that Qur'an may very well have originated from Hijaz.
He shows that on certain occasions, hadithes use a different vocabulary from Qur'an. For instance to name a boat, Qur'an prefers the word "fulq" over "safina", whereas hadithes use the word "safina". There is even a hadith that explains that fulq means safina.
Donner explains that the word "fulq" was sufficiently scarce in pre-islamic poetry to have been used only in Hijaz.
Qur'an mentions a lot of biblical figures like Noah, Moses, David or Solomon. On those figures, hadithes give a lot more details than Qur'an.
But Qur'an also mentions purely Arabic prophets, unknown from the biblical tradition: Salih, Hud, Shuaib. In that case, hadithes are unable to really say more than Qur'an.
By the way, all of this implies that hadithes did not originate from the same milieu, neither the same time, than Qur'an.
Based on this above, my personal conclusion is that unlike Versteegh's theory, Qur'an was written in Hijaz, by someone speaking Hijazi dialect,
but its collection, shaping and review took place outside Hijaz..
This kind of conclusion is impossible within the framework of Islamic tradition and its traditional narrative, and it has far-reaching consequences, e.g. that Uthman's Qur'an is a myth.
As you can see, external considerations (early chronicles, J. Schacht on elaboration of Muslim jurisprudence, etc.), and internal linguistic considerations point to the same direction:
Qur'an actually was not the book of doctrine of the early Arab rulers, at least not until Abd al-Malik at the end of the 7th CE.
2- Give a brief history of the author who was a fierce opponent of the modality of this revolution?
Again, we don't know his personal history.
We can just know his ideas expressed in Qur'an.
As quoted, by Robert Hoyland in Seeing Islam as Others Saw It, the early chronicler Jacob of Edessa mentioned that the Arab kingdom was founded around 620/621 J.C. and that Arabs started to attack Palestine.
At that time, the Muhammad of the Sira did not even emigrate to Medina.
Parvaneh Pourshariati, in Decline and Fall of the Sassanian Empire, showed that Arabs attacks on the Persian empire started much earlier than said by the Islamic tradition, around 627 or 628 J.C.
At that time, the Muhammad of the Sira was in difficulty in Medina. What were those Arabs doing to attack Persia instead of helping their Prophet in Medina ?
Around, 620 or 621 J.C. a group of Arabs started founding a kingdom. Later Arabic papyrii of the 7th CE refer to the "era of the Arabs" (and not "hijra"), and the origin date of their calendar is around 620 / 621.
Shortly after that they started attacking their neighbours.
Now, put this in perspective to what I explained above, that Qur'an was not the book of doctrine of those Arabs.
What can you start to see ?
Does Qur'an mention this strong event (the foundation of an Arab kingdom) ?
If it doesn't, how could it remain silent on this event ?
And if it does, then how does it speak of it ?
This is where you need to learn how to decode the "language" of Qur'an and this is where learning the ancient Jewish "language" of the Scriptures is the key (and here, I don't mean Hebrew here but the metaphors and concepts of the ancient Jewish thought).
On those times, the clash of the two biggest empires of the world, Byzantium and Persia and their collapsing was seen as the coming of the end of times, and the foundation of a new kingdom as a new creation.
Read for example the Apocalypse of Zerubbabel on the take of Jerusalem in 614 J.C. by the Persians (
https://pages.uncc.edu/john-reeves/research-projects/trajectories-in-near-eastern-apocalyptic/sefer-zerubbabel/).
Then this new kingdom certainly needed to setup laws and justice.
This is exactly how you have to read, e.g., surah 2 in Qur'an. The story of Adam in verse 2:30 is not the story of the creation of mankind per se. It is the metaphor of the creation of a new kingdom on Earth.
Then the story is followed by that of Moses, struggling to establish divine laws for his restive people.
And so on.
Fassad, i.e. "spreading corruption", has nothing to do with a question of morals.
In the ancient Jewish thought, advent of the world to come could only happen at the height of the ordeal (i.e. fitna in Qur'an).
A drift or aberration of this idea is that if the world to come is delayed, it could be possible to hasten its coming by spreading chaos so that to be sure we are at the height of the ordeal.
Nowadays, some Islamic terrorist movements like ISIS or al-Qaida are exactly doing this: trying to help the advent of the world to come by spreading chaos.
So it was likely the same in the 7th CE. Some people certainly wanted to add chaos to chaoss in the context of collapsing empires so that the new kingdom of God could come.
And it is exactly that idea that the messenger blames in Qur'an.
For instance, in verse 2:51, it is question of the people of Moses taking the "calf", al-3ijla.
The purpose is to make hear the verb 3ajila which means to be impatient, in the context trying to hasten the world to come.
3-Was Qoran then just for that era?
Yes and no.
In the mindset of the author of Qur'an, the new creation to come was to be forever ("khalid"), until it ended and a new creation was to take place instead, e.g. 21:104, 29:19, etc.
So basically, Qur'an was meant for the new creation to come of his era.
Nowadays, the world has so much changed that legal provisions in Qur'an are completely outdated.
4- How can Qoran be correctly understood by everybody like you seem to suggest?
In the context of the 7th CE, its meaning was certainly obvious, and this explained it widely spread even though it was not imposed by the rulers.
But nowadays, you need to study a lot of history and ancient Jewish though in order to uncover its meaning.
