A Critique of the Orientalists’ Typology on Meccan and Medinan Nature of Quranic Verses and Surahs

The Quran, as the most significant religious source for Muslims, has consistently been the focal point of attention, and from ancient times until now, numerous efforts have been made by Muslim and non-Muslim scholars to comprehend it. One of the crucial aspects regarding the Quran is its gradual revelation over the course of 23 years of the Prophet's mission, taking into account the exigencies of time and place, which further enriches its understanding. An important topic that has been discussed in Quranic studies from the time of the companions of the Prophet to the present day is the classification of Meccan and Medinan verses and surahs, which influences the approach to analyzing and interpreting the verses. The present research employs a descriptive-analytical methodology, and after presenting the viewpoints of Muslim scholars regarding the Meccan and Medinan nature of Quranic verses and surahs, it examines and critiques the opinions of Orientalist scholars in this regard, followed by a typology of their perspectives. Based on the findings of this study, the collection of opinions concerning the Meccan and Medinan nature of Quranic verses and surahs falls into five typological categories: Goldziher's dual perspective; Lamens and Nöldeke's tripartite perspective; Gustav Weil, Rodwell, and Blachère's four-part perspective; William Muir's six-part perspective; and the thematic classification by Richard Bell and Herschfeld. Notably, despite the significant variations in categorizing Meccan verses, ranging from one to five categories, Orientalists exhibited unanimity in considering the Medinan verses and surahs as a singular group, without discord, thus treating the Medinan section as a unified entity.