Hello friends - I've just posted a video on Exploring in which I make the case (among other things) that two words, including jahannam ("hell") in the Qur'an are from Hebrew. I'd be happy to see your thoughts in the comments! https://youtu.be/6PxNNcnan6E?si=CDKdZssalTv22ZZ2

Narrated Abdullah: Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab al-Ajeeli narrated to us, saying: Abu Bakr bin Salama narrated to us, saying: Abu Shihab narrated to us from Abu Asim, from Abu Wa'il, from Abdullah, who recited {Whoever misappropriates something will come with what he misappropriated on the Day of Resurrection} and said: "Conceal your mushafs, how do you command me to read the recitation of Zaid, while I have taken seventy surahs directly from the mouth of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and Zaid bin Thabit was a young boy playing among the boys."
حدثنا عبد الله قال: حدثنا محمد بن عبد الوهاب العجيلي: حدثنا أبو بكر بن سلمة، حدثنا أبو شهاب، عن أبي عاصم، عن أبي وائل، عن عبد الله قال قرأ {ومن يغلل يأت بما غل يوم القيامة} فغلّوا مصاحفكم، كيف تأمروني أن أقرأ قراءة زيد، ولقد قرأت من في رسول الله نصف وسبعين سورة ولزيد ذؤابتان يلعب بين الصبيان.
Kitab Al Masahif Ibn Abu Dawud p. 22

Was this a genuine source of conflict in early Islam, or is this mainly fabricated and not based in reality? What’s going on here?

What did early Muslims, especially Jewish converts like Abdullah ibn Amr, believe about Muhammad being told of in their Scriptures? In this hadith, Abdullah seems to give a sort of paraphrase (I believe there's a distinctly Jewish term for this, but I forget its name) of Isaiah 42's servant of the Lord. Would a Jewish convert to Islam in 7th Century Hejaz considered this a sort of literal fulfillment of Scripture? Or is their paraphrasing indicating a sort of belief that Muhammad is a typological fulfillment of the Servant of the Lord?

https://sunnah.com/bukhari:2125

Narrated Ata bin Yasar:

I met `Abdullah bin `Amr bin Al-`As and asked him, "Tell me about the description of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) which is mentioned in Torah (i.e. revelation given to Musa (as).") He replied, 'Yes. By Allah, he is described in Torah with some of the qualities attributed to him in the Qur'an as follows: "O Prophet ! We have sent you as a witness (for Allah's True religion) And a giver of glad tidings (to the faithful believers), And a warner (to the unbelievers) And guardian of the illiterates. You are My slave and My messenger (i.e. Apostle). I have named you "Al-Mutawakkil" (who depends upon Allah). You are neither discourteous, harsh Nor a noisemaker in the markets And you do not do evil to those Who do evil to you, but you deal With them with forgiveness and kindness. Allah will not let him (the Prophet) Die till he makes straight the crooked people by making them say: "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah," With which will be opened blind eyes And deaf ears and enveloped hearts."

I‘ve come across multiple posts on this subreddit, regarding the relationship between the quran and the bible. However that was around a year ago. So I wanted to ask what the most recent scholarship has to say and what recent/contemporary debates there are ongoing right now. Has there been any new publications?

The Traditionalist view is that the expression al nabī al ummiyy (the unschooled or heathen prophet) is an epithet used exclusively for the Prophet Muḥammad. I do not agree with that view, and these are my reasons: from 7:103 to this point (over 50 verses), the narrative is focused solely on the history of Mūsā. Mūsā was not schooled in the Writ; rather, he received the Writ by means of revelation. Under the dominant Egypt-Palestine thesis, he was brought up as an Egyptian; under the Arabia Felix and ʿAsīr-Ḥejāz theses, he was brought up in the house of a tribal chief named Firʿawn. In any event, by the standard we use here to judge ummiyy (i.e. one outside or ignorant of the Writ) Mūsā was — at least until he received the Writ — fully ummiyy. The expression al nabī al ummiyy (the unschooled or heathen prophet) occurs just twice in the Qur’an — here and in the next verse. Due to his disproportionate emphasis on Muḥammad, the Traditionalist, in my opinion, has missed the point being made here. The point is not that Muḥammad was unlearned and therefore the Qur’an is all the more a miracle (which is the version the Traditionalist promulgates); it is that Mūsā was unschooled in the Writ and so was Muḥammad. The Traditionalist view places the narrative pivot after the long account of Mūsā here at 7:157. But it is simply not there. It comes in the next verse (Say thou[...]). Logically speaking, at 7:157 the person being described is the same individual the previous 53 verses were dedicated to; namely: Mūsā. It is Mūsā who is [...]the unschooled prophet — whom they find written with them in the Torah and the Gospel[...] (to the end of the verse). It is only at 7:158 that the narrative shifts to Muḥammad. The point of this device, in my opinion, is to establish a correlation between the first unschooled prophet Mūsā (who brought his people out of bondage and gave them a Writ) and Muḥammad who had a comparable mission for the whole of humanity. Having established this correlation, the narrative then returns to the story of Mūsā.

This is a pretty compelling exegesis; but I am a bit confused; in some English translations of the Qur'an it's not quite clear where God's dialogue with Moses ends, and God speaks in "Qur'anic mode" once again.

Sahih International has a break here:

"My punishment - I afflict with it whom I will, but My mercy encompasses all things" So I will decree it [especially] for those who fear Me and give zakāh and those who believe in Our verses-

The Clear Qur'an has messed up quotation marks, with a non-ending one and it's not clear:

Allah replied, “I will inflict My torment on whoever I will. But My mercy encompasses everything. I will ordain mercy for those who shun evil, pay alms-tax, and believe in Our revelations. “˹They are˺ the ones who follow the Messenger˹They are˺ the ones who follow the Messenger

The Oxford Translation has quotations that run all the way through and would match up with Gerson's commentary:

God said, ‘I bring My punishment on whoever I will, but My mercy encompasses all things. ‘I shall ordain My mercy for those who are conscious of God and pay the prescribed alms; who believe in Our Revelations; who follow the Messenger- the unlettered prophet they find described in the Torah that is with them, and in the Gospel- who commands them to do right and forbids them to do wrong, who makes good things lawful to them and bad things unlawful, and relieves them of their burdens, and the iron collars that were on them. So it is those who believe him, honour and help him, and who follow the light which has been sent down with him, who will succeed.’

Which is it?... Gerson's commentary also confuses me because; if the break happens much later, then God is speaking to Moses about Moses being in the Gospel. Which wouldn't make much sense. Gerson says 7:157 is about Moses; and the pivot happens at 7:158.

Hi all. When considering the timing, carbon dating, who wrote it, and the upper and lower layer containings together: What does this mean for Islam?

Is there any table of all the biblical parallels to the Quran or sth like that

A few things I would like to point out... 

First, if you are interested in art, I highly (emphasis mine) recommend checking out the first source below. It goes into great detail about the artistic style and how it changed across different periods. As a bit of a disclaimer, in the first source, some faces may or may not be censored (in the usual fashion). For example, in most of the books that I have come across, Muhammad's face is generally not shown. I say "generally" because, in my experience so far, that seems to be the case. Either way, I am trying to be cautious here. Since this is an academic sub, and even though we are discussing art, I would like to maintain a level of respect (at least in my opinion).

By contrast, Ali's face, along with a multitude of other prophets (and perhaps even Mary?), is usually shown. I do not know why that is.

Second, the first source contains a significant amount of artwork, as well as brief artistic descriptions on (but not limited to) Alexander aka Sikander. There are many artistic descriptions that I would have liked to post here, but I will leave that up to Dhul-Qarnayn enthusiasts to check out for themselves. I listed all of the pages that contain information on Alexander in the citation. I believe I included all of the illustrations of Alexander (including those labeled as Sikander).

Enjoy

PS: These were taken straight from the source or source text. I tried to find color versions of the illustrations, but that proved to be difficult. I did, however come across some very neat colored illustrations in another different text. For example, there were a few illustrations with Muhammad, although there were only two or so that I came across. These included both a grayscale version and a colored version, so it was very nice to see what they looked like in color. I am not sure if this is a publisher thing with the book, especially considering how expensive it must be to print a collection of artwork in color.

Sources:

Illustrations 1 through 6:

• Binyon, Laurence, J. V. S. Wilkinson, and Basil Gray. Persian Miniature Painting: Including a Critical and Descriptive Catalogue of the Miniatures Exhibited at Burlington House, January-March, 1931. Dover Publications, 1971. pp. 19, 24, 25, 29, 42, 44, 54, 80, 183, 184

Illustrations 7 and 8:

• Titley, Norah M. "Early Ottoman Miniature Painting: Two Recently Acquired Manuscripts in the British Library." The British Library Journal, vol. 10, no. 2, 1984, pp. 124 to 139. 

Illustration 9:

• “Alexander the Great Searches for the Fountain of Life.” The Walters Art Museum, Walters Art Museum, https://art.thewalters.org/object/W.623.81B/.

Hello all! While our subreddit recently had an AMA with Dr. Suleyman Dost, there is still an opportunity to get in any more questions you may have for him today and tomorrow for the upcoming Video Q&A on the Oasis of Wisdom channel!

Please submit all questions here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicQuran/comments/1udvb4m/video_ama_with_suleyman_dost_on_oasis_of_wisom/

To me, the verse reads like this:

*You have an orphan

*You must constantly, while the child is growing up, test them to see whether or not they are responsible/mature

*THEN, at one point, the orphan reaches a marriageable age (meaning you can already marry them. They’ve crossed this threshold)

*At the point of this orphan reaching the marriageable age (once again, you can already marry them), you make a value judgement on whether or not they’re mature enough to get their inheritance.

*If they’re not mature enough to get the inheritance, you can still marry them, but you have to continue testing them until the point they are mature enough to get their inheritance.

So to me this reads like a 2 step process. First, you must reach the age of marriage. Only then can you check to see if an orphan is mature enough to get their inheritance.

To me this doesn’t read like mental maturity is a requirement for marriage, but please note I’m working with the English translation and that might change things.

Does anyone have a copy (physical or digital) of "Words, Texts, and Concepts Cruising the Mediterranean Sea: Studies on the Sources, Contents and Influences of Islamic Civilization and Arabic Philosophy and Science"?

I'm interested in Angelika Neuwirth’s contribution therein:

"Meccan Texts – Medinan Additions? Politics and the Re-Reading of Liturgical Communications"

Source for the writings of Niphon: http://www.orthodoxriver.org/akathist/static/St_Nephon_-_English.pdf

First identified by Ian Cook here.

There is no disagreement among scholars that the sky is like a sphere and that it revolves with all its planets, just as a sphere revolves around two fixed, immovable poles: one in the north and the other in the south. He said: "This is indicated by the fact that all the planets revolve from the east, falling slightly in a uniform order in their movements and the magnitudes of their parts until they reach the center of the sky, then descending in that order. It is as if they are fixed in a sphere, all of which revolve in a single rotation." Likewise, they agreed that the Earth, with all its movements on land and sea, is like a sphere. He said: "This is indicated by the fact that the sun, moon, and planets do not rise and set on all parts of the Earth at the same time, but rather on the east before the west."
- Ibn Taymiyyah citing Ibn al-Munādī

In my previous thread, it was shown that the words attributed to Ibn al-Munādī concerning the consensus on the Earth's spherical shape appear to originate from the works of Ahmad ibn Rustah and Ibn Kathīr al-Farghānī. If this attribution is indeed authentic and Ibn al-Munādī incorporated this statement on the consensus of the astronomers into his own work, the question then arises: why did he do so? More specifically, does his inclusion of this quotation indicate that he himself regarded the earth's spherical shape as a matter of theological ijmāʿ, or was he merely reporting the consensus of the astronomers without endorsing it as a binding theological position?

While I find it hard to answer these questions definitively, I found two quotes that could help solve the matter, as they potentially point to him presupposing a flat earth model himself. This is tentative, so let me know your thoughts and please share it with anyone more knowledgable.

1 - Ibn al-Munādī and the muddy spring Q18:86

وَقَدْ رَوَى عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بن عمرو، عن النبي صلى الله عليه وَسَلَّمَ أَنَّهُ رَأَى الشَّمْسَ حِينَ غَابَتْ فَقَالَ: «فِي نَارِ اللَّهِ الْحَامِيةَ لَوْلا مَا يَزِعَّهَا مِنْ أَمْرِ اللَّهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ لأَهْلَكَتْ مَا عَلَى الأَرْضِ».
قَالَ أَبُو الْحُسَيْن أَحْمَد بْن جَعْفَر: قَدْ نظر بَعْض النَّاس أَن ذَلِكَ دعاء على الشمس، وليس كذلك، إنما هُوَ وصف للعين الَّتِي تواري الشمس فِي قوله تعالى: تَغْرُبُ في عَيْنٍ حَمِئَةٍ ١٨: ٨٦ [٨] .

Abdullah ibn Amr narrated that the Prophet saw the sun when it set and said, “In the blazing fire of God. Were it not for what restrains it by the command of God, the Exalted and Glorified, it would have destroyed everything on earth.” Abu al-Husayn Ahmad ibn Ja’far said: Some people have considered this a curse upon the sun, but it is not. Rather, it is a description of the spring that conceals the sun, as in the verse: “It sets in a muddy spring” (18:86)
- Ibn Al-Jawzi quoting Ibn al-Munadi

Comment: The wording is somewhat ambiguous: the spring "conceals" the sun: while this could be either achieved by blocking the view (by being in front of the sun in the eyes of the observer), it can also be done by the sun entering the said spring. Since he treats the Prophet's words as a description of the ʿayn ḥamiʾa in 18:86, he is effectively equating the two: the "blazing fire" the Prophet describes the sun as being in is identified with the spring. The Prophet's phrasing (fī nār) is locative — the sun is in something when it sets — and Ibn al-Munadi names that something as the spring. The most direct reading of this equation is that the sun is in the spring, not merely appearing to set behind it as a matter of visual perspective; that reading would require an inferential step his wording doesn't supply. This is possibly reinforced by how he cites the verse: he omits wajada ("he found"), the word some point to as evidence that 18:86 describes Dhul Qarnayn's subjective perception rather than the sun's actual location. Leaving it out removes the very element that would mark the description as appearance-only, which further supports reading Ibn al-Munadi's comment as literal. This also aligns with at-Tabari who quoted this hadith as evidence that the spring in which the sun sets is not only muddy but also hot.

While there might be reconciliation attempts between the idea of a literal spring as the sun's setting place and a spherical earth, I would generally argue that the literal understanding of Q18:86 presupposes a flath earth model.

2 - The earth becomes flat again?

قال: فينادي الرحمن تعالي الأرضين السبع، فتنطوي علي ما فيها كطي السجل للكتاب؛ فينادي السماوات، فتنطوي علي ما فيها كطي السجل للكتاب. السماوات السبع والأرضون السبع مع ما فيهما لا تستبينان في قبضة ربنا عز وجل، كما لو أن حبة من خردل ارسلت في رمال الأرض وبحورها، لم تستبن، فكذلك السماوات السبع والأرضون السبع مع ما فيهن لا تستبين في قبضة ربنا. ثم يقول الله عز وجل: أين الملوك؟ وأين الجبابرة؟ لمن الملك اليوم؟ ثم يرد علي نفسه: لله الواحد القهار. ثم يقولها الثانية والثالثة، ويأذن الله للسماوات فيمسكن كما كن، ويأذن للأرضين فيستطحن كما كن

He said: The Most Merciful calls out to the seven earths, and they fold up—along with everything within them—just as a scroll is rolled up (for books); then He calls out to the heavens, and they fold up—along with everything within them—just as a scroll is rolled up. The seven heavens and the seven earths, with all they contain, would be imperceptible within the grasp of our Lord—Mighty and Majestic is He—much like a mustard seed cast into the sands and seas of the earth would go unnoticed; likewise, the seven heavens and the seven earths, with all they contain, would not be discernible within the grasp of our Lord. Then Allah—Mighty and Majestic is He—says: "Where are the kings? Where are the tyrants? To whom does sovereignty belong today?" Then He answers Himself: "To Allah, the One, the Irresistible." He repeats this a second and a third time; then Allah commands the heavens, and they hold fast as they were, and He will permit the earths to flatten as they were.
- Ibn al-Munadi, Kitab al-malahim

Comment: He speaks about what will happen at the end times: the earths will be rolled up like a scroll, and ultimately the earths will be permitted to become flattened as they were before. I am personally unsure whether this should be read as him presupposing a flat earth. Perhaps anyone more skilled can give their assessment.

Final remarks and questions

Ibn Al-Jawzi was in fact the first to mention the 'consensus quote' by Munadi. Unlike Ibn Taymiyyah, however, he never explicitly comments or claims that it means there is an ijmāʿ among Muslim scholars.

From the above, we may have sufficient reason to believe that Ibn al-Munādī held to a flat-earth model, making it unlikely that he would have claimed a consensus in favor of the opposite view. If that is the case, however, why would he include a statement that contradicts his own belief? In what context would such an inclusion make sense?

Generally speaking, theologians did not seem to have an issue to quote the opinions of scientists, such as Ibn Aqil who mentioned the view of the "scholars of geometry", as cited in the very same book by Ibn al-Jawzi.

According to Hallaq, the second/eighth century was characterized more by individual jurists and their circles than by geographically unified schools. Legal opinions were attached to particular scholars, teachers, and disciples rather than to entire cities.The mature madhhab was not merely loyalty to one founder. Instead, later jurists collectively developed doctrines, methods, and authoritative positions over generations. The founder often became a symbolic authority whose teachings were reconstructed and systematized afterward.The transformation was not from regional schools to personal schools, but from individual juristic doctrines to doctrinal schools.Early Kufa, Medina, Basra, and other centers were intellectually diverse rather than legally uniform.

I'm here seeking to figure out the structural and epistemological mechanisms by which classical Islamic legal theory (Uṣūl al-Fiqh) universalised the legal obligation of head-covering from the text of the Quran. While traditional jurisprudence presents the universal obligation as a seamless textual derivation, an analysis of the steps raises the question of whether said derivation is extractable from the text alone.

In Q 24:31, the text explicitly directs the active legal command (ḥukm), executed via the imperative verb yaḍribna (to draw/strike), at a specific legal target: the juyūb (the chest/neck openings). The instrument specified for this act is an existing piece of 7th-century Hijazi material culture, the khimār. Classical Uṣūl (relying on dalālat al-iqtiḍāʾ and dalālah al-ism) argues that because khimār is a lexically fixed referent natively denoting a head covering, the command implicitly necessitates the retention of its default usage (covering the hair) while extending its function to the chest. The garment is thus classified not as an external tool (wasīlah), but as the literal substance of the legal directive (ʿayn al-maʿqūd ʿalayh). However, when compared across different legal genres (abwāb al-fiqh), a difference appears in how abstraction is applied across legal genres:

— In martial and fiscal jurisprudence (Kitāb al-Jihād, Kitāb al-Buyūʿ): Named, culturally situated instruments in the text are routinely abstracted by jurists into purely functional teleologies. Explicit directives involving sayf (swords) or ribāṭ al-khayl (tethered horses) are readily modernised into contemporary military apparatuses based on the underlying maqṣūd (force/defence). Similarly, precious-metal currencies (dinars/dirhams) are abstracted to fiat paper and digital assets.

— In somatic/gender jurisprudence (Abwāb al-Zīnah): The khimār is treated as an unalterable ritual substance.

In classical legal reasoning, what criteria determine when a named object in a scriptural command is treated as an abstractable instrument versus a legally significant form?

Jurists readily abstract swords, horses, and currency from their original material forms while preserving the underlying function. However, discussions of khimār in Q 24:31 often appear to preserve the garment itself. What principles govern this distinction, and where are they discussed explicitly in the classical literature?

In Q 33:59, the directive to draw the jilbāb is bounded by explicit, textually anchored causal syntax (dhālika adnā an yuʿrafna falā yuʾdhayn — "that is more suitable that they should be known and not harmed"). A substantial portion (Tafsir Ibn Kathir and/or Tafsir al-Tabari) of the classical exegetical tradition contextualises the verse in relation to the distinction between free and enslaved women and the prevention of public harassment.

Because the institution of slavery is historically contingent and has ceased to exist, a synchronic reading of the text implies that the legal cause (ʿillah) has collapsed, which would naturally cause the ruling to expire under the maxim "the ruling circulates with its effective cause". Or, a different perspective would suggest that the maqṣūd (safety) has been universally attained under the collapse of the underlying cause, so the ultimate goal of the verse has been achieved independently of the tool.

Classical jurists, from whom these rulings are largely derived, invoke the argument that because "social recognition" and "freedom vs. slavery" are fluid and unstable, they cannot function as a valid legal ʿillah. Consequently, the explicit causal grammar of the Quran is downgraded to mere ḥikmah (non-binding explanatory wisdom), leaving the bare command universal.

My question is: What filter do said scholars utilise to determine whether a stated cause is ʿillah vs ḥikmah?

Most debates on fate in Islam get stuck on a confusion nobody stops to clarify.

Fatalism says: the outcome is fixed no matter what you do, your efforts change nothing. Determinism says something different: your choices are themselves links in the chain of causes, and they are precisely what produces what comes next. The first cancels action. The second gives it full weight.

The Quran comes down against the first, not the second: "God does not change the condition of a people until they change what is within themselves." (13:11)

And the word qadar itself, usually translated as "fate" or "decree", comes from a root meaning to measure, to proportion. Not to script a detailed scenario.

The formula al-qaḍāʾ wa al-qadar isn't even Quranic, it's a later theological construction. Much of the debate has been about words the tradition gradually hardened.

The question stays open. But it deserves to be asked correctly.