Been wondering about this for a while. Do we have any indication from the hadith or commentaries What exactly these certain words were that were spoken to Adam and Eve

I read from a comment by chonkshonk, that some scholars, including Nicolai Sinai, Dye, and Shoemaker, and Tesei, consider Q-9:29 a post-Muhammadian interpolation. I am extremely curious to know the reasons behind this position.

If I understand correctly, the verse in question would presuppose an atmosphere of direct confrontation with the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) and therefore would fit better with the early period of conquests rather than the preaching of the Prophet. It is also true that Shoemaker believes that Muhammad was present at the conquest of Palestine and therefore he himself may have interpolated this verse.

What do you think? What is currently known? Can you give me a summary of the reasons that push these authors to consider it a post-Muhammadian interpolation? Thank you very much

chonkshonk's comment from which I got this notion: https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicQuran/comments/1g72tga/comment/lsqd8ip/

Welcome to this week's open discussion thread!

The Weekly Open Discussion Thread allows users to have a broader range of conversations compared to what is normally allowed on other posts. The current style is to only enforce Rules 1 and 6. Therefore, there is not a strict need for referencing and more theologically-centered discussions can be had here. In addition, you may ask any questions as you normally might want to otherwise.

Feel free to discuss your perspectives or beliefs on religious or philosophical matters, but do not preach to anyone in this space. Preaching and proselytizing will be removed.

Enjoy!

Quoting from Samuel zimmers paper "The Qurʾānic terminology “seal of the prophets” goes back to Manichaeism, but the fuller Qurʾānic formulation in sūra 33:40: “. . . Muḥammad . . . is the apostle of God and the seal of the prophets” (Muḥammadun . . . rasūlal-lāhi wa khātaman-nabiyyīn, ولَ سُ رَ ين ِيّ النَّب َ َ و َخاتَم ِစَّ ( apparently goes back to Samaritanism, which might somehow be correlated with the patristic trope of Gnosticism’s origins in Samaria. Although no Manichaean text preserves the fuller form, for all we know it may have been included in some lost Manichaean text)" More importantly:-

""What we can know is that we read in the pre-Islamic Samaritan text Memar Marqah 5,3: “By your life, O apostle of God (דאלה שליחה(, remain with us a little longer. By your life, O seal of the prophets (נבײה מחתם(, stay with us a little longer.”53 The origin of sūra 33:40’s two titles in Samaritanism has been surprisingly previously overlooked in previous literature, at least as far as I have been able to determine.""

I have read that the seal of prophets terminology in manichaeism might as well have been incorporated post islam and taken from it due to its late manuscripts and proximity to islamic culture.

I have not read anything about the memar marqah using this terminology and would like to have this confirmed . I am also interested in the dating of the memar marqah manuscripts and it's possibility of being redacted post islam

I have collected several sources together to make it easier to cite. The citations are only from ("Camels and Arabian balıya and other forms of sacrifice: a review of archaeological and literary evidence". Geoffrey King), because it is not freely available. The other sources can be downloaded freely from the links:

https://hal.science/hal-04342680v1/document

https://archaeopresspublishing.com/ojs/index.php/PSAS/article/download/615/991/10879

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348000340_Depicting_the_camel_representations_of_the_dromedary_in_the_Black_Desert_rock_art_of_Jordan

https://www.academia.edu/27412314/The_nabataean_camel_burial_inscription_from_wadi_ram_Jordan_Based_on_a_drawing_from_the_archive_of_professor_John_strugnell_ ("The nabataean camel burial inscription from wadi ram / Jordan : (Based on a drawing from the archive of professor John strugnell", Hani Hayajneh)

The Arabic term balıya describes the sacrifice of an animal for a deceased individual to use in the afterlife as it was conceived in the pre-Islamic period in Arabia. As a result of the nature of the balıya immolation, in its archaeological survival the skeleton that remains from balıya animal sacrifices tends to be found complete rather than disarticulated. Skeletal remains of a number of balıya immolations have been excavated in Arabia and its neighbours in sufficiently intact condition to be readily recognizable archaeologically, so that the manner of the immolation can be precisely interpreted in a number of well-researched cases. The human burials of which the balıya forms an element are often marked by tokens of prestige and indications of rank, especially in the form of interred weapons (Hell 1960; Pellat 1971). In the completeness of their survival, balıya animal skeletons differ from the remains of other forms of immolation,generally termed in Arabic as dhibh in pre- Islamic and Islamic contexts (Bousquet 1965: 213–214)1. The equivalent of the Islamic Arabic dhibh in Hebrewis the korban, the ritual animal slaughter that was performed before the destruction of the Temple in 70CEby the Romans. In the Syrian Christian tradition, the Syriac term used to describe dhibh is "qurbano" 2. Related forms of animal sacrifice are attested in pre-Islamic south Arabia in musnad inscriptions from temples and altars but these too seem distinct from the balıya. As far as I am aware, there appears to be no direct reference to the balıya in the published corpus of pre-Islamic inscriptions from south Arabia, although this point deserves further research. Where musnad inscriptions deal with sacrifice or dedication to a deity, they were not balıyas but dhibh in character and the animals offered tended to be sheep or bulls. Camels do not seem to be mentioned in such contexts. This silence of the epigraphic evidence is striking, as pre-Islamic south Arabian inscriptions tend to be extremely exact regarding sacrificial offerings, recording lists of immolated domesticated and game animals, sometimes in large numbers. The dedication of incense in its various and precise categories of value and of gold is also specified. By contrast, the balıya of camels and other animals does not seem to generate epigraphic record in southern Arabia before Islam, yet archaeological evidence from south Arabia shows that it was widespread. These dhibh-type sacrifices in their varying forms generally involved the consumption of the slaughtered animal and its consequent disarticulation and the scattering of the bones. This distinguishes these types of sacrifice from the balıya where the entire skeleton is often recovered more or less intact in an archaeological context. It is hardly surprising that excavated balıyas in the Arabian Peninsula should have largely involved camel immolation but there is evidence that a balıya could also involve other animals that were considered prestigious, including cattle, horses and donkeys. The selection of the animal involved in balıya sacrifice was based on its relative prestige and utility in the world of the living, a world that was reflected in the pre-Islamic Arabian concept of the afterlife. Without archaeological evidence, we would know very little in detail of the manner of the Arabian balıya of the jahilıya and yet it was both widespread and sometimes very extravagant, reflecting the wealth and the prestige of the interred. With the coming of Islam to Arabia, the tradition of the balıya immolation was gradually abandoned and as a result, descriptions in the literary sources of the Islamic period of the manner of its practice are limited and even misleading. It is only through archaeological excavations in recent years that the Arabian balıya has come to be understood in detail....

...Did similar methods of ritual sacrifice also prevail in the Hijaz? Or was there a different method of slaughter there, reflected in the method used by the Prophets, and described in a hadıth recorded by the third ⁄ ninth-century traditionist, al-Bukharı? ‘It was related that Ibn Umar [the son of the second caliph, Umar b. al-Khattab] passed a man who made his sacrificial camel sit down in order to slaughter it. Ibn Umar said ‘‘Slaughter it while it is standing with one leg tied up according to the tradition of Muhammad’’‘. (al-Bukharı 1999: 422, v. 810). This hadith indicates a specific method of slaughter that was to be avoided in Islam and one that was acceptable. It is hard to resist the suspicion that the type of slaughter recorded in the hadıth of Ibn cUmar, may have been intended to distance Islam from jahilıya sacrificial rituals and methods with respect to the camel. Alternatively, the Prophet’s (S) view recorded by Ibn Umar may reflect a specifically Makkan or Madınan tradition of camel slaughter. Either way, it became the basis of the Islamic form of the dhibh, including the immolation of hajj. Without further archaeological research in western and central Arabia, the nature of the tradition of animal sacrifice there in pre-Islamic times and the early Islamic period cannot be properly assessed. Furthermore, without more material information from other parts of Arabia on other traditions of camel sacrifice, we cannot assume that what we know archaeologically from southern and eastern Arabia coincided with practice in the rest of the peninsula. The circumstances of Arabia before Islam were hardly conducive to a universal form of camel sacrifice or a uniform social pattern of any type. ..."

https://preview.redd.it/h73c294olvzd1.jpg?width=978&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=26868db2f3ebc5a4aed60b14bfa7439491957042

https://preview.redd.it/4mql3obplvzd1.jpg?width=1060&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=595dd377b54df261050c72a38950ebf7869fb80d

50%, less, or more … any educated guesses . Or any studies or surveys done on this.

Outside the islamic tradition.

I'm confused about why some words in the Quran, like مالك in 1:4 or الصراط in 1:7, don't have the letter aleph baked into the word. Rather, there is a diacritical mark depicting the aleph over the letter that is pronounced before the aleph.

https://preview.redd.it/l0hu4xscaszd1.png?width=168&format=png&auto=webp&s=5da5ea1b67e34d517cec320d3dcf52cc1e103d27

It's also making me think about the word ملك in 1:4. مالك literally means "owner". But ملك means "king". Does it make sense that maybe these words were indeed pronounced the way they look, and the superscript aleph became a later traditional?

Does this prophecy exist? I can't find it anywhere on the internet.

Walid shoebat claims that 666 in greek appears to look like Bismillah when rotated , can anyone assess the validity of this claim

https://www.bible-scribe.com/commentary/walid-shoebat-666-number-of-the-beast.php

Surat al Burooj does not directly mention Najran, however, Wahb b. Munabbih, author of Kitab al Tijjan and Ibn Ishaq assume that the surah refers to Najrani martyrs. Is it true in your opinion or not? The only thing that seems to be pointing for it, is mention of the ukhdood. I ma not sure since when the site of Al Ukhdood bears that name, the place was called Najran since the at least sabean kingdom era, and it was an oases of Zirbin, lying in a culturally madhhabic area, between Minean and Sabean cultural influence and with some North Arabian influence. We do not know if Yosef used trenches in warfare, but it is an almost stereotypical tactic of the Sassanians.

I will be interviewing Dr. Christian Sahner of Oxford's New College on early Christian-Muslim relations on Friday, Nov. 15. What questions do you have for Dr. Sahner? I'll be sending him questions Tu, Nov. 12.
I'd advise either skimming his Academia page, visiting his book page, or even seeing what he's interested in on Twitter.

I was interested in talking to him because of his books Conversion to Islam in the Premodern Age, & Christian Martyrs under Islam, and his article "Swimming against the Current: Muslim Conversion to Christianity in the Early Islamic Period".

Hello everyone, recently I was watching Bart Ehrman's podcast "misquoting Jesus" the episode titled "Does Acts Portray Paul the Way Paul Portrays Paul?"

And Bart points out that in the book of acts, we see Luke presenting Paul and Peter as preaching the same message, with exact same words almost. Ehrman says it is because Luke is the one who is telling the story. I guess Ehrman was implying this is one of the indications that at least this part of the book is not historical? This made me realize also in the Quranic prophet stories prophets way of speaking is always the same. Of course apologists will say it is because they are geniune prophets of God with the same message. But is there any scholar who argued against historicity of Quranic prophet stories based on the way they look so similiar to Muhammad's preaching?

This might sound blasphemous, but it's not intended to be. My question is: can we hypothesize that maybe Muhammad came up with the notion of seven Ahruf because he forgot the Quran and when he was faced with questions from his companions about which reading is valid, he came up with this to avoid giving wrong answers and potentially one of the scribes confronting him later?

My hypothesis is that:

1. It began with Abdullah Ibn Abi Al-Sarh who was a scribe that tested Muhammad by writing something slightly different and when he read it back to him, Muhammad affirmed it and then Abdullah came to the conclusion that Muhammad was a false prophet and left Islam. Abd Allah ibn Sa'd - Wikipedia
2. After that incident it's likely that Muhammad figured out he can't get away with this, therefore when he was later faced with questions about which Quranic recitation was correct, he wouldn't affirm one over the other, so he came up with seven Ahruf Sahih al-Bukhari 5041 and there is another Hadith with similar story where two companions argue over which recitation is correct and it ends up in Muhammad saying the Quran was revealed in "seven Ahruf".
3. I'm not aware of any Hadith where the prophet teaches his companions how to read different Ahruf, or any Hadith where Muhammad reads by two or more variant readings, therefore is it acceptable to conclude that he came up with Ahruf to cover up for forgetting verses?

Is this a valid hypothesis or am I missing some important Hadith or traditions that suggest otherwise?

What were the criteria used to exclude or reject shawādhdh readings, and were there any objections at the time of creation of those criteria?

And a somewhat relevant question which I've been digging a while for: is there any shawādhdh readings that have authentic Isnad to the prophet himself? I heard one time that there was but can't seem to find any source to substantiate that claim. Would love any input on this, and if there was, what criteria was used to reject those readings?

I plan to read "The Historians' Quran" edited by Ali-Moezzi and Dye. I wanted to ask you, since we are in a field that has been very active lately, if it was still valid overall and what were, in your opinion, the aspects on which research has made significant progress, such as to make some of the opinions expressed in the book obsolete or partial.

I know that the only way to do valid research is to keep up with the times and document oneself daily on the various published articles, but this is something that I am unable to do in this period. Is it a good start, in your opinion, to read this book and then integrate it with the articles of scholars published subsequently?

I plan to read "The Historians' Quran" edited by Ali-Moezzi and Dye. I wanted to ask you, since we are in a field that has been very active lately, if it was still valid overall and what were, in your opinion, the aspects on which research has made significant progress, such as to make some of the opinions expressed in the book obsolete or partial.

I know that the only way to do valid research is to keep up with the times and document oneself daily on the various published articles, but this is something that I am unable to do in this period. Is it a good start, in your opinion, to read this book and then integrate it with the articles of scholars published subsequently?

I'm interested if Muslims took the position of life begins at conception or whether they had a broader view. A lot of Muslims now have taken a right wing view on this and it seems they take the Christian position but in fiqh, it's a lot more varied. Are there any discussions by philosophers/scholars on when life begins? And have any spoken about abortion.

Has anyone since Fazlur Rahman (Major Themes of the Qur'an) attempted to write a publication in which they lay out the comprehensive world view of the Qur'anic author?

What’s the difference between a hadith being sahih and sahih in chain? I found a few examples of this classification in abi dawud.

https://sunnah.com/abudawud:3991

https://sunnah.com/abudawud:4002

Introduction:
The Zuhayr Inscription is one of the most important inscriptions from the early Islamic period. It mentions the death of the second caliph, Umar, and demonstrates that the use of dots was employed earlier than traditionally believed^(1). Robert M. Kerr, however, has recently raised doubts about the authenticity of this inscription^(2). He claims that while parts of the inscription are authentic, others have been altered. He specifically argues that the section stating "in the year four and twenty" is a later addition. This, he asserts, would make it impossible to confidently identify the Umar mentioned as the second caliph. In this article, I will explain why Kerr's arguments against the authenticity of the second part of the inscription do not provide sufficient grounds to consider the Zuhayr Inscription a partial forgery.

His Arguments:
Kerr dedicates almost half of his article to discussing Ghabban and Hoyland's comments on the inscription's implications. This section is omitted here, however, as the historical and linguistic implications of the inscription are not the focus of this article. Kerr then begins his analysis:

"On closer inspection, it is noticeable that the writing style is not uniform. The Basmalah appears in a smaller, more vertical style than the text that begins on line two, fitting into the space available here, so to speak. Experience shows that this is more likely to be found at the end than at the beginning of such an inscription... One Arabic inscription is strikingly strange, which begins with both the Basmalah and the independent personal pronoun singularis of the first person – here two epigraphic genres seem to be mixed. Early Arabic inscriptions can begin with a Basmalah (usually the short form), but are then continued not in the first person, but in the third. In contrast, inscriptions that begin with the pronoun of the first person do not have an (introductory) Basmalah."

For the purpose of this analysis, I will accept this argument, although recent discoveries of inscriptions challenge both assumptions^(3). If this would be true, it would only mean (as Kerr himself acknowledges) that the Basmalah is a later addition, not the part of the inscription that he is attempting to prove as a forgery. As he writes:

"Here we see two different introductory formulas, of which only one can be original. Logically, the first must have been inserted secondarily, which also agrees with the paleographic findings."

"The writing of the last two words of the inscription سنة أربع وعشرین  /sanat arbaʿ wa-ʿišrīn/ is again clearly vertical, which is easily apparent when comparing the ع /ʿ/ of عمر /umar/ with that of عشرین /ʿišrīn/ and when comparing the ر /r/ in these two lexemes; cf. also و /w/ in توفی /tuwuffiya/ and the conjunction in the third line. Here, two very different writing styles are unmistakably represented throughout."

The problem with this argument is that Kerr arbitrarily selects which parts of the inscription to classify as having a different style. One could also consider everything after the phrase "anā zuhayr katabtu" to be a later addition, because it appears more vertical than the phrase "anā zuhayr katabtu."

"One might point out that the use of tāʿ marbūṭah in سنة (i.e. سنة) is somewhat suspect, cf. ابنت (i.e. إبنة) with a tā mamdūdah in the second Zuhayr inscription (see above Fig. 2), but since it is occasionally attested in early Arabic, this is not necessarily a diagnostic anachronism."

This statement is inaccurate. There is nothing inherently suspicious about the use of tāʿ marbūṭah in an early Arabic inscription, and even the combination of tāʿ marbūṭah in سنة  and tāʿ mamdūdah in ابنت  within the same inscription is found in inscriptions from the same time period^(4).

"We have already expressed our suspicion that the first date is the original one based on paleographic and epigraphic identification features. Additionally, it must be noted that both dates are attested epigraphically elsewhere, just not together in one graffiti."

Kerr then cites several examples from ancient North Arabian inscriptions, which are irrelevant to this case since the Zuhayr Inscription is not written in ancient North Arabian. If we examine Arabic inscriptions from the same period as the Zuhayr Inscription, we find that it was not uncommon to state the approximate time of an event and then specify the exact year^(5).

"In addition, the name ʿUmar /ʿmr/ is very common in Old Arabic... In the case of ʿmr, the derivation from Arabic عمر  (“to live long, to prosper”) must be regarded as a folk etymology, since this root can be a theophoric element in Old North Arabic."

Kerr references an article by María del Carmen Hidalgo-Chacón Díez titled “Die theophoren Personennamen in den dadanischen Inschriften”  (p. 229). However, on the referenced page, she does not discuss the name ʿUmar. She discusses the name ʿMR-LH, and there is no suggestion that it is related to ʿUmar. Only a suggestion, that the first part of the name may come from the Nabataean ʿmr , for which she contrary to Kerr’s assertion gives the meaning “keep alive, make prosper”^(6).

There is no basis for thinking that 'Umar' was a common name before Islam. However, if it were true, it would in fact weaken Kerr's own hypothesis that the dating part is a later addition. If there had been many individuals named 'Umar,' it seems extremely improbable that the writer would attempt to date his inscription solely by referring to the death of an 'Umar' without any patronym. The lack of a specific identifier of this ʿUmar, given Kerr's hypothesis that there many other persons named ʿUmar, strongly suggests that there originally was a specified date given that at the end of the inscription.

Arguments for Complete Authenticity:
After demonstrating that Kerr’s arguments do not provide a solid basis for doubting the authenticity of the Zuhayr Inscription, I will now present a detailed case for its complete authenticity:

The date given in the inscription for ʿUmar's death, 24 A.H., is not consistent with being a late addition, as later sources consistently report 23 A.H. as the year of ʿUmar’s death, with only a few early sources citing 24 A.H. Moreover, the patina, as Kerr himself acknowledges, "does not seem to be of recent date." Kerr suggests that the date could be an early addition made by a pilgrim, but this seems unlikely. If the date were a later addition, we would expect to see a shift in style, which is not evident in the inscription. Furthermore, Kerr has not demonstrated such a shift.

Kerr’s Conclusion and Ad Hominem Remarks:
Kerr concludes his paper with the following statement:
"In consideration of the objections raised here, only the most naive students of the highly learned Pangloss can now assume its authenticity... The aforementioned ʿUmar, however, has neither patronymic nor title, and thus this wretched man, like his final resting place, seems condemned to eternal obscurity!"

These ad hominem attacks weaken his paper even further. As we have seen, Kerr's arguments are not well-founded, and such personal attacks undermine the professionalism of the work. Academic writing should remain focused on evidence and argumentation, not personal attacks, especially when challenging the consensus on the authenticity of a renowned inscription.

Conclusion:
In this article, I have demonstrated that Kerr’s arguments against the complete authenticity of the Zuhayr Inscription do not rest on solid ground. I have also provided reasons supporting its complete authenticity. Furthermore, I have shown that Kerr’s use of ad hominem attacks diminishes the professionalism of his paper. The conclusion is clear: the claim that the Zuhayr Inscription is a partial forgery is unfounded. It is completely authentic and should be considered in discussions of early Islamic history.

1: A. I. Ghabban, "Naqsh Zuhayr: Aqdam Naqsh Islāmī", Arabia, 2003, Volume I, pp. 293-342.
2: Robert Martin Kerr "„Forging Ahead into the Islamic Past“ – Einige Bemerkungen zur Inschrift von Zuhayr", 2020
3: Ahmad Al-Jallad and Hythem Sidky "Al-Jallad and Sidky. 2024. A Paleo-Arabic Inscription of a Companion of Muhammad?" this inscription for example reads "In your name, our Lord I am Ḥanẓalah..." and the Phrase "In your name, our Lord" there is also in what he calls a "more vertical style".
4: H. M. El-Hawary, "The Second Oldest Islamic Monument Known Dated AH 71 (AD 691) From The Time Of The Omayyad Calif ‘Abd el-Malik Ibn Marwan", Journal Of The Royal Asiatic Society, 1932, p. 289.
5: Nāṣir b. Alī Al-Hārithī, "Naqsh Kitābī Nadar Yuʾarrikhu ʿImarah Al-Khalifah Al-Umawī ʿAbd Al-Malik B. Marwān Lil-Masjid Al-Ḥarām ʿĀm 78 AH", ʿĀlam Al-Makhṭūṭāt Wa Al-Nawādir, 2007, Volume 12, No. 2, pp. 533-543.
6: M. del Carmen Hidalgo-Chacón Dáez, Die theophoren Personennamen in den dadanischen Inschriften, Diss. Dphil, Marburg, 2009, pp. 229-230

How do apologists explain umara involvement in revelation as mentioned here https://faithalone.net/topical-articles/articles/islam/umars-verses.html

If this is a bad place to ask such questions could anyone point me towards an apologetic sub