The Quran is for us, by us

Walid Saleh has a sermon on sura 43.

Before we chuckle at Saleh's assumption about "pagans" and "Meccans", first consider where in the sura-chain is sura 43. It dovetails sura 42 and (as Saleh implies) used sura 23 as well. At this stage - I think - the Prophet's biography was already extant in parts, vide Sean Anthony's overview of 'Urwa's letters. Maybe sura 43 is a pseudepigraph of a Muhammadan sura.

Although if Saleh wants to make that case he needs to demonstrate it, not assume it. Saleh himself endorses Neuwirth's stance that Q. 19:34-40 is an intrusion, one based - exactly - on sura 43. Classical Islam consistently allowed for auto-tahrif, if you will, through His stenographer Muhammad himself as God every now and again would tweak His own revelation. Those of us who are not Muslim have raised eyebrows over this since Caliph al-Mahdi, at least. Even Muslims of a less conservative bent might wonder if 'Uthman (say) had shuffled text around. Papias' comment about Saint Mark comes to mind, that the Umma might have God's Word but not in the best order.

We also have Saleh's naïvété about to what degree the Prophet's opponents are being quoted correctly. The Quran is rhetoric. John Wansbrough demonstrates that the sîra caricatures of "the Jews" were, for their part, not Rabbinic, particularly over their Torah fundamentalism (although, we might have a point about the Karaite sect). If the sîra misrepresents Judaism to provide a mere foil for Islam, why expect better of the Quran against "Meccan pagans"?

Sura 43 had no "Meccan pagans", is what I am trying to say. We have in this sura a work of polemic against... somebody. Probably Christians. And I'd not look too hard for the Christians in question.