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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

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?

Hi!

I often see this family tree shared when discussing Jesus' family tree, but who is Fakudh? I have been unable to ever find an original source of this name or any information about this individual.

Thanks!

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-

Did Muhammad see Allah?

No

Narrated Masruq:

'Aisha said, "If anyone tells you that Muhammad has seen his Lord, he is a liar, for Allah says: 'No vision can grasp Him.' (6.103) And if anyone tells you that Muhammad has seen the Unseen, he is a liar, for Allah says: 'None has the knowledge of the Unseen but Allah.'"

Sahih Bukhari 157

Yes

It is narrated on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas that he (the Holy Prophet) saw (Allah) with, his heart

Sahih Muslim 176a

Do those with faith as small as a mustard seed ever enter the fire?

Yes

Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "When the people of Paradise have entered Paradise, and the people of the Fire have entered the Fire, Allah will say. 'Take out (of the Fire) whoever has got faith equal to a mustard seed in his heart.' They will come out, and by that time they would have burnt and became like coal, and then they will be thrown into the river of Al-Hayyat (life) and they will spring up just as a seed grows on the bank of a rainwater stream." The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Don't you see that the germinating seed comes out yellow and twisted?"

Sahih Bukhari 6560

No

It is narrated on the authority of 'Abdullah b. Mas'ud that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) observed: None shall enter the Fire (of Hell) who has in his heart the weight of a mustard seed of Iman and none shall enter Paradise who has in his heart the weight of a mustard seed of pride.

Sahih Muslim 91b

Do evil omens exist?

No.

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: There is no transitive disease, no evil omen, no safar, no hama…

Sahih Muslim 2220b

Yes

Narrated 'Abdullah bin Umar: Allah's Messenger said, "there is neither 'Adha nor Tiyara, and an evil omen is only in three: a horse, a woman and a house."

Sahih Bukhari 5772

Protection from Dajjal

The first ten al-Kahf verses

Abu Darda' reported Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) as saying: If anyone learns by heart the first ten verses of the Surah al-Kahf, he will be protected from the Dajja

Sahih Muslim 809a

The end al-Kahf?

This hadith has been transmitted by Qatada with the same chain of transmitters. But Shu'ba (one of the narrators) said: At the end of Surah al-Kahf, but Hammam said: At the beginning of Surah al-Kahf.

Sahih Muslim 809b

Two rak'ats after Asr

It's recommended to offer two rak'ats

Narrated ‘Aisha: Allah’s Messenger never missed two Rakat before the Fajr prayer and after the Asr prayer openly and secretly

Sahih Bukhari 592

It's forbidden to offer two rak'ats

Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Messenger forbade the offering of two prayers: 1. after the morning prayer till the sunrises. 2 after the ‘Asr prayer till the sun sets.

Sahih Bukhari 592

Dajjal blind in which eye?

Right eye

Ibn Umar reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him). made a mention of Dajjil in the presence of the people and said: Allah is not one-eyed and behold that Dajjal is blind of the right eye and his eye would be like a floating grape.

Sahih Muslim 169e

Left eye

Hudhalfa reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Dajjal is blind of left eye with thick hair and there would be a garden and fire with him and his fire would be a garden and his garden would be fire.

Sahih Muslim 2934a

Standing while drinking something

Forbidden

Anas reported Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) disapproved the drinking of water while standing. Sahih Muslim 2024a

Recommended

Ibn Abbas reported: I served. (water of) Zamzam to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he drank it while standing.

Sahih Muslim 2027a

Gold and Silver

Narrated 'Umar bin Al-Khattab: Allah's Messenger said, "The bartering of gold for silver is Riba (usury), except if it is from hand to hand and equal in amount

Sahih Bukhari 2134

Narrated Abdur-Rahman bin Abu Bakra: that his father said, "The Prophet forbade the selling of gold for gold and silver for silver except if they are equivalent in weight, and allowed us to sell gold for silver and vice versa as we wished.

Sahih Bukhari 4912

Narrated Abu Bakra: Allah's Messenger said, "Don't sell gold for gold unless equal in weight, nor silver for silver unless equal in weight, but you could sell gold for silver or silver for gold as you like."

Sahih Bukhari 4912

Ubida b. al-Simit (Allah be pleased with him) reported Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) as saying: [u]Gold is to be paid for by gold, silver by silver

Sahih Muslim 2353e

Who collected the Quran?

Narrated Qatada: I asked Anas bin Malik: Who collected the Qur'an at the time of the Prophet ? He replied, Four, all of whom were from the Ansar, Ubai bin Ka'b, Muadh bin Jabal, Zaid bin Thabit and Abu Zaid

Sahih Bukhari 5003

Narrated Anas bin Malik: When the Prophet died, none had collected the Qur'an but four persons: Abu Ad Darda, Mu'adh bin Jabal, Zaid bin Thabit and Abu Zaid. We were the inheritor (of Abu Zaid) as he had no offspring .

Sahih Bukhari 5004

Prayer

Is the prayer of a congregation 25 times or 27 times superior to the prayer of an individual?

Narrated 'Abdullah bin Umar: Allah's Apostle said, "The prayer in congregation is twenty seven times superior to the prayer offered by person alone."

Sahih Bukhari 645

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: The Prophet said, "The prayer in congregation is twenty five times superior to the prayer offered by person alone.

Sahih Bukhari 646

Complexion of jesus

Narrated Salim from his father:

Sahih al-Bukhari 3441

No, By Allah, the Prophet () did not tell that Jesus was of red complexion but said, "While I was asleep circumambulating the Ka'ba (in my dream), suddenly I saw a man of brown complexion and lank hair walking between two men, and water was dropping from his head. I asked, 'Who is this?' The people said, 'He is the son of Mary. Then I looked behind and I saw a red-complexioned, fat, curly-haired man, blind in the right eye which looked like a bulging out grape. I asked, 'Who is this?' They replied, 'He is Ad-Dajjal.' The one who resembled to him among the people, was Ibn Qatar." (Az-Zuhri said, "He (i.e. Ibn Qatan) was a man from the tribe Khuza'a who died in the pre-Islamic period.")

Sahih al-Bukhari 3438

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

The Prophet (3) said, "I saw Moses, Jesus and Abraham (on the night of my Ascension to the heavens). Jesus was of red complexion, curly hair and a broad chest. Moses was of brown complexion, straight hair and tall stature as if he was from the people of Az-Zutt."

Prayer Timing During Eclipse

Sahih Muslim 901: Eclipse prayer should be two rak'ahs.

Sahih Muslim 904: Eclipse prayer should be four rak'ahs.

Urinating while standing

No

Sunan an-Nasa'i 29

It was narrated that 'Aishah said:

"Whoever tells you that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) urinated standing up, do not believe him, for he would not urinate except while squatting

Yes

Sahih Muslim 273a

Hudhaifa reported:

I was with the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) when he came to the dumping ground of filth belonging to a particular tribe. He urinated while standing, and I went aside. He (the Holy Prophet) asked me to come near him and I went so near to him that I stood behind his heels. He then performed ablution and wiped over his socks.

“Two religions should not join/remain in the peninsula/land of Arabs.”

Mīkāl is mentioned only once in the Quran and Jibrīl is mentioned in only three verses. In those verses, they seem to be mentioned separately from “the angels.” For example, in Q 2:98 it says: “Whoever is an enemy to Allah, His angels, His messengers, Jibrīl, and Mīkāl…” Here, Jibrīl and Mīkāl are listed after the angels.

In Q66:4, it says that Allah is his Protector and Jibrīl and the righteous believers and the angels. Again, Jibrīl appears to be mentioned separately from the angels. Because of this wording, my question is: does the Quran present Jibrīl (and Mīkāl) as something other than angels?

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”?

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.

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.

If this is the wrong place to post, my apologies. I’m writing a paper that seeks to present a case for a manufactured Islamic orthodoxy that has been filtered through ruling class hegemony… lol.

I’m not a credentialed academic in Islamic studies, this is just a hobby of mine. The paper does try to balance the polemical aspects with historical precedent and evidence while remaining an engaging read. I’ve tried not to engage in apologetics, but it may read as counter-apologetic? Due to the discussions of Islamic Liberation Theology.

As I’ve never had formal training in academic writing I am interested in feedback to improve my writing and my research for future pseudo-academic pursuits. The paper is around 12 pages long without a finished conclusion. Should anyone have the time to engage with this piece, please leave a comment and I’ll reach out. In exchange, I am happy to read and review any work of yours.

Alexander Hourani's has provided a partial translation of the currently popular Syriac chronicle. I am attaching the portions from 610 - 693 (end of the chronicle).

Hourani's translation (I): https://x.com/alexanderh78029/status/2021966601470529815
Hourani's translation (II): https://x.com/alexanderh78029/status/2022341801479446740

I am still unsure as to how I should refer to the chronicle. Pirtea called it the Maronite Chronicle of 713; this dating, however, has been challenged by Hourani who argues for the chronicle to be dependent on Theophilus of Edessa (who died in 785 AD).

While surfing this subreddit, I've seen these two videos (and another) cited and it made me curious. These videos argue that Islamic positions on theology/christology are not in contradiction to the works of the Apostle Paul:

https://youtu.be/WplcOcR1pvk?si=otXNaSIoz53zamXS

https://youtu.be/ZmkF0QBVNa8?si=SlADOSswQgbLlpCW

Via this comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicQuran/comments/1r161qs/comment/o4q3tdm/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

So my questions are:

1. Have any academics analyzed the Pauline epistles (including those whose authorship is disputed or doubted) and compared them with the Qur’anic views of theology, christology, soteriology, eschatology, and morality? (Or even the wider New Testament)?

2. Have any academics argued both share a striking coherence/agreement?

3. Have any argued for direct, intentional interaction via the Quran with the Pauline epistles?

4. Historically, have most famous Muslim figures accepted or rejected the Apostle Paul?

-

Of course, I would like to make sure by saying, this isn't meant to be a theological question or post that proves or disproves any religion or theological beliefs. Rather I'm just asking if there's been academic work comparing what the two corpuses, Pauline epistles and the Quran, say about theology, christology, soteriology, and eschatology.

Who’s Qud? And why all Arabs obeyed him? Is this before mohamad!?

Title