Shoemaker argues that oral cultures are not necessarily better at preserving texts word-for-word. His work raises a fundamental question: Is preserving the Qur’an a historical certainty or a theological conviction?
By Dr. Tim Orr
For centuries, Muslims have believed that the Qur'an has been perfectly preserved since its revelation. This confidence rests heavily on the claim that the Prophet Muhammad's companions memorized the text in a mostly non-literate Arabian context and passed it down with remarkable precision. Islamic tradition, bolstered by practices like communal recitation and the Uthmanic codification—a process initiated by Caliph Uthman to unify the Qur’anic text and eliminate recitational variants—holds that oral memorization was the primary vehicle of preservation. But historian Stephen Shoemaker invites us to pause and reexamine this claim. Drawing on modern memory science, Shoemaker argues that oral cultures are not necessarily better at preserving texts word-for-word. His work raises a fundamental question: Is preserving the Qur’an a historical certainty or a theological conviction? In this article, we’ll look at both perspectives, illuminating how historical evidence, cognitive science, and religious belief intersect in the debate over the Qur’an’s transmission.
Islamic tradition tells us that the Qur’an was preserved through rigorous oral memorization within an overwhelmingly oral society. Before the widespread use of writing, Arabs passed down poetry, genealogies, and tribal narratives by heart. In that context, it’s easy to see why Muslims believe that the early generations could memorize the Qur’an accurately. As William A. Graham observes, "the Qur’an is a text designed for oral performance… Its preservation and transmission depended first and foremost on memorization and recitation" (Graham, 1987, p. 81).
The Qur’an’s unique structure—rhythmic cadences, repeated phrases, and vivid imagery—was tailored for retention. Yet, Shoemaker contends that such mnemonic features, while helpful, do not guarantee precise preservation in oral cultures. Instead, he argues that even with structural aids, oral traditions often allow for variation, challenging the assumption that the Qur’an’s form alone ensured its exact transmission. Memorizing scripture wasn’t just revered; it was central to preserving religious knowledge. In early Islam, memorized texts were often considered more trustworthy than written ones, which could be damaged, lost, or edited. This mindset made oral recitation a devotional act and a means of safeguarding divine revelation.
Islamic sources describe many of Muhammad’s companions as ḥuffāẓ—people who had memorized the Qur’an either partially or in full. Some, like Zayd ibn Thābit, also served as scribes, recording verses on leaves, bones, and parchment (Saeed, 2006). Others, such as ʿAbdullāh ibn Masʿūd and Ubayy ibn Kaʿb, became known for their deep knowledge of the Qur’an and passed it down through both teaching and recitation (Berg, 2000).
Islamic historians, including Ibn Saʿd and al-Bukhārī, highlight how these companions taught the Qur’an to the next generation, establishing oral chains of transmission (isnād) (Brown, 2009; Ibn Saʿd, trans. 1967). This formalized recitation through tajwīd (rules of proper pronunciation) adds another layer of precision and reverence to memorization (Graham, 1987).
One key mechanism for maintaining accuracy in oral tradition was communal recitation. In mosques, during prayers, and in study circles, reciters would speak aloud while others listened closely. If a mistake were made, someone in the group would correct it. This peer review system created a strong social network of accountability. The Prophet himself, tradition says, would recite the Qur’an annually with the angel Gabriel—a practice that came to be emulated by later generations through muʿāraḍa, or mutual review (Saeed, 2006; Motzki, 2001).
While such communal practices helped preserve the Qur’an’s text, scholars caution that these mechanisms, though effective, were not immune to human limitations. Memory science shows that even group settings can reinforce shared errors or adapt content over time, especially when written texts are lacking (Rubin, 1995; Schacter, 1999). Moreover, historical reports of variant readings and regional recitational styles—before the Uthmānic codification—suggest that some degree of flexibility existed (Graham, 1987; Sadeghi & Bergmann, 2010). Thus, while muʿāraḍa and communal recitation supported consistency, they were part of a more complex process involving preservation and adaptation.
After the Prophet’s death, Islam spread rapidly beyond Arabia. As it did, differences in recitation began to appear. To resolve the problem, the third caliph, ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān, commissioned a standardized version of the Qur’an (Donner, 2010; Burton, 1977). He assigned Zayd ibn Thābit and others to compile the text using written fragments and the memories of trusted reciters. Once completed, this version was distributed to major cities, and variant copies were destroyed (Sadeghi & Bergmann, 2010).
The goal wasn’t to create a new text but to unify the one already circulating orally. The effort relied heavily on the knowledge of ḥuffāẓ—those who had memorized the Qur’an—and aligned the written form with the oral tradition (Graham, 1987). This project laid the foundation for the continued unity and consistency of the Qur’an’s text worldwide, forming the basis of what is now known as the ʿUthmānic codex (Dutton, 1999).
Even today, millions of Muslims around the world memorize the entire Qur’an. This practice, known as ḥifẓ, is viewed as a spiritual discipline and a continuation of divine preservation. Jonathan A.C. Brown (2009) emphasizes that oral transmission was not a secondary method to writing but was seen as superior in some respects. He notes that in Islamic tradition, oral memorization was considered more authentic and less susceptible to tampering than written texts, which could be lost or altered. For example, memorized Hadiths and Qur’anic verses carried greater authority when transmitted through a reliable chain of reciters known for their integrity and precision. Children and adults alike memorize the Qur’an—often before fully understanding the Arabic language—guided by expert reciters and aided by strict pronunciation rules.
This tradition is more than cultural—it’s theological. Many Muslims believe that God has preserved the Qur’an through the voices of those who recite it, fulfilling the promise found in Qur’an 15:9: "Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur’an, and indeed, We will be its guardian."
But what happens when we bring memory science into the conversation? Stephen Shoemaker raises a red flag. Based on studies of oral cultures, including the groundbreaking work of Milman Parry and Albert Lord among Yugoslav storytellers, he argues that oral traditions are far more fluid than commonly assumed (Parry & Lord, 1954; Shoemaker, 2022). Even trained performers regularly changed elements of their stories, adding and omitting parts with each telling.
Shoemaker points out that no scientific evidence suggests that non-literate societies have enhanced verbatim memory. Instead, memory science shows that oral cultures often preserve the essence or structure of narratives rather than exact wording. Cognitive psychology and anthropology studies reveal that these cultures prioritize meaning over precision, resulting in flexible and adaptive storytelling rather than strict memorization (Rubin, 1995; Ong, 1982). This makes word-for-word transmission of large texts especially challenging without written reinforcement. Cognitive research suggests the opposite: literate societies, where written texts are available for reinforcement, show stronger retention (Chafe & Danielewicz, 1987; Baddeley et al., 2009). Shoemaker concludes that early Muslim memorization of the Qur’an, without the aid of widespread written texts, was likely subject to variation, improvisation, and memory lapses (Shoemaker, 2022).
While communal recitation certainly promotes consistency, Shoemaker argues it’s not foolproof. In his view, the sheer length of the Qur’an—over 6,000 verses—makes exact oral transmission highly unlikely without a stable written reference (Shoemaker, 2022). Studies in cognitive psychology show that verbatim recall for long texts is virtually impossible without written reinforcement (Baddeley, Eysenck, & Anderson, 2009; Rubin, 1995). So while early Muslims may have aimed for precision, Shoemaker suggests that we should view the process as dynamic and evolving, rather than fixed and flawless (Shoemaker, 2022). This position challenges traditional narratives and instead aligns with what we know about the limitations of human memory and the adaptability of oral traditions (Ong, 1982; Schacter, 1999).
Recent developments in the cognitive science of religion further support Shoemaker’s concerns. Scholars have demonstrated that memory, especially in oral cultures, is reconstructive rather than reproductive (Bartlett, 1932; Schacter, 1999). This means that when people recall information, they often reconstruct it based on current context, expectations, and prior knowledge, rather than retrieving it exactly as encoded. In communal religious settings, this process is reinforced by group dynamics, where shared memory is negotiated and adjusted over time (Assmann, 2011). As a result, collective memory can create the illusion of stability even when the actual content changes subtly through repetition. Such findings suggest that even if early Muslims were sincere in their memorization efforts, the absence of widespread written texts likely introduced cumulative alterations—intentional or not—into the oral transmission of the Qur’an. This challenges traditional claims of perfect preservation and invites a more nuanced historical evaluation of the Qur’an's textual formation (Shoemaker, 2022).
From Shoemaker’s perspective, the Uthmanic codex was not merely an effort to preserve an already unified text but an attempt to impose unity on a diverse and developing oral tradition. He argues that the very need for such a project implies that discrepancies had already crept in. Therefore, instead of confirming perfect preservation, the codification reflects a historical effort to stabilize an otherwise fluid oral record.
This perspective invites us to rethink the nature of preservation, not as a static replication of exact words, but as an evolving tradition shaped by memory, interpretation, and social reinforcement. Shoemaker (2022) draws on the foundational research of Milman Parry and Albert Lord, whose studies of Yugoslav oral poets demonstrated that even trained reciters altered their performances in each retelling (Parry, 1971; Lord, 2000). Building on this, Bannister (2011) points out that the Qur'an's structure—non-linear, thematically associative, and lacking narrative flow—bears the marks of oral composition rather than meticulous preservation. These insights challenge the assumption that communal recitation alone guarantees textual stability. Instead, they suggest that what Muslims came to regard as an unchanging text may have undergone a more fluid development in its earliest decades, stabilized only later through political and theological necessity.
Today’s ḥuffāẓ benefit from written Qur’ans, audio recordings, and digital tools that reinforce accuracy. Shoemaker acknowledges the extraordinary accomplishment of modern Qur’anic memorization but cautions against projecting that capability back onto the 7th century. In his view, it’s the literate infrastructure surrounding today’s memorization—not innate human memory—that makes such precision possible.
This distinction between modern and early memorization contexts is crucial. In a non-literate 7th-century Arabian society, there were no printed mushafs, standardized scripts, or global recitation benchmarks to serve as anchors for precise recall. As cognitive psychologist Ulric Neisser (1982) explains, memory is not a perfect recorder but a reconstructive process, influenced by context, repetition, and expectation. Thus, while today’s ḥuffāẓ achieve remarkable consistency—often cross-checked against written copies and audio verification—early Muslims operated without these aids. Shoemaker (2022) warns that romanticizing early memorization risks conflating the theological ideal of preservation with the historical reality of transmission. In this view, the Qur’an’s early oral transmission was more susceptible to variation, shaped by the human tendency to adapt, paraphrase, and reorganize without stable textual controls.
In the end, Shoemaker’s work doesn’t seek to undermine Muslim faith but to clarify the distinction between theological claims and historical analysis. For believers, the idea that God preserved the Qur’an is an article of faith. But for historians, the burden of proof rests on verifiable evidence. Shoemaker’s critique reminds us that memory, while powerful, is also fragile—a conclusion that brings us full circle to the central tension in this discussion: is the preservation of the Qur’an a matter of historical certainty supported by evidence, or primarily a theological conviction held in faith? When theology and history meet, we are left with important questions about what we can know—and how we know it.
Brown, J. A. C. (2009). Hadith: Muhammad’s legacy in the medieval and modern world. Oneworld Publications.
Burton, J. (1977). The collection of the Qur’an. Cambridge University Press.
Graham, W. A. (1987). Beyond the written word: Oral aspects of scripture in the history of religion. Cambridge University Press.
Shoemaker, S. J. (2022). Creating the Qur’an: A historical-critical study. University of California Press.
Siddiqi, M. Z. (2008). Hadith literature: Its origin, development & special features (Rev. ed.). Islamic Texts Society.
Sinai, N. (2017). The Qur’an: A historical-critical introduction. Edinburgh University Press.
Tim serves full-time with Crescent Project as the assistant director of the internship program and area coordinator, where he is also deeply involved in outreach across the UK. A scholar of Islam, Evangelical minister, conference speaker, and interfaith consultant, Tim brings over 30 years of experience in cross-cultural ministry. He holds six academic degrees, including a Doctor of Ministry from Liberty University and a Master’s in Islamic Studies from the Islamic College in London.
In addition to his ministry work, Tim is a research associate with the Congregations and Polarization Project at the Center for the Study of Religion and American Culture at Indiana University Indianapolis. His research interests include Islamic antisemitism, American Evangelicalism, and Islamic feminism. He has spoken at leading universities and mosques throughout the UK—including Oxford University, Imperial College London, and the University of Tehran—and has published widely in peer-reviewed Islamic academic journals. Tim is also the author of four books.