Application Analysis of the Historical-Critical Method of Source Criticism in the Quran, with Emphasis on the Two-Source Hypothesis

Abstract

The present study aims to examine the foundations and implications of the historical-critical method of source criticism in Qur'anic studies. It employs a descriptive-analytical approach, relying on library-based sources. Source criticism seeks to identify the historical background, possible sources, and stages of the composition of a text. In Qur'anic studies, it endeavors to elucidate the processes through which the various sections of the Qur'an were compiled and arranged into a specific canonical form. This research analyzes three prominent approaches to the application of source criticism to the Qur'an: "Angelika Neuwirth's theory of the secondary insertion of Medinan surahs, Nicolai Sinai's evolutionary model, and Gabriel Reynolds's Two-Source Hypothesis." Reynolds, based on the presence of Meccan-Meccan and Medinan-Medinan doublets in the Qur'an, proposes the existence of a Meccan sub-corpus and a Medinan sub-corpus underlying the Qur'anic text. This study critically evaluates Reynolds's formulation of the Two-Source Hypothesis concerning the Qur'an, organizing the critique into two major domains: "Methodological criticism and historical criticism, each with several subcategories." The findings of this research indicate that the assumption of two distinct sources for the Qur'an lacks theoretical rigor and sufficient evidence. The results suggest that while source criticism may be useful in analyzing the internal evolution of the Qur'an and the differences between surahs, its invocation of hypothetical lost documents without historical substantiation cannot be accepted within the framework of sound Qur'anic scholarship.