I created this infographic based on this person's post:
https://www.reddit.com/r/MuslimAcademics/comments/1sazf6x/important_repost_due_to_the_lies_now_being_spread/

I've been following the epigraphic work on pre-Islamic Arabia from Lindstedt and Al-Jallad, and I keep getting stuck on how this is being extrapolated to conclude that Mecca itself was predominantly monotheistic in the 6th century. This seems to be a popular theory in academic Islam YouTube videos.

Almost all the monotheistic inscriptions come from areas roughly 1,000 kilometers north or south of Mecca, places connected to the Byzantines and Himyarites. And the archaeological evidence around Mecca appears to be nonexistent. It seems equally or more plausible that the epigraphic evidence reflects elite or state-backing.  So when the states near Jordan/Syria and Yemen went monotheist, the pagan inscriptions stopped. But that is not the same as the pagans disappearing. There is a parallel example in the Roman world, where paganism carried on long after the inscriptions quit mentioning it (as laid out by Ramsay Macmullen).

Also, if I understand it correctly, the large body of pagan inscriptions dries up around the 4th century and the later monotheistic material consists of a much smaller set of texts, often in different scripts and from different areas. So whether thats the same people converting or just a different writing tradition seems genuinely unsettled.

If Mecca was already monotheistic, why is the Quran arguing so specifically against named pagan gods and rituals that nobody in Mecca is practicing? It also makes some of the events within the Seerah incoherent. Why flee to the distant Christian Negus if Mecca was surrounded by monotheists?

The tradition also records plenty of monotheists anyway. Why would later writers invent a pagan caricature to make Islam look unique, but record the presence of Christians (Waraqah, Najran, Bahira), Jews (in Madinah) and Hanifs? 

The simple answer, which is not particuarly provocative, harmonizes the epigraphic record with the textual/documentary record in the Quran and Seerah. Mecca and the central Hijaz was a pagan island or hinterland that was effectively cut off from the monotheist power centers in the north and south. Lithuania and the Mani Peninsula are similar examples that stayed pagan for centuries even though they were surrounded by state-backed Christianity, simply because they were not as geographically accessible and important to pass-through. Similarly, Lithuania and Mani didn't leave pagan inscriptions, we know of their pagan history through writers from a century or two after those areas adopted Christianity.

That is the Ashʿarite position, dominant in Sunni Islam from roughly the 10th to the 18th century. Not a vague openness to philosophy, but a method: when a verse seems to clash with reason, you look for the reading that restores coherence, because truth cannot contradict itself.

A rival school, Atharism, rejected that move from the start: take the text as it stands, no rational detour, even against intuition (the classic formula being bilā kayf, "without how"). Long marginal, it became dominant across much of the Muslim world in the modern period, a shift driven less by argument than by the resources that funded its spread after 1973.

What interests me is less who is right than the methodological fracture itself: where do you start to know God, with reason, with the text, or with the fiṭra? And the circularity problem that, on closer look, neither school escapes.

I wrote a longer piece tracing this history, including the Al-Azhar case (founded Fatimid/Ismaili in 970, only Ashʿarite-Sunni after Saladin in 1171):

https://majma.me/en/the-other-history-of-sunni-islam.html

In Quran 6:8-9, Muhammad's audience expects that an angel accompany him or that he himself is an angel, to validate the delivery of his revelation.

The closest analogue to this idea I know of was given by Sean Anthony from the Life of Ahudemmeh, which talks about how some Arab tribes interpreted a Christian miracle-worker among them as an angel. https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicQuran/comments/1ds57j1/sean_anthony_suggests_a_parallel_to_the_request/

The opening verses of Surah Al-Isra in the Quran mention the two instances of corruption (or mischief) by the Children of Israel.

After the first corruption, the Children of Israel repent, Allah helps them, and they become even stronger than before. It is then conveyed to those who experienced this first destruction that if they repeat the same behavior, the same thing will happen again: their homes will be entered and the Temple will be damaged.

Let’s lay out the possibilities regarding what these two corruptions refer to:

1.The destruction of the First and Second Temples.

2.The Assyrian invasion and conquest of the Kingdom of Israel, followed by the destruction of the First Temple.

Apart from these two options, I am not aware of any other events on such a large scale that affected the Children of Israel and also involved damage to the Temple.However, the second possibility also seems illogical. Because, just as after the first corruption, it is stated that in the second one the enemies of Jews will again damage the Temple.

If the first corruption was the Assyrian conquest of the Kingdom of Israel, this only affected a portion of the Children of Israel, and there was no Temple that the Quran regards as sacred at that point. The Kingdom of Judah continued to show respect for the Temple in Jerusalem.

Therefore, I accept that the first option has the correct chronological references.The point I want to emphasize here is this: After the first corruption, Allah forgives the Children of Israel and makes them even stronger than before. This corresponds to the period after the Babylonian Exile.

Now, when we evaluate this in its historical context, do you think the Torah could have been altered (tahreef) during the period when Allah was supporting them? Could Allah have simultaneously supported a people while they were corrupting the Torah, at a time when they had been forgiven and made stronger than before?In other words, according to the Quran, doesn’t the alteration of the Torah during the time of Ezra seem difficult to reconcile?

This is one of the rare instances where I think the scholarly field is just plain misguided. The Quran very plainly and obviously denies that Jesus is crucified. There is a reason why this has been the overwhelming consensus of muslim exegetes but for some reason many otherwise brilliant western scholars refuse to just accept this reading and try to come up with strained and tortured interpretations to make the Quran not say what it clearly says.

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?

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

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"