Alan Dundes may shortly sigh in relief in his grave: his dream concerning the oral roots of the Qur’an (because of the density of its formulaic constructions), expressed in Fables of the Ancients, has been renewed, if not realized, in this book. As a folklorist, at the same time a Muslim who believes that the Qur’an is a divine word, I find that Andrew Bannister’s book has filled me with a double feeling. On the one hand, I hail his groundbreaking work in terms of the methodology utilized to study the Qur’an, and, more importantly, the ways in which he advances knowledge and revives the fading oral-formulaic theory. His book, on the other hand, still leaves me, fortunately or unfortunately, unconvinced or unquenched on account of the discordance between his thesis and his conclusions, particularly when it comes to proving the oral composition of the Qur’an. It is heartening for “traditionalists” like me to note that Bannister himself acknowledges that his work is better equipped to present an explanatory framework than to provide evidence or “proof” of how the Qur’an was orally composed by Prophet Muhammad (PBH).
In this work, Bannister attempts, as indicated, to show the features that are indexical of the orality of the Qur’an. Similar to an archeological site, the Qur’an is mapped, dug, and explored to highlight indices of its production in an oral milieu where influences of biblical legacies were still present, a phenomenon known as the isra-iliyyat. Bannister is the first scholar to employ the oral-formulaic approach, as conceptualized by Milman Parry and later by Albert Lord, to demonstrate the formulaic density and diversity that crisscross the Qur’anic text, both in direct and systemic forms. To justify the applicability of the oral-theory findings to the Qur’an, Bannister revisits the previous scholarly works that are engaged with studying pre-Islamic oral cultures and other oral texts from Western and non-Westerns societies through the lenses furnished by the oral-formulaic theory. He rehashes the different trends, ranging from traditional conservative scholarship on the Qur’an to soft and hard critical approaches. Instead of aligning with either of these edges, Bannister chooses to pave his new way, away from theological debates and theses of borrowing or imitation of the Qur’an in respect to the Bible. Instead, he focuses on displaying the degree of orality of the Qur’an, using the latest technological devices, a honed oral-formulaic methodology, for the analysis of the Qur’anic text.
I think, as everyone else probably will, that the computer-based study of formulas embedded within the Qur’an has surpassed in efficiency any previous studies of the oralness of this holy book. But I am still wondering and asking myself what will ensue from this work, since even the most conservative Islamic scholars understand and agree upon the intertextuality of the Qur’an, as some verses clearly indicate the continuity of this book vis-à-vis other books revealed to earlier prophets. The Qur’an, in addition, recognizes the illiteracy of Prophet Muhammed, and so why bother to ask if the Qur’an is oral in origin? You could answer, after reading this book that Bannister is perhaps trying to explain that the Qur’an is oral because it is fraught with formulaic constructions at the root or base level of the texts. Or maybe, the difference from other traditionalists’ thought would be that humans, Muhammad and his companions, created it orally, before its transliteration, against a backdrop of a highly oral context.
Again, even if we follow Bannister in this train of thought, we will be disappointed, because at the end of the day he concludes that his purpose is not to prove the actual composition process, much less how Muhammad succeeded in achieving “his composition” of the Qur’an as the Yugoslavian poets did. My contention is that for lack of the possibility of conducting fieldwork, owing to historical distance, as Parry and Lord did in Yugoslavia to consolidate their oral theory deduced from Homeric poems, Bannister has been obliged to dwell on tentative and speculative conclusions regarding the composition and performance of the Qur’an in its original context of production.
Having recourse to what I would call a reversed pyramidal approach, beginning from above, Bannister nevertheless nicely guides his reader through his well-written book, starting from broader trends and applicability of the oral theory/oral-formulaic theory to written texts (chapter 1), through actual applications of his technologically-enhanced method to the Qur’an (chapters 7 and 8). Throughout his compelling discussion, which gradually is narrowed down to his specific goal, Bannister supplies rare erudition concerning previous scholarship on Qur’anic science, sifting through the authoritative voices of the field. In chapter 2, the chapter on justification, he sets the stage by examining in new light the “narratival” foundation of Islamic society and culture. He then revisits with us the strong oral impregnation of the pre-Islamic and Arab tradition, emphasizing the role of performers and storytellers, with their qassas or stories, bedrock of hadiths, sayings, tafsir, interpretation, and other exegetical narratives surrounding the Qur’an.
In chapter 3, Bannister provides a comprehensive bird’s-eye view of the genesis of the oral theory, more specifically the oral-formulaic theory, and its explanatory power for transliterated texts like the Qur’an. He goes further in chapter 4 to discuss the early application of this theory to pre-Islamic poetry, focusing on prominent specialists like Michael Zwettler, Abdullah Sowayan, and Gregor Schoeler. Here he articulates more clearly his claim about the applicability of the oral theory to the Qur’an, disagreeing with a number of specialists. Chapters 5 and 6 are essentially devoted to what could be hailed as the major contribution of Bannister to the enhancement of the oral theory when aided by computerized tools. Such methodology, as hinted at the outset, allows Bannister to accurately measure the density of the formulas and how they are distributed across Meccan, Medinan, and Universal suras or verses. It permits him also to detect counter-intuitive puzzles of the division of the Qur’an into Meccan and Medinan suras, and interruptions, often in perfect concordance with scholarly conclusions (such as Richard Bell’s). In combining computer-based study and manual analysis, Bannister confirms much of his hypothesis, according to which, where direct formulas are absent, there are formulaic systems.
Again, as I said, this book’s success resides in its methodology, but it is exploratory in terms of achievement, although his immediate goal of demonstrating the orality of the Qur’an is somewhat met. And what next? He remains silent about foundational questions connected to the composition of the Qur’an, its thematic structures as articulated with the formulas he has found out, the codification process, and how all of this impinges on the flow and deployment of formulas across the text. Perhaps he thinks this would be a job for other scholars interested in theology, history, and so forth, but by separating the oral theory from these fields, Bannister’s work can only yield very shallow findings that do not produce really profound understanding of the Qur’an itself. The Qur’an, in my opinion, appears to be a miracle that is unshaken by this book. Despite the intimidating graphics and statistics, this book will be beneficial to both Islamic scholars and in particular to students of orality.
--------
[Review length: 1190 words • Review posted on November 10, 2015]