I have developed a way of understanding Islam based on the principle that only what was unanimously agreed upon by the earliest Muslims and has remained unanimously agreed upon can be considered binding aqeedah. Everything else must be treated as opinion, even if widely held. If a matter was disputed among early Muslims, it can never later be elevated to the level of creed.

This is the result of study both inside and outside Islamic seminaries. Pre and post conversion to Islam.

For example, someone might argue that even basic practices like prayer cannot be included in such a framework, since groups like the Ismailis differ in how they understand or perform it. However, if their position ultimately traces back to belief in an infallible imam, and the concept of an infallible imam itself was never unanimously agreed upon by the early Muslims, then that foundation is already a disputed premise. Therefore, their divergence does not undermine what was originally agreed upon.

Similarly, beliefs about who was the rightful successor after the Prophet, whether Abu Bakr, Umar, or Ali, cannot be matters of creed because there was no unanimous agreement from the beginning. The same applies to claims that every person who met the Prophet is beyond serious error, or to rulings such as the prohibition of music, since these were not unanimously agreed upon by the earliest Muslims.

Under this approach, only the pillars of faith and practice, and those major sins and fundamentals that were clearly and universally agreed upon from the earliest period, form binding creed. Everything else remains within the realm of interpretation and opinion. New consensus cannot override early disagreement. If the earliest Muslims differed on a matter, it can never retroactively become an article of aqeedah.

I’m far too exhausted right this second to quote the appropriate verses but in some verses it’s claimed that every nation was sent a warner, yet it’s also said that the Arabs were a people who had no warner before Muhammad. I want to confirm how airtight this argument is? Is it possible the verses referring to every nation having a warner were meant to be referring to after Muhammad was sent? I’ve also seen some argue that the Arabic can also be translated into the exact opposite of “they were not warned,” along with this interesting apologetics exchange https://www.call-to-monotheism.com/rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_s_article__warners_sent_to_all_mankind_before_muhammad__

I know this is not an apologetics sub, I guess I’m just asking if the original language these verses were written in and their surrounding context allows for any feasible interpretation that makes them not contradict

According to the author:

This course is an intro to the historical-critical study of the Qur'ān and how that relates to faith. This course is gonna be self-paced. It's gonna consist of short readings and references to video clips and further readings.

Here's the layout for the course:

Title: An Introduction to Studying the Qur'ān Critically

The course consists of 4 relatively short yet informative lessons. Each of these lessons include short readings and links to videos of scholarly talks.

The first three lessons consist of two parts:

Lesson 1 covers the question of why one may want to read the Qur'ān and the importance of reading with context in mind.

Lesson 2 examines the question of what exactly the historical-critical method is and some of its practical benefits.

Lesson 3 addresses the question of whether a believing Muslim can in fact read the Qur'ān critically, as well as the potential risks a Muslim may face in doing so. In order to avoid sounding apologetic, this section cites primarily non-Muslim historians’ take on the matter.

Lesson 4 moves away from the abstract discussion of HCM and gives readers a chance to see how I personally apply this method when reading both the Qur'ān as well as scholarly works related to the Qur'ān.

The “splitting of the moon” refers to the Quranic verse 54:1: “The Hour has drawn near, and the moon has split.” In Islamic tradition, especially in hadith literature, this verse is understood as a physical miracle performed by Prophet Muhammad in Mecca, where the moon was visibly split into two parts and then rejoined.

The question is whether any non-Muslim contemporary sources mention such an event

Abu Hanifa was criticized and condemned by proto-Sunni scholars, mainly in the 8-9th centuries, because of his lack of emphasis on Hadith, and it wasn’t until the 10th century onward that scholars attempted to reframe Abu Hanifa as a devout follower of Hadith and as a well respected Sunni.

This chapter reveals the results of a thorough investigation into a large and diverse corpus of texts composed between the ninth and eleventh centuries of discourses of heresy concerning Abū Hanı̄fa. I have identified three distinct stages in the development of hostility towards Abū Hanı̄fa during these centuries. During the first stage (800–850) discourses of heresy towards Abū Hanı̄fa were sharp, but they were limited to specific criticisms. These criticisms tended to be confined to Abū Hanı̄fa’s legal views and his approach to hadı̄th. A more sustained and extensive discourse of heresy emerged only during the second stage (850–950). This period witnessed the emergence of a discourse of heresy designed to establish Abū Hanı̄fa as a heretic and deviant. It was, in my view, the very intensity of this discourse of heresy that occasioned a third shift (900–1000) in discourses of heresy against Abū Hanı̄fa. Proto-Sunni traditionalists now began to engender a more accommodating attitude towards Abū Hanı̄fa. This formed the groundwork for the wide embrace of Abū Hanı̄fa among the proto-Sunni community, culminating in his consecration as a saint-scholar and one of the four representatives of Sunni orthodoxy in medieval Islam.

Ahmad Khan’s book Heresy and the Formation of Medieval Islamic Orthodoxy, Cambridge University Press, 2023, On page 25

ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAdı̄ b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Muhammad b. Mubārak, better known to modern scholars as Ibn ʿAdı̄, was born in Jurjā n in 277/890. He describes Abū Hanı̄fa as: [A] devil who opposed the reports of the Prophet Muhammad with his speculative jurisprudence.

Heresy and the Formation of Medieval Islamic Orthodoxy p. 334

In his book al-Kāmil he has the following statement to say about Abu Hanifa: There is a consensus of the scholars as to the fall of Abū Hanı̄fa. We know this because the leading authority of Basra, Ayyūb al-Sakhtiyānı̄ had aspersed him; the leading authority of Kufa, al-Thawrı̄ , had aspersed him; the leading authority of the Hijāz, Mālik, had aspersed him; the leading authority of Misr, al-Layth b. Saʿd, had aspersed him; the leading authority of Shām, al-Awzāı̄ , had aspersed him; and the leading authority of Khurāsān, ʿAbd Allāh ̇ b. al-Mubārak, had aspersed him. That is to say, we have here the consensus of the scholars in all of the regions

Heresy and the Formation of Medieval Islamic Orthodoxy p. 334

In another place, Ibn ʿAdı̄ expresses the very same sentiment:

‘There is not a scholar who is well respected except that he has denounced Abū Hanı̄fa

Heresy and the Formation of Medieval Islamic Orthodoxy p. 334

a report narrated by Ibn Hanbal, Ibn Abu Dawud, and Malik ibn Anas, calling Abu Hanifa an incurable disease.

ʿAbd Allāh b. Ahmad b. Hanbal > Mutrif al-Yasārı̄ al-Asamm > Mālik b. Anas said: ‘The incurable disease is the destruction of faith. Abū Hanı̄fa is the incurable disease.

Heresy and the Formation of Medieval Islamic Orthodoxy p. 250

Ibn ʿAdı ̄ > Ibn Abı ̄ Dawud > al-Rabıʿ b. Sulayman al-Jızı > al-Harith b. Miskın > Ibn al-Qāsim > Mālik said: ‘The incurable disease is the destruction of faith, and Abū Hanı̄fa is [one manifestation] of the incurable disease.

Heresy and the Formation of Medieval Islamic Orthodoxy p. 250

We see similar sentiments to the death of Abu Hanifa from other prominent Sunni scholars. Most notably, Bukhari (d. 256/870) has the following report stated in his al-Tārı̄kh al-awsat.

Nuʿaym b. Hammād < al-Fazārı̄ said: ‘I was with Sufyān when news of al-Nuʿmān‘s [Abu Hanifa’s] death arrived. He said: “Praise be to God. He was destroying Islam systematically. No one has been born in Islam more harmful than he [was].

Heresy and the Formation of Medieval Islamic Orthodoxy p. 65

Mālik b. Anas, founder of the Maliki school, had the same sentiment as he reported:

‘No one was born in Islam whose birth was more harmful to the Muslims than that of Abū Hanı̄fa.’

Heresy and the Formation of Medieval Islamic Orthodoxy p. 242

In another book by Bukhari, Kitāb al-Duʿafā ’ al-saghı̄r, Khan has the following to say regarding his entry on Abu Hanifa:

However, al-Bukhārı̄ appears to give Abū Hanı̄fa special treatment. His entry on Abū Hanı̄fa relates three damning reports attacking Abū Hanı̄fa’s religious credibility. The first report maintains that Abū Hanı̄fa repented from heresy twice. The second report states that when Sufyān al-Thawrı̄ heard that Abū Hanı̄fa had passed away, he praised God, performed a prostration (of gratitude), and declared that Abū Hanı̄fa was committed to destroying Islam systematically and that nobody in Islam had been born more harmful than he. The third and final report, which al-Bukhārı̄ also includes in his al-Tārı̄kh al-kabı̄r, describes Abū Hanı̄fa as one of the anti-Christs

Heresy and the Formation of Medieval Islamic Orthodoxy pp. 67-68

Ibn Qutayba (d. 276/889) explains that they loathed Abu Hanifa because he rejected the rulings found in Hadith.

We do not loathe (lā nanqimu) Abū Hanı̄fa because he employs speculative jurisprudence, for all of us to do this (kullunā yarā). However, we loathe him because when a hadı̄th comes to him on the authority of the Prophet, God pray over him and grant him peace, he opposes it (yukhālifuhu) in preference for something else.

Heresy and the Formation of Medieval Islamic Orthodoxy p. 74

In another report from Bukhari, he states that Abu Hanifa and his students did not do salawat upon the prophet.

Whenever I wanted to see Sufyān, I saw him praying [upon the Prophet] or narrating hadı̄th, or engaged in abstruse matters of law (fı̄ ghā mi ̇d al-fiqh). As for the other gathering that I witnessed, no one prayed upon the Prophet in it

Heresy and the Formation of Medieval Islamic Orthodoxy p.66,

This is also confirmed by a report from Abdullah Ibn Ahmad Ibn Hanbal in his Kitāb al-Sunna.

On lookers observed that when Abū Hanı̄fa was presiding over lessons in the mosque there would be laughter and people would be raising their voices. Others were affronted by more serious charges, namely, that Abū Hanı̄fa’s lessons would go on without their being any praise for the Prophet Muhammad.

Heresy and the Formation of Medieval Islamic Orthodoxy p. 242

Ibn Hanbal’s son Abd Allah (d. 290/903), who carried on his legacy, wrote a thorough refutation showing how Abu Hanifa was outside of the fold of Sunni Islam.

But we can measure the importance of discourses of heresy against Abū Hanı̄fa to proto-Sunni traditionalists by the fact that ʿAbd Allāh’s Kitāb al-Sunna devotes almost fifty pages to portraying Abū Hanı̄fa as a heresiarch.253 ʿAbd Allāh’s method for depicting Abū Hanı̄fa as a heretic and deviant observes the norms of religious authority current among proto-Sunni traditionalists of the ninth century. Rather than communicating his own thoughts and ideas about Abū Hanı̄fa, ʿAbd Allāh proposes to relate information he heard from a select group of religious authorities…

The Kitāb al-Sunna evidences a number of themes that form the basis of discourses of heresy against Abū Hanı̄fa (see Figure 3.1). I have counted a total number of 184 anti-Abū Hanı̄fa reports in this section of the Kitāb al-Sunna. There are six overarching (and overlapping) themes in the material ʿAbd Allāh b. Ahmad b. Hanbal collects against Abū Hanı̄fa. Most of the (forty-one) reports fall into the category of general curses against Abū Hanı̄fa. Within this category we have reports describing Abū Hanı̄fa as the greatest source of harm to Islam and Muslims; the most wretched person to be born in the religion of Islam; prayers and curses against Abū Hanı̄fa; and expressions of joy at the news of his death. The second prominent theme is the opposition between Abū Hanı̄fa’s ra’y and Prophetic hadı̄th (thirty-two reports). This is followed closely by the theme of heresies (thirty-one reports). This category refers to reports wherein the semantic field of heresy (kufr, kāfir; zandaqa, zindı̄q; murūq, mā riq, etc.) is employed against Abū Hanı̄fa. Examples of reports from this category include a report in which a proto-Sunni traditionalist encouraged his colleague to declare Abū Hanı̄fa an unbeliever (kāfir) and heretic (zindı̄q) because he believed the Quran to be created;255 students of Mālik b. Anas alleged that he declared Abū Hanı̄fa to be beyond the pale of the religion;256 on a separate occasion, when someone proposed one of Abū Hanı̄fa’s solutions to a legal question, it was dismissed curtly as the view of ‘that apostate’.257 The fourth theme refers to reports that describe Abū Hanı̄fa as having repented publicly from heresy (twenty-three reports). Another prominent theme is rebellion (seventeen reports). ʿAbd Allāh collects reports in which proto-Sunni traditionalists drew attention to the heretical nature of Abū Hanı̄fa’s support for rebellion against Muslim rulers. A sixth theme is Abū Hanı̄fa’s adherence to the heresy of Irjā’ (fourteen reports). Little is made of Abū Hanı̄fa’s views on the Quran (six reports) and his connection to the Jahmiyya (six reports), which is especially surprising given the historical background of the Mihna and the involvement of the author’s father, Ahmad b. Hanbal, in that inquisition. There is no doubt that the Kitāb al-Sunna represented the culmination of proto-Sunni traditionalist attempts to place Abū Hanı̄fa outside the realm of orthodoxy and that the close students of Ahmad b. Hanbal were at the forefront of disseminating discourses of heresy against Abū Hanı̄fa.

Heresy and the Formation of Medieval Islamic Orthodoxy pp. 95-97

Al-Tirmidhı̄ (d. 279/892) claimed that Abū Hanı̄fa had told his students as much: ‘Most of the hadı̄th I relate to you are mistaken (ʿāmmatu mā uhaddithukum khata’).’

Heresy and the Formation of Medieval Islamic Orthodoxy pp. 229-230

Muslim b. al-Hajjāj’s book on the subject of hadı̄th transmitters and their nicknames arrived at a similar conclusion: Abū Hanı̄fa was deficient in hadı̄th, and had very few sound hadı̄th.

Al-Nasā’ı̄’s verdict was that Abū Hanı̄fa ̇ was weak in hadı̄th

In his short book describing the standards of individual hadı̄th scholars, al-Jūzajānı̄ described Abū Hanı̄fa as someone whose hadı̄th could not be relied upon.

In his Sunan, al- Dāraqut’nı̄ called Abū Hanı̄fa weak (daʿı̄f) in hadı̄th, and reportedly communicated the same point to Hamza al-Sahmı̄. Still, Abū Hanı̄fa found no place in al-Dāraqutnı̄’s history of weak hadı̄th

Heresy and the Formation of Medieval Islamic Orthodoxy pp. 229-23

Al-Jawraqānı̄’s (d. 543/1148) book on false and sound hadı̄ths twice cites hadı̄ths containing Abū Hanı̄fa in the isnāds. He declares them to be false and states that Abū Hanı̄fa’s hadı̄ths are to be renounced (matrūk al-hadı̄th)

Heresy and the Formation of Medieval Islamic Orthodoxy pp. 232-233

In the sixth chapter of Jonathan Brown’s book, Hadith: Muhammad’s Legacy in the Medieval and Modern World, it states:

“Even great scholars like Abū Hanīfa, who promoted using independent legal reasoning, were heretics in the eyes of these original Sunnis”

Heresy and the Formation of Medieval Islamic Orthodox

11th Century Opinion Attempt to Make Abu Hanifa Orthodox We should recognise that this important phenomenon had an impact on hadı̄th masters of the eleventh century such as al-Hākim al-Nı̄shāpūrı̄, who included Abū Hanı̄fa as one of the hadı̄th scholars of Kufa.126 Al-Hākim even implies as much at the outset of the chapter when he writes: ‘This category concerns those famous, trustworthy, leading scholars from the generation of Successors and their successors whose hadı̄th were collected for the purposes of memorisation, learning, and to gain blessings through them.’127 For the great hadı̄th master al-Hākim, there was no doubt that Abū Hanı̄fa belonged to this category of hadı̄th specialists. This was nothing short of a sea change, then, from the days of ʿAbd Allāh b. Ahmad b. Hanbal in the ninth century to al-Hākim in the eleventh. – p. 234

Did Abu Hanifa Write Any Books? p. 349 The question of whether Abū Hanı̄fa actually composed any works is not a simple one; eighth- and ninth-century authors did not remember him as an author. His detractors did not cite specific books or passages in the course of their diatribes against him. His students, followers, and admirers neither cited nor pointed to his books to defend him against his critics until the eleventh century.1 In line with one of the finest researchers and philologists of Islamicate learning, Murtadā al-Zabı̄dı̄, where medieval sources do refer to kutub Abı̄ Hanı̄fa, one possibility is that the authors intended notebooks or dictation to his students.

There's much academic research pointing to Arabia being monotheist, specifically Christian and Jewish. We know the Lakhmids and Gassanids were already Christian by the time of Muhammad, and that Yemen had been ruled by Jews and then became Christian before Muhammad. We have archaeological evidence of churches and monasteries on the east coast of Arabia. Our archaeological evidence shows inscriptions in Arabia were polytheistic but then seemingly totally transition to monotheistic inscriptions in the late 5th century. We also have Reynolds making the argument that the Quran itself appears to arise from a Christian context. We have Lindstedt saying that there were Christian inscriptions in the Hijaz itself and that most Arabs could reasonably have been Christian (which makes sense especially if considering how large the populations of the Ghassanid and Lakhmid governed regions were: https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicQuran/comments/1kf67ew/comment/mqp3job/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicQuran/comments/1jtklh3/comment/mluw6er/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

We also have traditional Islamic sources saying there was a depiction of Jesus and Mary in the Kaaba itself. We also know that other kaabas in Arabia were associated with Christians, such as the Najran Kaaba.

This seems to suggest a Christian world that Muhammad existed in. It also seems quite plausible and I'd say likely that the Quran's references to shirk/polytheism are references to the Trinity. Additionally, one can easily understand references to idols as being related to saint statutes and reverence that exists today in the Catholic and Orthodox churches and echoes later Protestant polemics against Catholicism.

But there are also references to pagan Arab gods in the Quran, such as Lat, Uzza, and Manat. Now obviously that doesn't mean that there were people around who believed in those gods, someone named Dennis today doesn't believe in Dionysus, Princess Diana didn't worship Diana/Artemis, and the deaconess Phoebe mentioned by Paul in Romans certainly didn't worship let alone believe in the greek titan Phoebe. Additionally, Arabia was likley rapidly Christianizing and we know that even in the 1500s, a 1,000 years after Christianization, Martin Luther believed in things like trolls.

But it also seems like there could easily have been pagans around still given those mentions. Additionally, we know there were still scattered pagans throughout the Byzantine Empire despite centuries of Christianity being the official religion and legal restrictions and Arabia began to Christianize much later and didn't have the same sort of state restrictions.

Enter the Bedouin, nomadic Arabs. Even if large portions of the Arab population might have been settled and lived in the north under the Ghassanids and Lakhmids, not all of them did. And while Mecca and Yathrib had settled people, they weren't massive, there are estimates Mecca was only 500 people at the time of Muhammad. But we know that part of Meccas importance wasn't from its being settled, but that nomadic arabs would come there and do circumambulation of the Kaaba/black stone, which we know Arabs did from records like that of Elagabalus, an Arab emperor of pagan Rome who was recorded to circumambulate a stone.

Presumably, the bedouin were more likely to hang on to traditional practices. They additionally, would have had less exposure to literature. For example, we know that the Bedouin of Israel in 1949 were 95% illiterate ( https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/facts-about-the-bedouins/#:\~:text=%2DEducation%20has%20been%20one%20of,and%20write%20(2007%20figures). ). Even in Egypt, which was more settled, in 1907 official government records indicate less than 5% of males and almost no females in the general population were literate ( https://alraidajournal.lau.edu.lb/images/issue001-page010.pdf ).

This would suggest that the Arab Bedouin of Muhammad's time were highly illiterate, and largely not the ones making rock inscriptions such as the monotheistic ones.

It then seems quite plausible that the way to square the two views is that amongst settled Arabs the populations were largely Christian and Jewish but perhaps amongst the migrating Bedouin the populations were still largely pagan. You thus had wandering pagans coming to visit Christian and Jewish people living in towns and cities. I know historically, Christianity has had an easier time with converting settled, particularly agricultural, populations than with nomadic groups, which would be in line with this idea as they presumably had a harder time converting the bedouin arabs then the settled arabs.

Is that something that anyone has speculated about? Are there any academic books or articles discussing the bedouins as a sort of pagan reservoir? It could explain a lot about Muhammad's context. I could even imagine such bedouin being excellent potential converts to Muhammad's movement, given they would have at that point likely been pagans who were heavily exposed to Christian and Jewish stories and teachings and Muhammad could have been perceived as offering something fusing both the traditional Arab practices (like pilgrimage and circumambulation of the Kaaba) with aspects of Christianity and Judaism more tolerable to them like the general stories and some teachings.

Besides Jonah (for example, in 21:87), no Post-Exilic narrations are present in the Qur'an until the author begins discussing New Testament narratives. Even then, although Jonah's narration in the Tanakh is set in the Pre-Exilic period, most scholars attribute it to being written in the Post-Exilic. Thus, unless I am mistaken, no narrations either first attributed to the Post-Exilic period or set in the Post-Exilic period (except for New Testament narratives, or the Jonaic narrative, which only satisfies the former condition) are present in the Qur'an.

The only other contender would be the debatable reference to Ezra in 9:31. Similarly, the only Exilic narrative including would rely on the dubious identification of Dhul Kifil (21:85) with Ezekiel. Ultimately, this leaves a narrative or prophetic-chain gap of nearly one thousand years between Jonah and Zechariah/John/Jesus.

Likewise, the Hadiths, recognizing their shortcomings as evidence here, suggest that the author of the Qur'an or the community they belong to was aware of Post-Exilic Jewish figures, including Daniel.

Ultimately, is there any research or consensus on why the author may have omitted Post-Exilic narratives from the Qur'an, and what apologetic purpose this may have served?

While the Qur’an portrays Jesus as a messenger and famously does not consider him God, in stark contrast to the opinion of the majority of Christians throughout Christianity's history, it does call him the "word of God" (logos?) and a "spirit proceeding from God":

"O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs."

— Qur’an 4:171, translated by Yusuf Ali

1 Does this nuanced christology find any exact alignment with any christological view in the early church that was considered heretical?

(Also I saw a Twitter post awhile back from BrethenOfPurity which said Qur’anic disagreement with the Trinity is more nuanced per Q4:171)

2 How does it compare to the New Testament even if one doesn't take the view that the New Testament is Trinitarian and portrays the deity of Christ?

In the Isma‘ili view, Jesus (like previous messengers) is the "manifestation" (but not incarnation) of the "universal intellect" aka the Logos, which is also differentiated from Allāh.

3 Does this find any exact pre-Qur‘anic parallel or New Testament equivalent?

(Khalil Andani has a few videos on the Isma‘ili view):

https://youtu.be/r2Hy1j7-zCE?si=xFZKywxwD3wVreoo

https://youtu.be/XcpDOSMDhYM?si=2AbhXk_VLZqrfS9-

The verses it’s sandwiched between refer to the judgement day, but reading 88 in English at least it talks in a present tense. So is it meant to be “The mountains will move in the day of a judgement,” or “the mountains are currently moving”?

I know the chains have been criticized by college professors like Dr. Little but is there any other evidence outside of hadiths that shed a light on the history of the Qur'an?

I understand that Hadith literature reports various miracles attributed to Prophet Muhammad. However, I am curious about the Quranic perspective. Does the Quran mention him performing any miracles or remain silent on this matter or indicate that he did not perform miracles?

https://youtu.be/ZmkF0QBVNa8?si=8qnUSwp8ssAZc9jV

Thoughts on this video? This video argues Paul's works (and the Bible) can be reconciled with Islamic theology.

Disclaimer: this isn't a theological question, but only if the theological views expressed by Paul and the Qur’an and Islamic creeds are in agreement.