# Has the Koran ever been studied via Higher Criticism methods in the same way as the Bible?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-koran-ever-been-studied-via-higher-criticism-methods-in-the-same-way-as-the-bible/576467>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [March 30, 2011, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-koran-ever-been-studied-via-higher-criticism-methods-in-the-same-way-as-the-bible/576467 "2011-03-30T04:24:13Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![nani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/58956e/32.png) [@nani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nani)\
**Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-koran-ever-been-studied-via-higher-criticism-methods-in-the-same-way-as-the-bible/576467/21 "2011-03-30T22:21:21Z")

</div>

Thank you guys for your kind words. I’m glad I have something to contribute.

Ibn Warraq straddles that interesting line between polemics and scholarship. He printed these scholarly articles with the intent of challenging the reader: “Can a rational person believe in the Qur’an?” This challenge, found also in Biblical studies, is one that represents a problem for scholars who tend to reflect the modernist view that religion is a personal, individual affair, and that therefore they should merely be openhanded and serious in their research and let the reader come up with his own conclusions from reading the study. We religious scholars don’t like to be too polemical, usually. But just as how nowadays the line is blurred between scholarly works and Muslim exegesis, so too the line is blurred between scholarly work and polemics.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Noel\_Prosequi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b19c9b/32.png) [@Noel\_Prosequi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Noel_Prosequi)\
**Post date:** [March 31, 2011, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-koran-ever-been-studied-via-higher-criticism-methods-in-the-same-way-as-the-bible/576467/22 "2011-03-31T00:07:22Z")

</div>

May I join in the applause for **ñañi** ’s posts? (not that s/he needs my applause). Great reading.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![thelabdude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dc4da7/32.png) [@thelabdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelabdude)\
**Post date:** [March 31, 2011, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-koran-ever-been-studied-via-higher-criticism-methods-in-the-same-way-as-the-bible/576467/23 "2011-03-31T01:48:46Z")

</div>

> [@Bridget\_Burke](#):
>
> Ah, the [Reverend Ian Paisley](http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=plea33):
> 
> However, I don’t think he represents All Protestants. Just as I’m aware there are many flavors of Muslim!
> 
> (Interesting thread.)

Let me assure you many Christians, including Billy Graham prefer newer translations than the KJV. I agree many cling to it. I have no numbers.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![nani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/58956e/32.png) [@nani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nani)\
**Post date:** [March 31, 2011, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-koran-ever-been-studied-via-higher-criticism-methods-in-the-same-way-as-the-bible/576467/24 "2011-03-31T04:11:25Z")

</div>

> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#):
>
> Many thanks, ñañi. That’s what makes GQ the must spot of the Internet!
> 
> May I ask what the derivation of your user name is?

Ñañi is just a word that I made up when I was a really little kid, before I really learned how to talk. It was my word for blanket. It’s not the most exciting origin story; I’m not good at coming up with usernames. Thank you though! It’s moments like these that make wading through all these German religion journals worth it. 😉  
Thank you too, **Noel**. I’m a guy, by the way.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-koran-ever-been-studied-via-higher-criticism-methods-in-the-same-way-as-the-bible/576467.md?page=1)