Assalaam u Alaikum, there was a book written by a Shia scholar known as Muhaddith Noori in which he try to prove that Quran is corrupted by the companions. Some people I met they say that the difference of Qira'at is due to the fact that Quran is corrupted.

What is academic stance on it?? What are their proofs??

Hello everyone,

As written in the title , who are they ?

A reply would be appreciated

I saw on Dr. van Putten's twitter that he had published a critical edition of some surahs of the Quran on Patreon. I live in Iran and therefore I have no way of accessing Patreon. Is there any other way to access it?

p.s. I am posting this here because I hope that he himself will see it.

Can somebody explain with examples? Thank you.

Hello everyone!

I am Imar Koutchoukali, currently a visiting scholar at the University of Tartu, which is also where, in 2023, I defended my PhD thesis on linguistic change in South Arabia during the late antique period (c. 550 to 850 AD). Basically I looked at happened with the language(s) attested in the South Arabian inscriptions between last stages of the pre-Islamic and early Islamic periods. Although I've semi-retired from academia (for now), I am working on turning my dissertation into a book, which will hopefully be published in the (near) future. In the past I've taught Classical Arabic, Sabaic and Ge'ez.

Please feel free to ask me any questions related to the history of South Arabia during the pre-Islamic period, especially about (but not limited to) its linguistic history, its relation to the rest of Arabia, South Arabia during the rise of Islam more broadly.

I'll be answering questions tomorrow from about 10 AM to about 6 PM (GMT+2). Feel free to post any questions before or after that time, although I can't guarantee that I will get to all questions!

It seems as if there are two variations of hadiths mentioned on the conquest of Constantinople:

“Constantinople will be conquered. What a wonderful leader will the leader be, and what a wonderful army will that army be! But the city will be conquered without fighting. It will be taken by a peaceful conquest.”

— (Reported in various sources including Sunan al-Nasa’i, Sunan al-Tirmidhi, and al-Hakim)

On the other hand, there is also:

“You will conquer Constantinople. What a wonderful leader will the leader be, and what a wonderful army will that army be!” — Sunan Abu Dawood (Hadith 4310), Musnad Ahmad (Hadith 14824)

How do scholars reconcile these two, seemingly different prophecies? I know that Muslims like to link the conquest of Constantinople (in the 15th century) to the second hadith, but what does one make of the first hadith?

I want to learn more about the concept of "prophecies" being written after the events purported. I saw Joshua Little's video on 21 reasons why the hadiths are considered unreliable (and in there he mentions the concept of vaticinium ex eventu), but I'd like to have some more resources on the topic.

Or, could anyone provide some quotes (from scholars; or even your own opinion) on what the general consensus is surrounding vaticinium ex eventu in the Quran?

Thank you very much!

In the Kufa numbering system of the Quran there are 114 chapters and 6236 verses. If you sum all the chapter numbers from 1 to 114 (i.e., 1 + 2 + 3 + ... + 114) you will get 6555.

If you add each chapter number to its total verses you get 114 different sums. Out of these exactly 57 are odd and 57 are even. The total of the odd sums is 6555 and the total of the even sums is 6236,creating a balanced structure.

However this pattern does not appear in other numbering systems. For example Hafs follows Kufa’s numbering so the pattern holds, but Warsh does not and the balance disappears.

This raises the question: Did the scholars in Kufa intentionally structure the numbering this way or is this just a coincidence? What do you think?

I know that skepticism has been contained over the years, although many doubts remain. But why was it considered unreliable? How long after were they written down?

I have read many studies on the liturgical language of Christian Arabs before Islam, and all of them (Sidney Griffith, Ernst Axel Knauf, among others) assert that it was Syriac. However, none provide direct evidence; rather, they primarily rely on an argument from silence (no evidence of Arabic, and since Syriac was dominant, they assume it was used for worship).

Is there any direct evidence that they worshipped in Syriac, whether among the Jafnids in the Levant or the Lakhmids in Iraq?

So basically I know ahruf are allowed and the prophet allowed them , but the qira'at were never mentioned , which really really bothers me , the Quran is super well preserved but qira'at make me feel like it isn't , no Hadith or verse in the Quran speaks about qira'at yet 10 of them exist , and they even sometimes have changes in words , I get that the meaning really doesn't change , but corruption refers to corruption of the text as in it's words and writings , the meaning being the same doesn't change the fact there are different words , so please I really really need help , I am a Muslim and I 100% believe in it , but I really need help , thanks

When going through many manuscripts from thr 7th century. It seems strange that the first half of Maryam is always missing. With evidence of parallels with the Surah possibly having a relationship with Kathisma tradition(though I still believe that the Quran literally believes Aaron was the brother of Mary),is it possible the surah was composed in Umayyad times?

https://www.islamic-awareness.org/quran/text/mss/

Hi,

As the title said, is there any academic Quranic studies about them? what were their religion? when it did happen, etc?

Or are they the same thing?

Assalaam u Alaikum, I was reading Tafseer e Madarik written by Allama Nusufi, a Hanafi scholar. In the first vol of it, under 2:26 that in Injeel, there is a Surah called Proverbs. But, if we say that Injeel is NT as commonly believed then there is no book in NT named Proverbs. It's in OT. So, if Injeel means OT then what does Torah mean??

Can you tell me what were the early scholars beliefs??

Hi all. Looking for articles or books on "a comparative study of early synagogue and mosque institutions", territory: Arabia and Middle East (synagogues in diaspora), time: pre-Islam and early Islam. Thanks to all who reply

For instance, the most interesting academic discussion about Quranic verses.

Do you know of any academic work, which deals with the topic of crosses on early Islamic coins?

Looking for evidence since I’ve seen many Sunnis say that liberalist muslims are kuffar because they reject sahih Hadiths.

So is it authentic and what is its translation? What is the context? It refers to Jizya, about which I have many questions, but I will leave them for another post. Many thanks to all who contribute!

I want to know about some fabricated hadith chains I heard about joshua little explaning that the hadiths are untrustworthy. Or any examples of this.

Is there evidence/indications/reasons to believe that a significant portion of the Islamic tradition of the early centuries has been lost over time?

Are there any studies on (references to) Christianity in pre-Islamic poetry? I know Lindstedt discusses this a bit (Muhammad and His Followers in Context, pp. 111-117). However, he doesn't seem to discuss for instance the two references to the lamps of monks in the qasida of Imru' al-Qais.

Is this below accurate?

Ibn a-Nadīm (929-996 CE) wrote in the introduction of his book al-Fihrast that the old language of Babylon (i.e. the Akkadian) was the language of the Nabataeans and that al-Kildaniyyūn (the Chaldeans) and al-Siryāniyyūn (the Assyrians) spoke dialects that were derived from it. He also wrote, quoting one of the Nabataean magicians who was living during his time, that the Nabataeans were people “with black complexion”, and that one of the contemporary Nabataean personalities, Ibn al-Waḥshiya al-Kildānī, had translated many Nabataean texts to the Arabic of his time.

The above quotations from Ibn Manṣūr and Ibn al-Nadīm are fairly clear. They indicate that the consensus among scholars of the Islamic Arab civilization was that the name Nabataean was used to describe generations of migrants from the Arabian Peninsula -not specific tribes, who had settled in Iraq and greater Syria, which included what we classify today as the Nabataeans, Aramaeans, and Akkadians. Accordingly, they believed that these early Nabataeans were Arabs in their roots who had migrated earlier from Southern Arabia, [...]

Clearly, the Nabataeans according to their definition were open in their tribal backgrounds and varying in their composition. Based on their linguistic definition, the word Nabat was similar to the word Arab, not a specific name like Nazār or Ma‘ad.

[...] Even though most Western Orientalists dismissed the classification by past Islamic Arab civilization scholars and assumed it was sort of confusion, I see it a very solid and analytical classification. It is well-known, names change and vary depending on who uses them and at which historical period.

Despite the usage of the name ‘Ajam by the Arabs to describe non Arab people, we are not aware of any group of people who call themselves Ajam. Since there is no historical evidence to prove that there was a group of people calling themselves “Aramaeans” as in the case of the Nabataeans and because the Aramaic people (even according to the Orientalists) were semi Bedouin people who settled later like the Nabataeans, I dont see why identifying them as Nabataeans by the Islamic Arab Historians was a wrong identification. [...] Likely, the many Aramaic inscriptions found in Iraq are themselves the inscriptions of what the scholars of the Islamic Arab civilization era called “the Nabataeans of Iraq”. This may explain the reason why al-Namārah inscription used Aramaic shapes for the letters Rā3, Kāf, and Dāl rather than the usual Nabataean shapes found in Syria.

S.D. Abdulhab, 2013. Inscriptional Evidence of Pre-Islamic Classical Arabic: Selected Readings in the Musnad, Nabataeans and Akkadian Inscriptions. Blautopf  Publishing, p. 10-11.

Currently discussing this with a Muslim girl (this is a genuine discussion and although she does have dogmatic views as she is a Muslim, there is no hostility between us I am just trying to present the data as it stands) and she has raised the question, I will quote, "This is too much of jumping to conclusions with no proof as we don't even know the groups of Christians and the sources available there with Arabian christians at the time to begin with"

I have brought up how the Quranic stories of Jesus parallel directly with earlier apocryphal writings, stories, and legends of Jesus that circulated after his death but she is asking for proof and evidence of this being in Arabia, she also wants to know what "heretical Christian sects" were present in Arabia as well. I personally have come to the conclusion that the Quran presents almost a sort of heresy of Christianity and was meant only for Arabs, pretty much a heretical Christian Arabian ethno-religion and that might sound crazy but it seems the Quran was meant to be a scripture for the Arabs so that they could too become "scripture-owners" aka ahl al-kitab. In a way the Quran is trying to allow the Arabs to enter into the scene and it attempts to identify alongside Christians and Jews, not necessarily create an entirely new religion, although that is what ends up happening.

Aside from my rant there, she also raises this question, "But you don't have a clear proof that it existed in pre islamic Arabia", "Where's the proof then of its existence amongst Arabs before the 6th century." Now I don't know why she specifies 6th century here, I think its perfectly fine to have it be there in the 6th century itself given that this is still pre-Islamic.

Finally she says also, "It's not a scripture that is well known but rather an additional extra thing that also has it's beginning, and yet given the fact that it's been written way later after Islam it probably was influenced by quran and not vice versa". So it appears that she believes instead, the Quran influenced these Jesus stories (I don't know how you arrive at this conclusion given it goes back to the 2nd-3rd centuries AD) and she also believes that this was a sort of "unknown story" that was not really relevant and was an "additional extra thing that also had its beginning", I don't know fully what that is meant to mean but it seems to me like she has concluded that it is the Quran that has influenced these Jesus stories instead of the Quran being the one influenced.

She also adds, "Well provide proofs for all of these claims, the sects of Christians at the time, the attestation to a belief that holds for example the infant Jesus speaking from the cradle to defend his mother that came before the islamic era What the Christians of the time considered to be heretic or not and why would such a gospel be that much spread and public to the tribes of Arabia at the time in medinah n mecca"

Any and all data, information, quotes, etc is greatly appreciated and thank you in advance

Have there ever been any studies done on the possible origins of the Hadith and tafsir traditions which state that Q 33:69 refers to an episode in which Moses was bathing himself, a stone ran away with his clothing and he was seen naked by the Israelites which cleared him of a false charge that they had against him?

I understand that many modern commentators like Gabriel Reynolds believe that this particular verse refers to the episode in Numbers 12 when Aaron and Miriam complained against Moses’ Cushite wife (see Reynolds, The Quran and the Bible, pp. 649 – 650), but I am very curious to see if there have been academic studies done upon some of the traditions such as Sahih Bukhari 1.5.277 and 4.55.616 and Sahih Muslim.3.0669 and 30.5850 and Tafsir Al-Jalalayn (Which Reynolds refers to in his commentary) which relate this story of Moses being exposed.

I mean, the rock detail sounds similar to earlier Jewish traditions about the rock which followed the Israelites through the wilderness where Moses and God provided water to them from but that’s the only part of these stories that sound familiar to me.

How confident are we on the preservation of sahih al bukhari (Im talking about the text bukhari wrote down not if they trace back to the prophet)

Did bukhari himself claim that he filtered out 600000 hadith and that he saw the prophet and sahaba im a dream or are these later traditions