Was the Qur'an Standardized by Uthman or Abd al-Malik? | Prof. Stephen Shoemaker
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 лют 2023
- This is a clip about when the standardization of the Qur'anic text occurred. Islamic tradition attributes this task to Uthman by and large, but some traditions disagree. Stephen Shoemaker makes the case that it was not Uthman but Umayyad Caliph Abd al-Malik who standardizes the text. This clip is taken from my interview with Professor Stephen Shoemaker. If you enjoyed this video please subscribe to the channel and like the video! Please be sure to check out the full interview, here: • Stephen Shoemaker: Iss...
I read that the terrorists called their despicable attack the ‘deluge of Al Asqa’ because they claim some Jews allegedly went to the Al Asqua mosque to commemorate the Temple there. I have always notice that the contention over the Temple Mount is always over Al-Asqua as the site of the Temple. Apparently both sides now think the Temple was not under the dome of the rock but somewhere in the plaza in front of Al-Asqua . My reading of some archeology there and some ancient pilgrimage accounts to Jerusalem has lead me to believe that the rock under the dome wasn’t the foundation stone as attributed, but Gabbatha, the judgment seat of Pilate in the Praetorium that was in the fortress Antonia which overlooked the courts of the Temple. During the Byzantine era a church named Hagia Sophia was built housing this rock as described by early pilgrimage accounts. If true, the resulting configuration of the platform where the Temple stood would be in the southwest corner of the platform which makes sense with the historical records like Josephus who described the much smaller dimensions of the Temple than is currently envisioned. Gabbatha then, in the location above the Temple (the word Gabbatha itself meaning elevated place in Aramaic and the rock is the summit of Mt Moriah) also provides the context for the caliph Al-Malik’s anti-Christian inscriptions surrounding the rock inside the Dome of the Rock. The September cover story of the National Geographic reported that recent mosaic findings underneath the visible mosaics indicate that the first Umayyad caliph Muʿāwiya had initiated the construction of the dome of the rock which was later Islamisized by the caliphs ʿAbd al- Malik and his son Al -Walid. Muʿāwiya had built other monuments on the Temple Mount during his reign and evidence from the coins that he minted and from the accounts of the Armenian chronicle point to him as having been a Christian of some sort. The mosaic inscriptions inside the dome surrounding the rock were made by caliph Al-Walid according to what is written in them but his father ʿAbd al-Malik may have actually initiated the inscriptions during his reign only to have been finished by his son Al-Walid. The ornate mosaics above the inscriptions are very similar to the ones in the Great Mosque of Damascus which lends support to the theory that Al-Walid had a part in their creation since he built the Damascus mosque over the ancient cathedral shrine housing the head of St. John the Baptist. There is also archeological evidence that al-Walid’s Al-Asqua mosque was the site of another church which seems to followed the pattern for these early Umayyad mosques. An excavation was carried out in the 1930s by R.W. Hamilton, director of the British Mandate Antiquities Department and he found and photographed the mosaics of a possible church or monastery under the floor of the then recently earthquake damaged mosque. Knowing that there were Christian churches under the sites of these two great monuments helps to explain their otherwise mysterious location and this comports well with the recent book by Shoemaker where he shows Al-Malik’s significant Islamization of the Quran. It is reasonable to think that this same powerful caliph Islamized the Temple Mount as well.
Neal Robinson suggests 30 examples of dovetailing where the end of a surah connects in wording or subject with the next. I propose 10 more encompassing 76 surahs. Dmitry Frolov maintains the 8 long surahs at the start of the Quran are organised to mimic the Bible and Michel Cuypers that many of the short surahs at the end are doubles or triples. This suggests a careful crafting of the Quran. But there are no reports about this.
@francislankester805
Hello, could you direct me to an article where I could read more about about Dmitry Frolov's proposal?
Link please?
@@ramaaram9131link is not there as there is no such research
So under Shoemaker’s view, how might we understand Abdullah Ibn Masud’s initial opposition to Zaid Ibn Thabit’s work to canonize the Quran (Jami at-Tirmindhi 3104)?
'Abdullah bin Mas'ud disliked Zaid bin Thabit copying the Musahif, and he said: 'O you Muslim people! I am removed from recording the transcription of the Mushaf and it is overseen by a man, by Allah, when I accepted Islam he was but in the loins of a disbelieving man' - meaning Zaid bin Thabit - and it was regarding this that 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud said: 'O people of Al-'Iraq! Keep the Musahif that are with you, and conceal them. For indeed Allah said: And whoever conceals something, he shall come with what he concealed on the Day of Judgement (3:161). So meet Allah with the Musahif.'"
Would the later creation of this story of Ibn Masud initially opposing the canonization work be to show some of the most virtuous of the sahaba disliking Ibn Masud’s view?
Az-Zuhri said: "It was conveyed to me that some men amongst the most virtuous of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) disliked that view of Ibn Mas'ud."
So, would this story be created later to support the canonized work of the day by creating a story showing opposition to the canonization work being opposed by some of the most virtuous of the sahaba, thereby encouraging support of it?
I suppose the story in Sahih Al-Bukhari 5005 about Ubay Ibn Ka’b insisting on keeping his own recitation could also be created for a similar reason, because his stance is responded to at the end of the Hadith, Allah explaining he has abrogated certain parts of the Quran (the parts which Ubay apparently was keeping):
`Umar said, Ubai was the best of us in the recitation (of the Qur'an) yet we leave some of what he recites.' Ubai says, 'I have taken it from the mouth of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) and will not leave for anything whatever." But Allah said "None of Our Revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten but We substitute something better or similar."
So it seems in some ahadith we see some notable sahaba opposing the work of Zaid to standardize the Quran, and these oppositions being responded to in the same ahadith. So are these accurate accounts of some of the sahaba actually opposing the canonizing efforts under Uthman or were such stories invented later to support later canonization efforts?
Interesting question.
Shoemaker did say he sometimes make quick responses via email. Albeit most of the time there's no response as he said theres too many emails!
So either the mushaf was standardised under Uthman and some companions objected as in SIN.
Or possibly these stories exist to explain the variant mushafs cropping up within the Islamic empire.
Sorry, but the following are wrong!
"Would the later creation of this story of Ibn Masud initially opposing the canonization work be to show some of the most virtuous of the sahaba disliking Ibn Masud’s view?"
Hello Justin
I don't think you are interpreting these stories correctly. The opposition to standardize was due to the fact that the quranic script in its classical form is much more looser than the script that we have today. Uthman limited the number of readings we have and I can see this being a painpoint to some of the companions (which is what the hadith you cited proabably captures).
What likely happened under Abd al Malik was applying diacritical markings that 'force' a certain reading to the Quran. Shoemaker appears to be sensationalizing this account as though altered the text, however, what he fails to realize is that the Quran was never preserved by writing, but it was done so by memorizing the script orally in communal worship. Variant readings still exist and exegetical scholars are aware of this and apply this understanding to their commentaries.
Absurd answers here. It is very clear that Ibn Masud had a personal fued with Uthman and hence the opposition to anything that Uthman did.
Same is the case with Shia community. Anything that the first Caliph did had to be opposed. It doesn't matter if they were right or wrong.
Caliph Ali had a tenure and if he thought Caliph Uthman had not compiled the Quran he could have ordered the correct one to be distributed.
In fact all this is a creation of people's fertile imagination.
Ali didn't have any issues with any of the 3 Caliphs but all this was created during the 750-800.
This is when Shia and Sunni formed separate religions and practices.
The religion of Ali, Hasan and Hussein was the same of Abu Bakr, Umar and Usman and the Prophet.
Any problem till the time of Hussain was only political and not religious at all
@@Zarghaam12why are you copy pasting and spamming that boring ignorant Shia propaganda!!! No one is going to read that long boring Shia drivel
Thankyou for the open-mindedness. Another point about the Quran is, why is it in the order it is in? If the Quran was remembered verbatim by the earliest Hafiz, wouldn't it be in chronological order? Why is there a more or less agreed chronological order for the verses these days which is different from the actual order of the verses? Wouldn't Mohammed have taught the hafiz, and taught the memorization in the chronological order the suras were received? Or would he have taught the order of memorization in the order we see the Quran in today?
Anyone knows the french sources he mentions?
No by Al Hajjaj under the direction of Abd Al Malik. Uthmaic recension is a redaction back in time. All uthman did was to destroy Aramaic source material
First of all, the main push of his book is probably that the Qur'an was canonized during the reign of Abd al-Malik, around the turn of the 8th century, instead of under Uthman several decades earlier. Joshua Little has now provided a very powerful 3-hour lecture criticizing this argument and I think convincingly so, arguing instead for an Uthmanic canonization. See: ua-cam.com/video/QN8TUNGq8zQ/v-deo.html
One of Shoemaker's big chapters deals with the dating of manuscripts. Shoemaker argues that, contrary to popular thought, we don't really have any manuscripts that are earlier than Abd al-Malik's reign. While it has not been published yet, Hythem Sidky is working on a rebuttal to Shoemaker's claims about radiocarbon dating in his book. That's one work we can look forwards to hopefully this year.
With respect to paleographical dating of manuscripts, Shoemaker cites Deroche who he argues dates all of the supposedly early manuscripts until Abd al-Malik or later, with the exception of Codex Parisino-petropolitanus which he places in the last third of the 7th century. Even then, say Shoemaker, Deroche allows for the possibility of a slighty later dating of the CPP as well. On this subreddit, Marijn van Putten criticized that use of Deroche's work and to some degree I believe also disagrees with the conclusions Deroche comes to that Shoemaker rests some of his case on.
Another argument that Shoemaker makes is that Qur'anic Arabic is not Hijazi but instead belongs to a sort of prestige Umayyad Levantine Arabic, corresponding to his thesis that while Islam and Muhammad were rooted in the Hijaz, their oral pronouncements were translated into writing, expanded, codified over time in the Levant. However, a recent study by van Putten makes a very strong case, based on new inscriptional data, that Qur'anic Arabic is in fact Hijazi. Ahmad al-Jallad also commented in an interview that the Qur'anic spelling of Allah is also only found in pre-Islamic Hijazi Arabic but this has not been published yet.
Marijn van Putten said he thought Shoemaker's chapters on oral transmission of information were good but that these chapters largely just followed Bart Ehrman's own work from his book Jesus Before the Gospels (2016).
In his last chapter or one of his last chapters, Shoemaker offers what he might consider a telling quote by al-Suyuti: "The Quran was revealed in three places: Makkah, Madinah, and the Levant (al-Šām)." However, Little criticizes the use of this tradition here.
This is a minor one. Shoemaker argues that mining traditions about pre-Islamic Western Arabia are pretty late. While still not early or anything, Sean Anthony pointed out a reference to this that Shoemaker misses that's earlier than the ones Shoemaker discussed.
This is another minor one. Ahmed el Shamsy showed in a brief twitter (and polemical) thread that Shoemaker is wrong that Ibn Sa'd doesn't mention Zayd ibn Thabit in the context of Uthman's committee in producing a canonized Qur'an. In fact, Ibn Sa'd does mention Zayd in this capacity.
Though he does not mention Shoemaker explicitly, some comments by Ahmad al-Jallad about the agricultural status of Mecca in this video can be seen as a challenge to Shoemaker's views about how arid Mecca was.
Juste pour clarifier les choses : quelle est votre position Monsieur Reynolds? Partisan de la thèse externaliste (celle de Dye, Amir Moezzi, Gilliot et Gallez, Mingana avant eux) ? Vous invitez différents intervenants (tel Sinai, Donner, Sidki) qui ont un tout autre point de vue... Quel est le vôtre ? Le Coran serait-il pour vous un écrit tardif ayant vu naissance dans un milieu chrétien comme Damas ou la Palestine? Le Coran est donc une oeuvre d'influence chrétienne... Et les "musulmans éclairés" par cette thèse de potentiels bons chrétiens ?
Abd al-Malik
Definitely not, the Birmingham manuscript was compiled before abdulmalek was even born, and radiocarbon dating dating proves this, it was radiocarbon dated to between 568 and 645, it was most likely compiled between Muhammad’s era of uthmans era. Not abdulmalek.
@@Man_663 The BM doesn't have diacritical marks. The earliest qurans were written in Kufic/Hijazi scripts with no diacritical marks. The canonized Quran has diacritical marks.
The Title of the video demonstrates extremities in thought. As in any Canon there is a history. What should be examined is how serious was each stage of canonization. Also it should have been clearer about different aspects of the canonization, such as collection, scripting, and and degree of content change, most important of which how much does the content change changes the theology. Also contemporary sources of each edit. Examining the contemporary sources it should have been stated that despite historical sources saying that there were 11 edits, yet the historical sources aren’t clear about what types of edits these were. On examining further in contemporary and post Abd Al-Malik we have marginal evidence of 9 occurrences dictational correction attempts and no further evidence. There are two types of corrections 1. A letter within the word change, and 2. An accentification mark change and no further historical evidence. Digging even deeper into the effects of the edits from to see the word to word definition change , the subjective meaning change, and the objective meaning change, on both verse meaning change and contextual meaning change, one could find that sum meaning of the verse has become clearer with the changing edit or the opposite of a delusion of clarity has occurred. Of the total 9 changes none what so ever has any significance of changing the theology of the Islamic creed. No real interplay occurred save some later delusions of corruption of the text only within twelver Shi’a sect in Iran and Iraq out of all the historical Islamic empires. Also no attempts of reversal of these canonical edits occurred during the reign of Ali, Esmaili, or Safavids, showing that this criticism doesn’t puff more than drag and brag.
Do some parts of the Quran like the long Suras where it talks about stories of Moses , abraham , jesus , sleepers of cave etc... do these parts of the Quran pre-date mohamed and if there is some old scriptures like these , how did it get into the Quran ? I've seen some say those Suras were written by a sect jews who are called (the Nassara Jews ) and they wrote these chapters in arabic for the arabs to arm them to take over Jeruslem but I'm not sure if this theory is true or false
So far there are zero manuscripts that pre-date Muhammad
I've heard they were written by reptiloids predating Mohammed.
@@baybars3138 _IF_ the radiocarbon datings of the Sana'a palimpsest and Birmingham Folios are reliable (although there are reasons to doubt this), then it is possible that such manuscripts _could_ predate Muhammad.
I think that the 29 Suras which begin with the so-called 'disjointed letters' (Aliph Lam Mim) may represent an early corpus of material which was later incorporated into the Qur'an.
@@gavinjames1145
It’s not possible. The dating of the manuscripts is in light of palaeography. That script didn’t exist before the time of the prophet.
What reasons are there to doubt it?
Are we to believe (under the threat of death and terror) that the Standard Islamic Narratives (Sin) is correct - the Quran was hand-written by Allah on preserved tablet, in the eternity past, in the Arabic language - it remains un-changed today?
This is so poor. He didn’t give any evidence for Abdel Malik.
This guy is dishonest.
He doesn’t have any historical source that Abdel Malik canonised the Quran.
He doesn’t apply his own criteria to his own position.
Which historical source says that Abdel Malik canonised the Quran?
Read his books. His theories are worse than that.
@@MCXM111
I have read his book. He doesn’t even engage with scholarship. His book brings nothing new. It’s just another book that tries to create a conspiracy theory.
He seems to be frustrated that the canonisation is attributed to Uthman. Why is he frustrated about that?
Because he has theological and ideological motives.
He simply dismisses scholarship in Quranic manuscripts without engaging with these works. He tries to create an alternative conspiracy theory.
He is a very dishonest guy.
He made his book free, odd! Simple minded people can get influenced by the questions he is raising with no good answers.
@@baybars3138
He is funded by political movements. That’s why his book is free.
He is sponsored by the National Endowment for the Humanities. This is an agency of the US government.
It’s a liberal organisation.
Schoemaker has clearly an ideological agenda.
@@MCXM111 LMAO. No.
Shoemakers support is Shia sources? Please...
Are you saying all shia sources cannot be trusted?
@@AbdulHannanAbdulMatheen All Shoemaker will do is, will make it more rigorous which is good. However I don't doubt Caliph Uthman canonized Quran.
@@AbdulHannanAbdulMatheen
Most of them are late, the majority of the Isnads go back to people who were not eye witnesses.
Came here from mythvision
😂😂😂😂
ROLL OF TTTT PAPER.😂😂😂
I thought you said this man was an academian, I am sorry to say but he didn't try at all please ask him to prepare again before he come online.
Wow you call this scholarship... When asked for proof he just says read french scholarship and shia and christian sources.... Joke
Then what is a scholarship akhi?
Why is he so angry?! He just sounds ao angry and frustrated?!
Watched the whole thing.
Strange use of adjectives, are you projecting?
Well if you’ve watched the whole interview (not just this segment) he started off with a rant about protectionism. He obviously feels traumatized or victimized by the wider academia in some way. He keeps insinuating unspecified conspiracy theories throughout the interview in not so subtle way. He even apologizes kind of for being too punchy. That to me suggests frustration and anger perhaps. Definitely not a detached and dispassionate academic discourse.
@@fadiljelin7297 would love to hear your adjectives for Muslim clerics rants!
But I think I know.
@fadiljelin7297
1 second ago
I condemn rants from all sides, especially from the Muslim clerics. There shouldn’t be any place for politics in religion or academia. I strongly believe in the separation of the two - because history shows only bad things happen when that separation doesn’t exist.
You should not judge someone based on his or her name. That is a strong indication that you might be prone to discrimination in your daily interactions with people.
If there is any anger or frustration, they are justifiable. Are we to believe (under the threat of death and terror) that the Standard Islamic Narratives (Sin) is correct - the Quran was hand-written by Allah on preserved tablet, in the eternity past, in the Arabic language - it remains un-changed today?
shoe maker
This good professor who claims that his assertions and conjectures are probabilistic seems to ignore probabilistic theories completely, and at least it would have been nice if he knew and applied Occam's razor principle. He wants us to believe that the Muslim community in the vast empire of Abd al-Malik was so disciplined that despite the fact that the Caliph could not ordain one school among the Shafi'i, Maliki, Hanafi, and Shiite schools should be the official school, yet when he ordered that this version of the Quran be the only correct version, everyone accepted his order and there was no group in any corner of the empire who said "Wait a minute, that's not our Prophet Quran's!", and no one secretly hid their authentic Quran in a safe corner, despite disagreeing over far lesser details which they zealously safeguarded in their own version of the practices.
A discussion at this level of polemic does not have the characteristics of an academic discourse and it would have been better placed to be part of the shouting matches in Hyde Park, London!
Ehy thid research isn’t accounting to light 💡
ua-cam.com/video/5zdofMX1_eI/v-deo.htmlsi=W97HmJNMrkey4GVn
Here is a fact.
No one every created, wrote anything near or similar to Quran. Quran predating Prophet Mohamed or postdating presupposes this is a regular book that anybody can write it.
The challenge to those that came up with this kind of useless argument, go do it.
*There is the prove for it or against it.*
You do realize I can create my own book that will be more accurate than Quran? It's nothing special.
@@tymon1928
If you can create a book similar to or better than Quran, you will be finishing Islam as this is God's challenge for all humanity, including Muslims.
Can you do it?
If you can, what are you waiting for? You could be a billionaire.
@@HajjiJesus Examining the many claims of Islam there are so many, many errors, to give example:
Quran claims the stars (lower heavens) are closer to the earth than the moon in the (midst = middle heaven).
''He Who created the seven heavens, one above the other ...
And We have adorned the *lowest heaven* with lamps ... (67:3,5)
And He completed them seven heavens in two days
and inspired in each heaven its command;
and We adorned the *lower heaven with lamps*
and rendered it guarded''... (41:12)
''We have indeed adorned *the lower heaven with the beauty of the stars* '' (37:6)
''Do you not see how God has created the seven heavens
one above the other,
and made the moon a light in their midst,
and made the sun as a lamp?.. (71:15-16)
@HeLpLOstGOdAny1
Your problem is, you don't even understand the English translation, let alone the Arabic Original.
Picture this, God created gigantic heavens, 7bof then, one above the other. All the stars and galaxies we see are within or are adorned within the first one. Meaning, forget about seeing the first Heaven, we are mesmerized by the galaxies within the first one.
@@HajjiJesus حقائق لا تعرفها عن القرآن ua-cam.com/video/vvqgVS8KVJA/v-deo.html&t
Bogus argument..the speaker is certainly have biased against Sunni Islam..
If Qur'an is codified beyond uthman then there were definitely a separate Shiite Quranic version or versions exists..
The fact that Qur'an is standardized during uthman caliphate and endorsed by Ali and he didn't put any objections to it prevents Shiite to dispute the Qur'an as well..
None of this is relevant. The Qur'an was already memorised and no amount of investigation of manuscripts is going to rock this fact.
Furthermore, during the civil war you might have expected wide variation if the text for obvious reasons, but this is not the case. There is a complete lack of divergence.
One of the worst and most dishonest so called scholars in the field.
If he talks bad about Islam, he's dishonest, but whent he glorifies Islam.
He"s honest....😂😂
He got Islam Lmao
Unfortunately Gabriel has an agenda and that agenda is that discussions focus mostly on the Quran and hardly any on Bible. If you watch carefully at Shoemaker in this video you will find at least 2 pictures on the wall. One of Mary and Jesus and ither of Jesus and his disciples.
A person who is a believer of a particular religion whose scriptures, theology is so corrupted and has no historical basis is giving a lecture on Islam. Seems very very funny.
He is an Evangelist and an Orientalist under the guise of a scholar
Every scholar has a belief. Do you say the same thing about a scholar who has ayat al kursi framed on the wall behind him? Would that mean I can't trust a muslim scholar since he has an agenda to spread Islam?
@@lemonnade5974 What is wrong with you dear? You aren't getting my point.
You are not making the right comparisons here. It's not about a Muslim scholar taking about Islam or a Christian scholar taking about Christianity. I am talking about a believing Christian talking about Islam or a believing Muslim taking about Christians. Understand the difference.
When a Muslim scholar with a Ayatul Kursi questions Christian or Jewish belief and writes off thier books then one can assume that there might be some bias on his part and vice versa.
What I meant is that Shoemaker becomes a Christian when it comes to like miracles such as birth of Jesus or resurrection and he becomes a man of science when it comes to divine revelation of Quran. He doesn't apply the same yardstick in both cases.
@@lemonnade5974 you can't trust him if he says negative things about Christianity because he may be guided by his faith
@@StatisticalCat Can you cite me a paper where Shoemaker was being inconsistent about his criteria when applying it to the resurrection of Jesus? Thanks
@@lemonnade5974 Let's not get into this whataboutism.
Don't you agree with the point that I have made.
Once again let me clarify the point. As a man of faith of one religion it's not easy to be rational about someone else's faith. If you do so then your own faith is in question.
For example, say as a man of faith in Christianity you beleive that Quran is divine then it clearly means that you beleive as Christian is wrong.
First of all, the main push of his book is probably that the Qur'an was canonized during the reign of Abd al-Malik, around the turn of the 8th century, instead of under Uthman several decades earlier. Joshua Little has now provided a very powerful 3-hour lecture criticizing this argument and I think convincingly so, arguing instead for an Uthmanic canonization. See: ua-cam.com/video/QN8TUNGq8zQ/v-deo.html
One of Shoemaker's big chapters deals with the dating of manuscripts. Shoemaker argues that, contrary to popular thought, we don't really have any manuscripts that are earlier than Abd al-Malik's reign. While it has not been published yet, Hythem Sidky is working on a rebuttal to Shoemaker's claims about radiocarbon dating in his book. That's one work we can look forwards to hopefully this year.
With respect to paleographical dating of manuscripts, Shoemaker cites Deroche who he argues dates all of the supposedly early manuscripts until Abd al-Malik or later, with the exception of Codex Parisino-petropolitanus which he places in the last third of the 7th century. Even then, say Shoemaker, Deroche allows for the possibility of a slighty later dating of the CPP as well. On this subreddit, Marijn van Putten criticized that use of Deroche's work and to some degree I believe also disagrees with the conclusions Deroche comes to that Shoemaker rests some of his case on.
Another argument that Shoemaker makes is that Qur'anic Arabic is not Hijazi but instead belongs to a sort of prestige Umayyad Levantine Arabic, corresponding to his thesis that while Islam and Muhammad were rooted in the Hijaz, their oral pronouncements were translated into writing, expanded, codified over time in the Levant. However, a recent study by van Putten makes a very strong case, based on new inscriptional data, that Qur'anic Arabic is in fact Hijazi. Ahmad al-Jallad also commented in an interview that the Qur'anic spelling of Allah is also only found in pre-Islamic Hijazi Arabic but this has not been published yet.
Marijn van Putten said he thought Shoemaker's chapters on oral transmission of information were good but that these chapters largely just followed Bart Ehrman's own work from his book Jesus Before the Gospels (2016).
In his last chapter or one of his last chapters, Shoemaker offers what he might consider a telling quote by al-Suyuti: "The Quran was revealed in three places: Makkah, Madinah, and the Levant (al-Šām)." However, Little criticizes the use of this tradition here.
This is a minor one. Shoemaker argues that mining traditions about pre-Islamic Western Arabia are pretty late. While still not early or anything, Sean Anthony pointed out a reference to this that Shoemaker misses that's earlier than the ones Shoemaker discussed.
This is another minor one. Ahmed el Shamsy showed in a brief twitter (and polemical) thread that Shoemaker is wrong that Ibn Sa'd doesn't mention Zayd ibn Thabit in the context of Uthman's committee in producing a canonized Qur'an. In fact, Ibn Sa'd does mention Zayd in this capacity.
Though he does not mention Shoemaker explicitly, some comments by Ahmad al-Jallad about the agricultural status of Mecca in this video can be seen as a challenge to Shoemaker's views about how arid Mecca was.