Formulation of the Claim
The direct linguistic relationship between the muṣḥaf and the original oral Qur’anic discourse was lost.
Explanation
Arkoun assumes that the written muṣḥaf does not exactly correspond to the first oral discourse that emerged at the moment of revelation. Between the initial formulation transmitted orally and the later recording lies a distance that makes the written text an object of reading and interpretation, not merely a faithful transmission of the original.
This distance means that a return to the beginning cannot be a literal recovery of what was first said; rather, it passes through the conditions of writing, compilation, and reception. The oral origin therefore remains present as a lost horizon more than as directly accessible material.
Its Place in the Book’s Argument
This atom falls within Arkoun’s concern with the relationship between the Qur’an at its initial oral level and the muṣḥaf as a later written formulation. It supports his broader thesis that distinguishes between the first moment of revelation and the forms of recording and fixation that followed it, thereby opening the way for a historical reading of the text.
Limits of the Claim
This atom should not be taken as a judgment on the value of the muṣḥaf or as a denial of its connection to revelation. Nor does it claim to provide a detailed account of what happened in the transition from oral to written form; it merely points to a break in the direct connection.
Brief Evidence Passage
The direct linguistic relationship between the muṣḥaf and the original oral Qur’anic discourse has been lost. The written muṣḥaf does not exactly correspond to the first oral discourse that emerged at the moment of revelation. Between the initial formulation and the later recording lies a distance that makes the written text an object of reading and interpretation.
Nearby Links
- muṣḥaf