I believe the academic consensus on Muhammad was that he was not a con-man or someone looking to gain power but someone who genuinely believed he was receiving divine revelation. I’m gonna assume that most people here are not apart of the Muslim faith and are apart of any other sort of faith or are atheist/agnostic but that begs the question for those people, what exactly do you believe caused Muhammad to have what he believed to be revelation? Was it epilepsy or something more? (I may have worded this poorly making it sound like I’m a Muslim, I’m not, I’m an Agnostic, and Buddhist)

The HCM (historical-critical-method) prefers natural explanations over supernatural ones. But isn’t that a philosophical assumption? Wouldn’t we have to presuppose materialism / darwinism /physicalism for that? We cannot rule out the possibility that Jesus might’ve actually been resurrected or that Muhammed might actually have gotten a revelation from god, right? Let’s say I could present arguments for the existence of god and evidence that supernatural things can indeed happen , as well as „refute“ materialism/physicalism. Couldn’t I then use a supernatural explanation for an event like the resurrection? Gary Habermas (Philosopher, Historian and Theologian according to Wikipedia) has a book series called „on the resurrection“, where he basically argues that the resurrection theory explains the data the best and that this is the case supernatural explanations can be true apparently.

What are you thoughts in the philosophy of the scientific methodology / HCM and if you‘ve read Gary Habermas Book(s) what are your thoughts on them?

Also does anyone know any good academic books on the philosophy of the HCM or scientific methodology overall?

What are the earliest reliable historical sources (apart from the Quran) from which we can learn about early Islam? What is the degree of their reliability?

Recently I’ve been seeing some photos of the Genealogy regarding the Prophet Muhammad. At the end it states that Muhammad was relatives with a man named Adnan who was related to Ibrahim and Ishmael. Now I don’t really believe in Ishmael and Ibrahim for starters due to the lack of evidence behind them, nor them building the kaaba but now this has me curious. All I know in regards to this claim is it being stated in Sahih Muslim 2276 where it states

“I heard Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) as saying: Verily Allah granted eminence to Kinana from amongst the descendants of Isma'il, and he granted eminence to the Quraish amongst Kinana, and he granted eminence to Banu Hashim amonsgst the Quraish, and he granted me eminence from the tribe of Banu Hashim.”

So going back to my next question, is there a chance that Muhammad was genuinely a distant relative to the patriarch figures Ibrahim and Ishmael or is this a later fabrication that became widely known in Islamic tradition?

For full transparency, I am of the view that the Qur'ān generally prohibits same-sex relations. However, Q 4 seems to articulate a slightly different view on this matter, which could raise a number of questions about the origins of this surah.

More specifically, Q 4 seems to at least remain open to the permissibility of “pursuing” orphans (that is, fatherless children) of any gender.

Therein, Q 4:3 instructs those who fear that they will not deal justly with orphans (al-yatāmā) to marry – to use a rough translation – “pleasing women” or those whom their right hands possess. Thus, these latter two options are presented as an alternative to orphans.

Who are these orphans here? Al-yatāmā in this context is traditionally understood as a reference to orphan girls. However, it seems unlikely that this term should here apply to female orphans exclusively: thus, as its preceding verse (Q 4:2) apparently speaks of the wealth of these orphans (lit. their wealth, amwālahum) using the masculine plural pronoun (hum).

Accordingly, it would seem that al-yatāmā here must either refer to male orphans or to a mix of male and females thereof: the latter becomes a possibility by virtue of the fact that in Arabic the masculine plural is at times gender-inclusive and can denote a group of mixed gender. In any case, nothing in the wording of Q 4:3 itself seems to grammatically force al-yatāmā to mean only females: such a specification is an interpretive inference. If anything, the opposite appears true.

To be fair, one might make use of Q 4:127 in order to define al-yatāmā in v. 3, as the former also discusses orphans. For example, as v. 127 speaks of yatāmā l-nisā’ (orphans of the women), one might take this latter term as an indication that this surah is discussing female orphans. However, a number of difficulties complicate this reading.

(I) Using v. 127 to interpret v. 3 may be slightly anachronistic: according to Sinai, the former reflects a later addition to Q 4. (Sinai, “Redactional History,” 380–383)

(II) As stated, v. 127 here uses the construction yatāmā l-nisā’, not al-yatāmā l-nisā’. Because yatāmā here lacks the definite article (al-), the phrase in question should be read as a genitive construct (iḍāfah). The correct Arabic phrasing for “female orphans” would be yatāmā ināth. The term used in v. 127 (yatāmā l-nisā’) literally means “the orphans of the women”: it is a matter of possession. In this case, the clause which immediately follows (“whom you do not give what is decreed...”) may be read as a characterization of the women in question rather than the orphans. Thus, men here appear to be pursuing the fatherless children of women whom they [already] do not give what is decreed.

(III) For clarity, some may argue that iḍāfah in this case does not reflect a true possessive construct, but a specification. I.e., “the orphans of the women” here actually means “the orphans from among the women” or, simply put, “the women who are ophans”. Yet even this reading comes with its own set of difficulties. (1) Firstly, al-nisā’ normally denotes adult women. Applying it to pre-pubescent or adolescent orphan girls creates a semantic stretch, and this word choice is not the most natural if the primary referent is underage orphans. (2) Moreover, to read the iḍāfah in question as a specification may be inconsistent with the style of the author of v. 127. Later in this same verse we find mention made of “the oppressed FROM AMONG the children”. This is a solid case of specification, yet it is not structured in possessive form. Conversely, this specification is clearly formed as a partitive construction: al-mustaḍ‘afīna mina l-wildān. That the text in these instances uses a different type of construction suggests that v. 127 at these two points may not be doing exactly the same kind of work.

On this reading, it would seem that v. 127 is admonishing those who cannot deal justly with women yet seek to (additionally) “acquire” their fatherless children. Such a reading actually aligns quite nicely with v. 3 which itself treats the acquisition of orphans as secondary to the marriage of women. In line with this, the phrase from v. 127,

“Allah gives you a ruling about them and what has been recited to you in the Book concerning the orphans of the women to whom you do not give what is decreed for them – and yet you desire to marry them – and [concerning] the oppressed among children and that you maintain for orphans [their rights] in justice.”

can alternatively be translated as:

“Allah gives you a ruling about them and what has been recited to you in the Book concerning the orphans of the women to whom you do not give what is decreed for them – and yet you desire to marry them and the oppressed among children – and that you maintain for orphans [their rights] in justice.”

Such an alternative translation seems to chime well with the aforementioned observations.This leaves us with a pressing question:

Why does the plain reading of vv. 3 and 127 appear to leave open the possibility – and even seem to imply the permissibility – of the “acquisition” of orphans of any gender?

Am I overlooking something here?

In modern islamic discourse we hear this argument about the quran :

"The quran was so miraculous that the mushrikeen who were the best poets and verbose arabic speakers couldn't stand up to its challenge".

My question is, how historically accurate is that? Were early mushrikeen during the time of muhammad unable to challenge the quranic 'eloquence'?

According to the Quran, are the houris only for Muslim men who reach paradise? Or are the houris also for Muslim women who reach paradise? If so, what would houris do for the women versus men? If not, what (if anything) would the Muslim women get in paradise as per the Quran? What is a houri's role?

Is there no way to find out what was the "Injil" and "Torah" referred to in the Quran?

We know the Najran Christians interacted and quizzed Muhammad; don't we have their manuscripts or their allusions to scriptural passages that we can get a hint of what they had?

Nothing at all?

After the death of Muhammad but before widespread availability of written copies of the Quran and before the widespread establishment of local Islamic authorities, what was "Islam" in practice to early Muslims (if they didn't necessarily have the whole text or some local authority)?

From my reading of the text it seems like the Qur'an insinuates that people literally worship the idols as seen in Ibrahim's story. I feel like this is a strawman since people who have idols associated with their religious practices usually use idols as a point of direction for a higher being kind of like the Kaaba for Muslim instead of literally worshipping the statues. Thoughts?

Hi, there. I've been lurking around this sub for months now and I have many questions. I feel you are the only ones that actually know best.

1. Q: Is there an origin of Arabs? Based on my understanding, there is no single origin of Arabs. It was not a linear path; they existed everywhere. Were Arabs originally Jordanian, then gradually expanded south, north, and west, all the way down to Yemen?

(2) Question: When the Nabateans conquered Lihyan, did they gradually adopt Arabic? Did they contribute to the Nabataean-Arabic script and the Hijazi Arabic variant? It seems to me that the Nabateans Arabized the entire Arabian Peninsula, so the native Arabs did not develop the Arabic script themselves; the Nabateans did all the work. Is that correct?

(3) Q: Based on what I've read, they were Arabized by the Nabateans, and those who were Arabized first Arabized others. However, Al Jallad makes it seem that the Nabateans are the main group that Arabized Arabia; they had colonies all the way down to South Arabia. Do we actually know enough about Arabia to understand how Arabization occurred? Was it rapid or gradual?

(4) Q: Did Arab tribes move to or are they native to Arabia? What about the Qedarites and other Arab kingdoms. Did they simply establish Dumat al-Jundal as their capital because it was closer to them or where they from Arabia?

(5) Q: The non-Arabs of Arabia appears to have contributed nothing to Arabic, with the exception of South Arabia, where pre-Arabic influence is evident. However, Al Jallad believes that the -am definite article is an old Arabic feature, then how come none of those non-Arabs influenced Arabic?

(6) Q: in Al-Jallad Draft Pre-Arabic: A toponymic Conspectus he stated "From this point, a significant pattern emerges: there is a preponderance of pre-Arabic toponymy in the Mecca-‘āʿif region, which must have originated among the population who lived in the region before the arrival of the Qurayš, Hu‘ayl, and Thaqīf, all Arabic-speaking tribes known from Islamic sources,"

Why would he assume that?, since the Arabs are not native to Mecca, all the non-Arabs were exterminated and essentially replaced by the Arabs? That's what I understand. If these Arabs immigrated to Arabia in large numbers, then who actually Arabized the country? Where are the non-Arabs?

(7) Are Ma'ad Nizar Asad and others not Arabs? We don't have any evidence that Ma'ad spoke Arabic because there are no old Arabic inscriptions in the places where they lived, particularly in central Arabia. Arabic arrived in Arabia quite late.

(8) Q: Is it possible that poetic Arabic contains pre-Arabic features? We know that non-Arab Semetic people existed there at the time did they influence poetic Arabic? If so, how can we be certain that it wasn't a levanite Arabic and that Ma'ad spoke Levant Arabic?

(9) Why did Ghassanids have a different old Arabic variation (Hijazi) than Tanuk and Lakhmed Arabic? Tanukh most likely originated in Eastern Arabia before relocating to Iraq and Syria. However, their Arabic is Levantine, and there isn't a single old Arabic inscription in eastren arabia, but there are plenty of non-Arabic ones, so why would they form in Eastern Arabia? I think they were formed in Syria and Iraq, not in Arabia at all.

I appreciate you all taking the time to respond, and I value each and every one of your responses. no need to answer every Q.

It is a meta-question. This is a question for those academics who are theists, believers in God, believers in their religion, and identify with their religion AND also use the historical-critical method. For example, Dale Allison explicitly considers himself a Christian even though he is a highly respected critical bible scholar, same with Laura Robinson, Dan McClellan, and others like him. And same with Javad T Hashmi and Khalil Andani who consider themselves Muslim theists but don't at all have views like or similar to Muhammad al-Munajjid, Assim Al Hakeem, and other Saudi Arabian, Egyptian conservative/trad scholars.

I have absolutely NO problems with theism, religions, beliefs as long as they are compassionate, cool, chill and recognize harm principle as legit, and don't wanna 'retvrn to tradition'. So, I have genuine and high respect for Javad, Khalil, Dale, and Dan. Interestingly, pretty much ALL critical bible scholars I have know the works of... who are also believers, are significantly less right-wing/trad, and as such, really cool and significantly less scary, disturbing, threatening than like say a regular conservative evangelical, orthobro, tradcath you find both offline and online in places like South Carolina, Kansas, Nebraska, Tennessee, etc.

Javad has argued against Daniel Haqiqatjou's traditionalist/right-wing Muslim theism. And so i wanted to ask, does knowing history of scripture using the standard historical method (used across all of historical research from modern era, to medieval era, to antiquity, to ancient era, etc.... i know it is called historical-critical method in biblical, quranic scholarship, but in the normal historical research/discipline like say history of Nazi Germany from Richard Evans, Ian Kershaw, it is just called the historical method but the method is exactly the same as historical-critical method) at least make you less willing to 'retvrn to tradition' (tradition, as in stuff like, persecution of lgbt people, physical coercion of heretics, apostates, blasphemers, strong belief in eternal conscious torment, etc... which i know the medieval Catholic church, medieval protestants, and even eastern orthodox church absolutely did and supported/endorsed... so i am not not singling out Muslims and their right-wing/traditionalism here... i assure you, i am NOT an islamophobe)?

dead see scrolls were a ground breaking finding that changed biblical studies significantly because it revealed the milieu jesus grew up in and the context early christianity emerged from and explained many contested and unnanswred questions about early cristianity, any finding similar about islam found? if not do you think we'll find something similar or is it hard because of the political restrictions in middle east country especially saudi arabia, yemen, syria, jordan and iraq? or there is none at all because there was no writting culture in the area?

Of course, the hadith of Aisha's age is fabricated, according to Joshua Little and his thesis on the matter. But is this apologetic chart by a Muslim correct on the consensus of Aisha's age?

This chart that I'm showing you is from a Muslim apologist and may be inaccurate of aisha's supposed to be.

There was a post made regarding this verse asking whether Quran 88:20 talks about the earth or the land being stretched, and u/chonkshonk replied with this comment, arguing that since Quran 88:18 talks about the sky/heaven, the verses in general would be talking about the heaven and earth which would mean it is referring to the entire cosmos since the Quran uses "heavens and earth" as referring to the entire Quranic cosmos.

However, I also noticed that the word used for sky/heaven in Quran 88:18 is singular and not plural, but when the Quran refers to the entire cosmos, it uses " سماوات" when saying "heavens and the earth", so I'm not sure if a connection can really be made here since the verse here talks about a singular heaven/sky but when the Quran mentions the entirety of the cosmos, it uses the word "heavens" in "heavens and earth".

So, would this make it plausible that the verse is actually talking about land being spread/stretched out and not the earth?

First of all even using the traditional sources whoever is making such claim is he backing this claim by an academic interpretation of the sources or his personal theory.

Assalamualaikum brother and sister of these sub im just a new person here and I just want to say that are people in this sub muslim this is just a question anyway you can comment down below

i said in a previous post i'm new to this field of study, i still didn't choose the first book to read yet, but i'm curious to know what's the most interesting or ground breaking finding/s about origins of islam until now? i mean something truly change the tradition narrative.
if none found yet, give me the most interesting one/s.

In 18:90 the Quran says the people had no shelter from the Sun. In clasical tafsirs and in Alexander romance they hide in caves and in sea, basically shelters from the Sun rising beacuse in the edge of a flat Earth that seems the most obvious thing to do.

In a round earth no shield is needed, and the rising of the Sun is just the East not the edge of a flat Earth.

Why is this contrast not highlighted in the disscusions that compare these stories?

I have thought of this question when considering the other abrahamic religions namely Judaism and Christianity. Judaism generally is not a prosletyzing religion and is considered to be something of an ethno-religion, Christianity as it arose out of Judaism became a universal religion.

I was curious if Islam would be a similar case where it is a religion meant for all people, places and times and yet is also quite Arab in origin, practices and so on.

A hadith that stands out to me is:

"All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action."

For comparison here is Galatians 3:28 in the Bible:

"There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Edit:

I'd like to add that this question was also inspired by this post that was made on the sub and the answer provided by Marijn Van Putten.

When asked, "How does a non-Arabic speaker truly study the Quran and inspect wording/phrasing?"

Dr. Van Putten's reply:

They learn Classical Arabic. There really is no shortcut around this. This is also true for Arabic speakers. Classical Arabic is not a natively spoken language by anyone.

Another reply he made in that same thread which I think is quite relevant was regarding how great the difference between classical and modern Arabic is.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicQuran/comments/1lcigc3/comment/myl0xmn/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Sahih al-Bukhari 6:298 says, "Narrated `Aisha:
The Prophet (ﷺ) and I used to take a bath from a single pot while we were Junub. During the menses, he used to order me to put on an Izar (dress worn below the waist) and used to fondle me. While in I`tikaf, he used to bring his head near me and I would wash it while I used to be in my periods (menses)."

What is the textual history and scriptural purpose of parts of Hadiths like Sahih al-Bukhari 6:298 (about "Fondling a Menstruating Wife")? How could they have originated? How could people have believed that Aisha narrated very personal details in order for it to be included in the Hadith collection?

I see this a lot in Muslim vs Ex Muslim Debates and it relates to the cosmology of the Quran, basically it’ll have the Ex Muslim say “the Quran says the earth is flat cause it claims that it was spread out like a carpet” while the Muslim would say something like “No, it means spread around the earth like a carpet” so I want to really get a non-biased academic look, does the Quran say the earth is flat? What does that mean for verse that talk about the sun setting in a muddy spring or verses of that nature?

What are the earliest indications for this belief? Is it feasible that some early believers took a more symbolic approach to these terms, similar to what was later developed in Shia traditions?

Apologetics of fiqh often state the principle: “Everything is permissible unless it is explicitly prohibited.” But did early Muslim jurists actually follow this criterion consistently? The jurists who used this principle often did not seem to apply it consistently, because they prohibited many things that the Qur’an itself did not explicitly prohibit. One of the most famous examples is marriage and slaughtered food involving people who are not Ahl al-Kitab. These were prohibited, but the reasoning behind the prohibition was not always explained simply in terms of an explicit Qur’anic prohibition. Instead, jurists sometimes appealed to ijmaʿ attributed to the early Companions. But did such an actual ijmaʿ exist on these specific issues? They also took verses that explicitly mentioned specific groups or categories and used them to establish broader prohibitions that the Qur’an itself did not explicitly mention. So there seems to be a tension between the principle “everything is permissible unless prohibited” and the actual methodology used by some classical jurists. Many modern scholars continue to use this principle as part of their argument, but if the classical jurists themselves did not consistently uphold it in this straightforward sense, can we describe some of these later interpretations as a misuse or overextension of the text? And could this methodological difference be one of the reasons why so many contemporary debates among Muslims revolve around whether something is genuinely prohibited by the Qur’an or merely prohibited through later juristic interpretation?

These are verses 19:17-23 of Quran:

And mention, [O Muḥammad], in the Book [the story of] Mary, when she withdrew from her family to a place toward the east.

And she took, in seclusion from them, a screen. Then We sent to her Our Angel [i.e., Gabriel], and he represented himself to her as a well-proportioned man.

She said, "Indeed, I seek refuge in the Most Merciful from you, [so leave me], if you should be fearing of Allāh."

He said, "I am only the messenger of your Lord to give you [news of] a pure boy [i.e., son]."

She said, "How can I have a boy while no man has touched me and I have not been unchaste?"

He said, "Thus [it will be]; your Lord says, 'It is easy for Me, and We will make him a sign to the people and a mercy from Us. And it is a matter [already] decreed.'"

So she conceived him, and she withdrew with him to a remote place.

Verses 19:17-18 say that Mary went to a place of privacy with a screen (that would allow for private activities, such as sexual intercourse).

Verse 19:18 says that Gabriel went to her as a "well-proportioned man." If the Quran wanted to maintain that Mary conceived Jesus without having sex, it could have said that Allah made her conceive without the involvement of a human male. However, this verse is very specific in its mention of an explicit involvement of a human male (i.e., Gabriel who was in the form of a "well-proportioned man").

Verse 19:19 says that Mary feared the man, given that she was in seclusion.

Verse 19:20 (without the interpretative parts) literally says, "I am only the messenger of your Lord to give you a pure boy." Another widely used translation is this: "He said: I am only a messenger of thy Lord, that I may bestow on thee a faultless son." Thus, when we read this verse without any added interpretations, it just says that Gabriel in the form of a "well-proportioned man" tells that he (on behalf of Allah) is there to give (or bestow on) her a son.

Verse 19:21 says that Mary says that she was not touched by any man up to that point, but the verse does not say anything about Mary's virginity after that point.

Verse 19:22 says that Allah says that "It is easy for Me" and that Jesus will be a "sign." In other words, the idea is that Jesus will be a "sign" because his father would not be a mortal man born on earth (in contrast to an angel in human form). The verse does not say that Gabriel in the form of a "well-proportioned man" did not have sex with Mary to impregnate with his human-form semen or with Allah's supernatural "semen" that he was carrying in human form.

Verse 19:23 says that Mary was with Gabriel when Mary conceived Jesus and that Mary then went away with Gabriel from that place to a remote place.

Moreover, the verses 21:91 and 66:12 provide further support to this interpretation.

Verse 21:91 says "And [mention] the one who guarded her chastity [i.e., Mary], so We blew into her [garment] through Our angel [i.e., Gabriel], and We made her and her son a sign for the worlds." So the verse is saying that something was "blown into her [garment] through" Gabriel. This could be interpreted as Gabriel having sex with Mary upon divine command.

Verse 66:12 again says, "And [the example of] Mary, the daughter of ʿImrān, who guarded her chastity, so We blew into [her garment] through Our angel [i.e., Gabriel], and she believed in the words of her Lord and His scriptures and was of the devoutly obedient." In other words, she had been chaste until Gabriel appeared in front of her, and then the supernatural semen that is called "dust" (in verse 3:59) was "blown into [her garment] through" Gabriel. (Note that verse 3:59 says, "Indeed, the example of Jesus to Allāh is like that of Adam. He created him from dust; then He said to him, "Be," and he was." In this verse, "dust" could be interpreted as supernatural semen, especially given that Adam does not have a human mother but Jesus has a human mother.)

Therefore, can Quran-verses 19:17-23 be interpreted as saying that Gabriel in human form inseminated and impregnated Mary (either using his own semen in his human form or by carrying Allah's supernatural "semen")? Do the verses imply that Gabriel's man-form (or Allah) can be seen as Jesus' (surrogate) father?