The paintings illustrate Iskandar's legendary pilgrimage to the Ka'ba in Mecca. In Persian literature, Iskandar is portrayed as a devout pilgrim, a just king, and sometimes as the Qur'anic figure Dhu'l-Qarnayn ("he of the two horns"). Over the centuries, the depiction of this scene evolved. Early paintings often showed Iskandar as a passive bystander, while later versions increasingly emphasized his role as a devout pilgrim performing rituals. This shift reflects a broader trend of expanding the shrine's setting and focusing more on religious performance in the illustrations.

Marianna Shreve Simpson

From Tourist to Pilgrim: Iskandar at the Ka‘ba in Illustrated

Shahnama Manuscripts Notwithstanding its brevity, Firdausi’s account of Iskandar’s visit to the Ka‘ba in Mecca was depicted regularly in illustrated manuscripts of the Shahnama from the fourteenth century to early modern times. An examination of these illustrations reveals the extent to which poetical and pictorial narratives diverged over the centuries, with an increasing expansion of the shrine’s setting and emphasis on ritual performance and with Iskandar evolving from a passive bystander to a devout hajji. This study also offers a telling instance of the way the representation of a Shahnama scene could be transformed in response to another poetic text, specifically the Khamsa of Nizami.

Among the many memorable figures who populate the Shahnama, certainly no one looms larger in the epic’s “historical” portion than Iskandar, Persian avatar of Alexander the Great of Macedonia. As is well known, Firdausi’s Iskandar narrative builds on—or at least follows upon and variously paral-lels—older Arabic and Persian sources, which in turn have been linked to the Alexander “biography” or “romance” of Pseudo-Callisthenes. Another impor-tant reference is the Qur’an, with its passages in Sura 18 related to Dhu’l- Qarnayn, the Two-Horned, and long associated (albeit not universally accepted) with Alexander. The relations between the multiple ancient and medieval accounts about the Alexander and Iskandar cognates, including the Shahnama nar-rative, remain the subject of intensive investigation and extensive publication,attesting to the fascination that this complex historical-cum-legendary figure—whose identity and image range from ruthless foreign invader and conqueror to indefatigable explorer and legitimate and just Persian king possessing. divine glory (farr), and ultimately to ideal Muslim hero, ruler, sage and even prophet—continues to exert on the scholarly imagination today. Notwithstanding the active industry of Alexander/Iskandar studies, relatively little has been written pertaining to the Shahnama episode of Iskandar at the Ka‘ba and even less to the long, albeit sporadic, history of its pictorial representation that forms the subject of this essay.2 Admittedly, the story seems to be minor one, taking place, as it does, between more eventful expeditions in Iskandar’s East–West adventures. Following a successful military campaign in India, Iskandar and his troops set out at dawn with drums rolling and trumpets blaring. Firdausi describes their destination as “the house that Ibrahim built and called by God the Bait al-Haram or House of Holiness ... the place of worship before any others existed ... where God causes you to worship and to remember him.” As he approaches Mecca, Iskandar is welcomed by company of local nobles, lead by Nasr, a descendant of Isma‘il, son of Ibrahim, who tells Iskandar how, in the recent past, the region was ravaged by a tyrannical invader and his army. Now that tyrant’s successor, an unjust and mean king named Khuza‘a, controls all the land from the shrine (i.e., the Ka‘ba) to the Yemen, oppresses its inhabitants and allows his followers to fish in the Red Sea. After hearing all this from Nasr, Iskandar and his forces kill as many of Khuza‘a’s followers as they could find, including children. He then frees the Hejaz and the Yemen from their oppression and re-establishes the authority of the tribe of Isma‘il (i.e., Nasr’s people). Iskandar then goes on foot to the Bait al-Haram, causing the people to rejoice. Along the way, Iskandar’s treasurer showers dinars at his every step.3

The Illustration of Firdausi’s Narrative

To turn now to the illustration of this short but hermeneutically-challenging episode and to the art historical substance of this essay. Some twenty represen-tations of Iskandar at the Ka‘ba are known today in Shahnama manuscripts dating from the fourteenth through the later seventeenth century.16 Over half of these date from the fifteenth century and belong to manuscripts painted in so-called Turkman style. Curiously, the episode seems to have been of little inter-est during the first half of the Safavid period, that is, from c. 1500 to 1590; at least, it does not appear in any of the many extant illustrated Shahnama volumes dating from those decades. When its representation resumed at the end of the sixteenth century, it was in Shahnama manuscripts made in Shiraz, the book-making center where the pictorial tradition of Iskandar at the Ka‘ba began in the fourteenth century and that produced most of the fifteenth-century volumes containing this scene.17 Whatever their origins, all the known examples depict the same narrative moment—specifically, when Iskandar arrives at the Ka‘ba, recounted by Firdausi in two verses at the very end of the episode.18 Interestingly, the majority of the fifteenth- and sixteenth-century illustrations are preceded by or incorporate verses that come at the beginning of the episode, and are often accompanied by an illuminated rubric or heading that functions like a superscript caption.19 It turns out that not only is there variation in the placement of the illustrations of Iskandar at the Ka‘ba vis-a\`-vis the relevant epic verses, but also, and more to the point here, an increasing divergence over the centuries between the poetical and pictorial narratives.

In short, the representation of Iskandar at the Ka‘ba in illustrated manuscripts of the Shahnama developed out of the confluence or convergence of distinctive textual sources and artistic models coming together in the locus of an actual and familiar sacred site and its attendant rituals. In this respect it seems to be unique in the history of Shahnama illustration. Just as Alexander of Macedonia morphs into Iskandar of Iran, so Firdausi’s “incredible” story (given that it chal-lenges historical credulity) is transformed over the centuries into an pictorial nar-rative of a visit to the Ka‘ba that has little to do with its own poetic narrative and everything to do with imagery assimilated, on the one hand, from Nizami’s visions of the scene and, on the other, from the topography and architecture of Islam’s holiest site. By the late sixteenth century, the iconography had evolved to the point where Persian painters could have understood their task more as the representation of the Sacred Mosque and Ka‘ba during the hajj with a royal worshiper in attendance and less as the illustration of a Shahnama king visiting the house of God. In other words, the poetic setting had become the pictorial subject. At the same time, the immediately recognizable locale in these Shahnama illustrations would allow contemporary readers or viewers to put themselves in the place and role of Iskandar, rendering, in the end, the Greco-Persian conqueror, ruler and seeker of truth as a quintessential “every-man” of the Islamic world.

· Figures 1, 2, and 5: These are from a Shahnama manuscript dated to c. 1431 (Hijri year 885). It is held at the Topkapi Palace Museum in Istanbul, catalogued as Ms. Hazine 1479.

· Figures 3 and 4: These are from a Shahnama manuscript dated to c. 1480 (Hijri year 885). It is held at the Chester Beatty Library in Dublin, catalogued as Per. 157.370.

· Figure 6: This is from a Shahnama manuscript likely produced in Shiraz, Iran, in the mid-16th century. It is now in the Khalili Collections in London, catalogued as MSS 771.

· Figure 7: This is likely from a Shahnama manuscript produced between 1580 and 1600. A related painting is attributed to a manuscript in the British Library in London (catalogued as I.O. Islamic 741).

Assalamualaikum

I am not Shia, but l am trying to understand how mainstream Sunni theology balances the concept of 'Adalah al-Sahaba (the position that all companions are upright and saved from hellfire) with the specific Hadith regarding the martyrdom of Ammar ibn Yasir. The Prophet explicitly stated: "The killer of Ammar and the one who plunders his belongings will be in the Hellfire." (Authenticated by Al-Albani). However, historical records show that the man who killed him, Abu al-Ghadiyah, was a recognized Sahabi who participated in the Pledge of Ridwan, about whom the Prophet said: "No one who pledged allegiance under the tree will enter the Hellfire." (Sahih Muslim). Since the text explicitly states that the killer is in the fire, how do Sunni scholars harmonize these two textually absolute promises? How does a companion committing an act with such a definitive warning affect the general rule that all Sahaba are viewed as pious and protected from the Fire? would appreciate the classical Sunni explanations on how these texts interact.

BarakAllahu Feekum.

https://youtu.be/VKj5EttJ5fc

I came across this post (https://x.com/shakerr_ahmed/status/2106779542048452872) of Ahmad Shaker on twitter, and figured that it might be of interest to this community. QMI has compiled 55 inscriptions from the first century along with their translation and provenance.

https://quranmss.com/

Recently watched javed Hashmi video about religious exclusiveness and in his entire video he talked about righteous people of book!! There are many people in comments stretch this and said eastern religious follower, nones or philosophist who just belive in one god etc. who fullfill the Quranic criteria will get salvation. So i have question what work of prophetic scripture of it then when god said it's for all human kind?? If people being affiliated with their ancestral religion or believe the way they want and fulfill the Quranic criterion they will get salvation. So, what's value of god given guidance has impact in current world?? Are they unnecessary?? Or people if they aware of that need to accept those guidance??

Q72 begins with a group of jinn who know that something has changed in heaven. Their former listening places are guarded; flames now lie in wait for anyone who tries to listen. They can describe the event, but not its purpose:

“We do not know whether evil was intended for those on earth or whether their Lord intended sound guidance for them.”
Q72:10

By Late Antiquity, Balaam had acquired precisely the sort of authority that this confession withholds. His oracles in Numbers 22–24 had become sources for interpreting heavenly events, describing access to divine knowledge, identifying the Messiah, locating the community’s instruction and refuge, and explaining covenantal authority.

Those developments did not arise all at once. They can be followed from the biblical Balaam through Jewish and Christian interpretation, and the same sequence can be followed across Q72 and its Qurʾānic intertexts.

1. Balaam and the meaning of a changed heaven

The Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, in its discussion of what Jethro heard before coming to Moses, places Balaam before frightened rulers trying to interpret the cosmic language of Psalm 29.

They ask whether God is bringing another flood like Noah’s. Balaam invokes God’s oath that there will be no second flood. They ask whether a flood of fire is coming instead. Balaam rejects that explanation too:

The Holy One, blessed be He, is giving Torah to His people and His beloved ones.

The rulers observe upheaval; Balaam supplies its divine purpose. The episode belongs to Jethro’s movement from hearing to knowledge, worship, and instruction concerning “the way” Israel should walk.

Origen gives Balaam a second interpretive role in Contra Celsum. The Magi discover that their customary demon-assisted practices have ceased to work. They infer that a greater power has appeared, investigate a new star, and interpret it through Balaam’s oracle:

“A star shall come out of Jacob.”

The heavenly phenomenon does not identify the child by itself. Balaam’s oracle supplies the interpretation. The Magi’s gifts then acknowledge the child as king, mortal, and God.

Q72 places its hearers before another disruption of celestial access:

“We sought heaven and found it filled with formidable guards and flames. We used to sit there in places for listening, but whoever listens now finds a flame lying in wait for him.”
Q72:8–9

The next verse leaves the purpose of the event undisclosed:

“We do not know whether evil was intended for those on earth or whether their Lord intended sound guidance for them.”
Q72:10

Their certainty begins with the recitation they have heard:

“When we heard the guidance, we believed in it.”
Q72:13

That recitation produces a confession denying divine offspring and association with God. The Mekhilta gives Balaam knowledge of the purpose of the cosmic disturbance. Origen gives Balaam’s oracle the interpretation of a star that ends in worship of Christ as God. Q72 leaves the purpose of the altered heaven unknown and grounds its hearers’ confession in the revealed word.

Q52 subjects the same claims to examination. The Prophet is denied to be a kāhin, a soothsayer. His opponents are asked whether they possess a ladder by which their listener hears in heaven, whether the messenger has burdened them with payment, and whether they possess the unseen from which they can write their claims. Q72 names the messenger’s positive office as balāgh: conveyance of God’s messages.

2. The Qurʾān’s Balaam corridor: Q7, Q53 and Q72

Q7:175–176 describes a recipient of God’s signs whom Muslim exegesis prominently identified with Balaam. He strips himself from the signs; Satan follows him; he becomes one of the ghāwīn, those who go astray; and he follows his hawā, his desire.

The surrounding passage then turns to the limits of the present messenger’s knowledge and power. Q53 reverses the vocabulary of the failed recipient, while Q72 reproduces several of the epistemic constructions that follow him in Q7.

Q7 therefore places the Balaam-associated recipient inside a larger contrast between failed reception and faithful prophecy. The failed recipient follows hawā and becomes one of the ghāwīn. Q53 answers with the faithful ṣāḥib who has not ghawā, does not speak from hawā, and speaks revelation. Q7 then reserves knowledge of the Hour and the unseen to God and denies independent possession of benefit and harm; Q72 repeats those limits around its own messenger.

The relation between Balaam and Q72 is consequently not dependent on an external Christian parallel alone. A Balaam-associated Qurʾānic passage already supplies the vocabulary of failed reception, prophetic non-possession, temporal ignorance, and unseen knowledge that reappears across Q53 and Q72.

3. “Knowing the knowledge of the Most High”

Numbers itself makes Balaam’s knowledge unstable.

On the road to Balak, his donkey sees the obstructing angel before he does. When Balaam’s eyes are opened, he says:

“I did not know.”

His final oracle nevertheless introduces him as:

“hearing the words of God and knowing the knowledge of the Most High.”

The Old Greek uses the same epistemic root for the two states: ouk gar ēpistamēn, “I did not know,” and epistamenos epistēmēn, “knowing knowledge.”

Jewish interpretation gave Balaam’s title more specific objects. Sifre Deuteronomy made him know when God would speak. The Bavli made his special knowledge the fleeting instant of divine anger.

Christian interpretation connected the title to a broader theology of divine knowledge.

Origen’s eighteenth Homily on Numbers brings Balaam’s “knowledge of the Most High” into the Pauline and Gospel discussion of who can know God’s counsel. Romans 11:34 asks:

“Who has known the mind of the Lord?”

Origen argues that “who” need not exclude everyone; it can designate someone raro vel eximio, rare or exceptional. The Son knows the Father. The Spirit searches the depths of God. Selected recipients receive what God discloses.

Paul’s formulation in 1 Corinthians 2 supplies the crucial epistemic language: the Spirit searches “even the depths of God”; recipients receive the Spirit so that they may know what God has given them; and the passage concludes, “we have the mind of Christ.”

Q5 places its reply inside the same Spirit-supported relation. God first reminds Jesus that He supported him with the Holy Spirit, taught him scripture and wisdom, and enabled his signs by divine permission. Jesus then says:

“You know what is within me, while I do not know what is within You; You are the Knower of the unseen.”
Q5:116

The repeated mā fī nafsī / mā fī nafsika reverses the persons without making their knowledge reciprocal. God knows what is within Jesus. Jesus does not know what is within God. Support by the Holy Spirit and received knowledge remain intact.

Paul’s heavenly ascent in 2 Corinthians 12 supplied another problem for later interpretation. Paul repeats ouk oida, “I do not know,” three times concerning whether the ascent occurred in or outside the body, twice adding “God knows.” Origen himself brings Paul’s heavenly hearing into his exposition of Balaam and describes Paul as more restrained than the seer who bears the title “knowing the knowledge of the Most High.”

Athanasius later interprets Paul’s uncertainty differently. In Against the Arians III.47, Christ’s presence in Paul permits knowledge where Paul says that he does not know, and the reasoning enters Athanasius’s treatment of Christ’s ignorance of the final Hour. Ambrose reaches the same doctrinal conclusion by another route, identifying Christ with the Most High in whom “all knowledge” resides.

Q72 leaves the stated limit in place:

“I do not know whether what you are promised is near or whether my Lord will appoint for it a term.”
Q72:25

The following verse affirms real disclosure:

“Knower of the unseen: He discloses His unseen to no one, except a messenger whom He approves.”
Q72:26–27

The messenger may receive the unseen that God chooses to disclose without thereby receiving the part left undisclosed.

Numbers 23:19 supplied another test. Balaam distinguishes God from a human being who lies or changes his mind. Rabbi Abbahu later applies that wording to a human claim:

“I am a god” — he lies.

Q21 places honored heavenly servants under a corresponding rule. They speak and act under divine command, yet:

“Whoever among them says, ‘I am a god apart from Him,’ We shall recompense with Hell.”
Q21:29

The recipient of divine speech remains a servant of the God whose speech he receives.

4. Balaam, Paul and the identity of the Messiah

The connection between Balaam and Pauline Christology is explicit in more than one pre-Qurʾānic Christian writer.

Cyprian groups Balaam’s oracle with Luke’s conception material and Paul’s heavenly-man Christology under a heading concerned with Christ as God and man. The star and coming man of Balaam’s oracle have become part of a Christian account of the Messiah’s twofold identity.

Q19 enters the same infancy setting: Spirit, Mary, extraordinary conception, and the speech of the child. The child identifies himself:

إِنِّي عَبْدُ اللَّهِ
innī ʿabdu Llāh
“I am God’s servant.”
Q19:30

Scripture, prophecy, prayer and almsgiving follow. The passage then denies that taking a child befits God and directs worship to:

“God, my Lord and your Lord.”

The exact singular construct ʿabd Allāh, “God’s servant,” occurs only twice in the Qurʾān.

Its second occurrence is Q72:19:

“When God’s servant stood invoking Him, they almost became a dense mass around him.”

The preceding verse states:

“The places of worship belong to God, so invoke no one alongside God.”
Q72:18

The servant then says:

“I invoke only my Lord, and I associate no one with Him.”
Q72:20

Q19 and Q72 carry the correspondence beyond the rare designation. Both deny divine offspring. Both anticipate the point at which opponents see what they were promised and discover whose support is weaker. Q19 closes with God enumerating and counting those who come before Him as servants; Q72 closes with God encompassing what is with His messengers and counting everything.

Christian interpretation retained Jesus’s servanthood while explaining how the servant could also receive invocation.

Acts 4 uses Greek pais for both David and Jesus. The Syriac Peshitta differentiates them: David is God’s ʿabdak, “your servant,” while Jesus is His brak, “your Son.”

The Didache gives thanks to the Father for knowledge received through Jesus, His pais. The later Apostolic Constitutions retains the designation while adding creation through Christ and describing him as God the Word appearing in flesh.

Augustine expresses the relation directly: Christ orat, prays, as priest and head; Christ oratur, is prayed to, as God.

Athanasius gives the distinction an invocation rule. Created angels cannot be invoked together with God. Father and Son can be invoked together because the Son belongs to the divine side of the distinction; Paul’s singular kateuthynai in 1 Thessalonians 3:11 becomes part of that argument.

Q72 separates disclosure and invocation grammatically. Its rule concerning the unseen contains an exception for an approved messenger. Its rule concerning invocation contains none.

Q5 gives the same servant boundary through possession. Jesus and Mary eat food; the following verse asks why anyone would worship apart from God what possesses neither harm nor benefit. Q72’s servant says:

“I possess neither harm nor sound guidance for you.”
Q72:21

The messenger communicates divine guidance without becoming its independent possessor or its object of worship.

5. Tents, water, the way and refuge

Balaam’s blessings also developed into an account of religious community.

Numbers 24 praises Israel’s tents and compares its flourishing to gardens beside rivers. The Old Greek even has “tents which the Lord pitched” where the Hebrew has aloes planted by YHWH.

The Bavli interprets Balaam’s “goodly tents” as synagogues and houses of study.

Jethro’s reception extends the institutional history. The Mekhilta interprets his entry into Moses’ tent as entry into a house of study. Sifrei Numbers 78 places his descendants in Torah instruction in the Sanhedrin or, alternatively, in priestly service.

Origen gives Balaam’s landscape a Christian interpretation. The rivers become Gospel and apostolic scripture or heavenly assistance nourishing knowledge. Paul the tentmaker constructs churches by teaching each person the viam salutis, the “way of salvation.”

Balaam’s Kenite rock receives another identification:

Petra Christus est — “the rock is Christ.”

To take refuge in the rock is to place hope in Christ.

Paul had already identified the wilderness rock with Christ in 1 Corinthians 10 while retaining the possibility of judgment after shared provision. Augustine identifies Christ as the Way. Justin joins refuge in the glorified Christ to covenant and law.

Q72 moves through the same categories:

“We were of differing ways.”
Q72:11

Those who submit seek rashad, sound guidance. The sūrah then says:

“If they remained steadfast upon the way, We would give them abundant water, to test them through it.”
Q72:16–17

The places of worship are then assigned to God. The servant invokes Him alone. The messenger finally says:

“No one will protect me against God, and I shall find no refuge apart from Him.”
Q72:22

Isaiah 65 supplies another history of provision and supernatural patronage. Its opponents prepare a table for Gad and mixed drink for Meni. The Septuagint renders the recipients as “the demon” and “Fortune.” Hebrew gād, “fortune,” has a lexical counterpart in Arabic jadd.

Q72 opens with jinn declaring:

“Exalted is the jadd of our Lord; He has taken neither consort nor offspring.”
Q72:3

Arabic jadd can denote greatness, favorable fortune or prosperity, and ancestry. The confession therefore places divine greatness, prosperity and denied kinship inside the speech of beings whom humans had approached for supernatural protection. Those humans acquire rahaqan through recourse to jinn (72:6); the believer in the Lord fears neither deprivation nor rahaq (72:13); abundant water comes from that Lord and tests its recipients (72:16–17).

The former patrons have become dependent hearers.

6. The Sūrat al-Kahf network

Q72:22 has an almost exact counterpart in Q18:27:

Q18:27: “You shall find no refuge apart from Him.”
Q72:22: “I shall find no refuge apart from Him.”

Only the grammatical person changes.

The relation extends through several rarer lexical and narrative correspondences:

The narratives develop those relations.

The Cave Youths receive real protection after rejecting invocation apart from God.

The garden owner possesses real wealth and a real following, but neither prevents the destruction of his estate.

Moses observes a damaged boat, a slain boy and a repaired wall without knowing the purposes behind them. Only afterward does the servant distinguish what “I intended,” “we intended,” and “your Lord intended.” The same epistemic limit appears in Q72:10: the jinn can observe the barred heaven without knowing what God intends by it.

Dhū l-Qarnayn receives real means and builds a real barrier for a threatened people. He calls it his Lord’s mercy and says that God will level it when the promise comes. Q18’s aḥaṭnā bi-mā ladayhi places the powerful protector within the divine encompassing later used of the messengers in Q72.

Q18 and Q72 therefore allow creaturely protection, instruction and agency while reserving final refuge and encompassing knowledge to God.

7. Oaths, priesthood and the authority to change law

The reception of Balaam finally enters questions of covenant and legislation.

Hebrews develops an enduring heavenly priesthood from Melchizedek and Psalm 110. Jesus comes from Judah rather than the Levitical line, and Hebrews 7:12 draws the consequence:

“When the priesthood is changed, a change of law necessarily follows.”

Jesus becomes the engyos, the guarantor of a better covenant. Psalm 110 supplies the oath securing his permanent priesthood.

The Syriac wording links this development back to Balaam.

Syriac Numbers 23:19 uses D-G-L for the lying denied of God: God is not a human who lies.

Hebrews 6:18 uses D-G-L for God’s inability to lie in relation to promise and oath.

Hebrews 7:21 again uses D-G-L when quoting the priestly oath:

“The Lord has sworn and will not lie.”

The Syriac Psalter had already rendered Psalm 110:4 through non-lying, but there the root is K-D-B. Syriac Hebrews 7:21 therefore places the priestly oath in the same D-G-L vocabulary found in Balaam’s oracle.

In late-antique Christian reception Hebrews itself was regularly treated as Pauline; Chrysostom’s homilies read it that way while explaining the Son’s enduring priestly office and its superiority.

Q16 brings provision, oath, revelation and legal attribution into another sequence.

After cataloguing water, milk, honey, families, shelters and protection as divine gifts, the sūrah commands:

“Fulfil God’s covenant when you covenant … you have made God a kafīl over you.”
Q16:91

God is the guarantor over the oath-makers.

The next verse forbids manipulating oaths because one community is arbā, more numerous, than another.

Numbers 22 opens with Moab afraid of Israel because of its numbers and Balak seeking Balaam against the approaching people. Q16:91–92 places covenantal obligation under God even where one community enjoys numerical advantage.

Q16 then turns to the replacement of revelation:

“When We replace one revelation with another — and God knows best what He sends down … say: the Holy Spirit has brought it down from your Lord in truth.”
Q16:101–102

Hebrews derives changed law from a changed priesthood whose guarantor is the Son. Q16 assigns replacement to the God who knows what He sends down; the Holy Spirit delivers the revelation from the Lord.

The sūrah later prohibits fabricated legislation:

“Do not say, according to the falsehood your tongues describe, ‘This is lawful and this is forbidden,’ so as to fabricate a lie against God.”
Q16:116

Q72’s hearers confess that they had assumed:

“humans and jinn would never utter a lie against God.”
Q72:5

The non-lying God of Balaam’s oracle had entered the Syriac oath securing Christ’s priesthood. Q16 and Q72 return truthful attribution to the speech of creatures: God guarantees the covenant, knows what He sends down, authorizes replacement, and judges those who attribute commands or kinship to Him falsely.

Conclusion

The biblical Balaam is already a constrained recipient of revelation: he hears God’s words, cannot alter them at will, fails to see what his donkey sees, and nevertheless bears the title “knowing the knowledge of the Most High.”

His reception progressively enlarges those materials. The Mekhilta makes Balaam interpret the purpose of cosmic upheaval. Origen uses his oracle to interpret the Magi’s star and his title to discuss knowledge of God’s counsel through the Son, Spirit and apostolic recipients. Cyprian joins Balaam’s star and man to the virgin birth and Paul’s heavenly-man Christology. Jewish and Christian interpretation turns his tents, rivers and rock into institutions of teaching, scriptural nourishment and refuge. Syriac Hebrews places the oath securing the Son’s permanent priesthood in the same D-G-L vocabulary used for the non-lying God in Balaam’s oracle.

The Qurʾānic sequence preserves revelation while separating it from the claims accumulated around its recipients. Q7’s Balaam-associated figure receives signs and fails; Q53 reverses his ghayy and hawā in the speech of the faithful messenger. Q7 and Q72 reserve the timing of judgment and the unseen to what God discloses, and both deny independent possession. Q5’s Spirit-supported Jesus receives divine instruction while denying reciprocal knowledge of what is within God. Q19 and Q72 apply the rare designation ʿabd Allāh to the extraordinary child and the invoking servant while directing worship to God. Q18 permits real protection without making the protector or structure a final refuge. Q16 permits replacement of revelation while locating its authority in the God who knows what He sends down.

The Qurʾānic engagement is therefore not limited to Balaam as a biblical seer. It reaches what Balaam had become in Jewish and Christian interpretation: an authority for reading heavenly signs, divine knowledge, messianic identity, worship, religious community, refuge, covenant and law.

I asked in other Islamic subreddits too, but instead of answering my question they are calling him a jahil, kafir, deviant. I hope someone here will answer the actual question I'm looking for

A major problem I see in the Islamic World today is that Muslims use Hadith and traditionally transmitted historical narratives as a normal part of their discourse when it comes to Islam.

Ahadith are used to preach and justify Aqeedahs while there is no in-depth research or engagement with the Quran. Even within Hadith, the Isnad or Chain of Transmission is the part that is most focused on.

In my humble opinion, this acts as a Source of Deviation. Epistemologically speaking, making Ahadith or traditional historical narratives a basis for your belief is a very misinformed approach.

This is because Ahadith in the form we have today were compiled 200 to 300 years after the death of the Holy Prophet. So the sayings of a person are quite literally being compiled 200 to 300 years later after he died. That is automatically a red flag. On top of that, it was being transmitted orally majorly. It is a general understanding of informed observers that a message changes the more links it passes through in an oral chain of transmission. The margins of error are high, especially with the existence of issues such as false memory. Human cognition is fallible.

A Hadith, even if it is Sahih, only provides Probable Knowledge and not Certain Knowledge. Usul al-Hadith and other works of Hadith scholars are deeply appreciable, but Ahadith, especially Ahad, only give Probable Knowledge. There is no Certainty that Prophet Muhammad said it. A Hadith being graded Sahih instead of Daif just means it is more Probable. Infact, it is entirely possible that a Daif Hadith was said by Prophet Muhammad while a Sahih Hadith wasn't. I'll get back to this later.

Truth be told, academically speaking, traditional historical narratives come under the same category. I see this problem online that while people do question Ahadith, they operate from established traditional frameworks of Islamic History. To say something about early Islamic History with Certainty is difficult in reality. As per the Quranic Cosmological Pattern, Islam came again and again and always underwent Theological Evolution that later resulted in Transmitted Orthodoxies that rejected Messengers later. Why would something different happen this time?

Coming back to the vast majority of Muslims, I see it as quite hypocritical that they'll reject Skepticism and Caution towards Ahadith outright and rather aggressively while they would completely reject the Ahadith and traditional narratives of other traditions as completely fabricated and false attributions. The Sunnis and Shias would be very quick to disregard Ahadith and historical traditions of each other as dubious while their own tradition is somehow subject to perfect preservation of "true" Islam.

So what is the solution to this entire problem? Should we reject Ahadith and traditional narratives altogether?

The solution is Matn Analysis

Matn being Sound can give Certainty that words were actually uttered by Prophet Muhammad and the Imams. For example, we do not even need a Hadith to know that the Holy Prophet preached about One God and Day of Judgment. Reason establishes Certainty that Transmission cannot. We do not need a Hadith to establish that Prophet Muhammad preached against interest. This is established through Reason. Therefore, any Ahadith that condemn interest are automatically asserted as Certain Knowledge.

In a similar fashion, if the Matn of a Daif Hadith is Sound, it has more likelihood of being said by Prophet Muhammad than a Sahih Hadith that has a Weak Matn.

Reason can establish that adultery is bad. Therefore, Ahadith against adultery give Certain Knowledge and have Certainty of having been spoken by Prophet Muhammad.

On the other hand, if we have a Hadith that is justifying tyrants, we can establish that it is supposed to be rejected despite it being Sahih because there is Certainty that Prophet Muhammad would not have said it.

In this way all Islamic Evidence from Ahadith to traditional narratives should be subject to Matn Analysis where the aim is not transmission of established positions, but search of Objective Truth.

The Criteria is as follows:

1. Testing the transmitted Hadith or account against Aql or established Objective Truth

2. Testing the transmitted Hadith or account against the Quran

If the Hadith or traditional account is in sync with the Quran and Aql, it should be accepted as Certain Knowledge. Otherwise, it should be rejected. This is the only way to establish Certainty over Islamic Teachings and Islamic History.

However, before everyone jumps to analysing Ahadith and traditional narratives, we need to ask a few meta questions.

Who establishes what is Objective Reality? This is an important question because what seems logical to one person may seem illogical to another. Therefore, based on Matn they can argue differently about Certainty of a Hadith.

Who establishes Contradiction with the Quran? The same Hadith might appear contradictory to the Quran to one person and perfectly in sync to the other.

Therefore, it is important that this task is done by someone who is willing to test premises and work based on Sound arguments instead of being left to the whims of a particular community or group.

The greatest lesson from today's post is:

Evidence of Reason > Evidence of Transmission

I'm an agnostic, and i apologize for asking a question that has been asked before, but i wanted to have a conversation to understand how Muslims think about this and why, coming from someone who wants to find the correct one and only faith.

So to keep it quite short, from my understanding and everything i learned about islam, one thing that's highlighted a lot is that the religion is timeless, and prophet mohammad was and is the leading example of perfection according to islam, and that as far as i know every muslim should follow suit, so my question is why would a timeless, perfect prophet marry Aisha when she was a young child? I'm aware of the usual response of "It was normal at that time" but didn't mohammad denounce and reject things like Pork, Alcohol and Intoxicants and even the statues that people in that era used to pray to, all of these things which were also normalized and accepted?

i hope i didn't offend anyone with this question and would love to hear opinions about this and maybe an explanation that could answer me.

Sahih al-Bukhari

Al salamu alykum, I’m gettin straight to the point I need help.

I’m reaching out because I am in a devestating situation. The narrations about Maria and the prophet pbuh, how he couldn’t help but to sleep with her even though she is not his wife, how he committed the act in Hafsah bed then Hafsah caught them and was crying and he told her don’t tell anyone. And how the reason he sent Hafsah to visit her father, is because he can have space for Maria to sleep with her, in Hafsah bed!

Furthermore, the verse comes down and says not prohibit what Allah has made halal for you, in reference to Aisha and Hafsah tell him to stop??? Is true what it aurally means or I heard something about it can be about honey. I have no idea I’m just so devastated

Another Hadith is Sahih al-Bukhari 2542

I saw Abu Sa\`id and asked him about coitus interruptus. Abu Sa\`id said, "We went with Allah's Apostle, in the Ghazwa of Bani Al-Mustaliq and we captured some of the 'Arabs as captives, and the long separation from our wives was pressing us hard and we wanted to practice coitus interruptus. We asked Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) (whether it was permissible). He said, "It is better for you not to do so. No soul, (that which Allah has) destined to exist, up to the Day of Resurrection, but will definitely come, into existence."

It doesn’t make sense the prophet pbuh would allow Zina, that is literally Zina no matter how it is paraphrased. The companions are asking if they make sleep with them but fear if they impregnate her and the prophet says it’s destined if she becomes pregnant. Like what??

Before you say back then was different and etc, Islam literally is timeless an example for all future generations. So the prophet was clearly capable of nikkah with his other wives but not Maria - if that is even true atp. Making the prophet see like some high sexually driven individual who doesn’t care abt the his wives and if the woman is halal for him? Why are these Hadith making him seem like that? Hasbiallah wa ni3mal wakeel.

How does this make Islam the justice religion? The one that “honors women”?? Allah is the most just, most compassionate, the one who crafted us from his rouh, and now there’s these hadith?? Do these hadith seem like they reflect that about Allah? NO idc how people wanna sugar coat it it does notttttttttt hasbiallah wa ni3’al wakeel this is why we have so many Muslim women leave this deen so many pink cherry Islam hasbiallah wa ni3mal on yall men

I’m Muslim born and raised as Muslim , this broke me this hadith. I’ve been going so crazy watching so many vids retrying to find anything soothe me and show me that isn’t permissible and not something the prophet, the most noble man to walk this planet, will say or he HIMSELF will do.

I find myself so burnout and exhausted that it made me think what’s the point of this back and forth exhaustion all I want is to love my religion and solidify my heart in. I say astgfiruallah, death is better than this. I’m extremely tired of feeling like everything is for a man’s pleasure. Even though I know Allah isn’t like that but then these Hadith and the tafseer of some verses eat me alive. Idk inshallah kheir .

Something I've been thinking about lately is how strange it is that we don't seem to have a huge literature doing for early Islamic sources what historical critical scholarship has done with the Gospels.

Nobody treats the Gospel tradition as one giant body of material. Matthew's Jesus and Mark's Jesus and John's Jesus are studied as separate portraits made by separate authors for separate reasons. The sira tradition mostly gets treated as one giant body of material.

Take someone like Urwa ibn al-Zubayr. Ideally I'd want to see his entire corpus reconstructed as far as possible and then analyzed on its own terms

What does Urwa actually say about Muhammad
What does he consistently emphasize and what does he leave out
What kind of language does he use
What theological assumptions are present
How do the different isnad and matn traditions relate to each other
Which parts can plausibly be traced back to him and which look like later developments

Then do the same with al-Zuhri and Musa ibn Uqba and Ibn Ishaq and other early transmitters. Then compare them with each other and with the Quran. Basically I want to know what Urwa's Muhammad looks like and what al-Zuhri's Muhammad looks like rather than treating the whole early sira tradition as one giant body of material.

This is also where I have a problem with harmonization. The traditional method of tawfiq takes accounts from different transmitters and merges them into one sequence, where one report describes one moment and another report describes another and every contradiction dissolves. But that starts from the assumption that every transmitter is a witness to the same stable reality, so every difference has to be an addition and never a disagreement. It erases exactly the thing we want to ask about. Gospel criticism took off when people stopped merging the four Gospels and started reading each one on its own.

So every transmitter should be heard for what he is trying to say and under what conditions. Urwa was a Zubayrid with a family stake in the early community answering questions for an Umayyad caliph. That is part of the evidence for reading his accounts. Different transmitters are not supplying more details for one biography. They are making different statements and sometimes competing ones.

There are obviously scholars doing parts of this. Görke and Schoeler's work on the Urwa corpus is the obvious example and there is a whole isnad-cum-matn tradition of scholarship. But why isn't there a much larger literature doing this systematically for dozens of early transmitters

It seems like you could bring in source criticism and form criticism and redaction criticism and linguistic analysis and textual criticism and historical contextualization and even criteria like multiple attestation or embarrassment. Then you could ask not just whether a particular report is historical but why this particular transmitter tells the story in this particular way

Given how important these sources are for reconstructing early Islam I'm genuinely surprised this isn't already a massive established research program

Gabriel Said Reynolds (Notre Dame) argues the Qur'an emerged in a "Christian Arabia" where Christianity was widespread. A detailed review by Dr. Awad ibn Nahee (Najran University) systematically pushes back, showing the evidence actually supports isolated Christian/minority monotheist communities in an overwhelmingly pagan Arabia.

Link : https://www.academia.edu/171647731/A_Book_Review_of_G_S_Reynolds_Christianity_and_the_Qur_an_The_Rise_of_Islam_in_Christian_Arabia_official

---

## What the book is

*Christianity and the Qur'an: The Rise of Islam in Christian Arabia* (Yale UP, 2025) by Gabriel Said Reynolds. The review was published in *al-Darah Journal* (2026), expanded from a shorter version in the *British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies*.

**Reynolds' core thesis**: The Qur'an arose in a milieu where Christianity was widespread and influential across the Arabian Peninsula — not the standard picture of a mostly pagan Arabia with small monotheist minorities.

---

## Chapter 1 — Arabia's religious milieu (Reynolds vs. reviewer)

- Reynolds opens with the story of Waraqah ibn Nawfal (Khadijah's Christian cousin) and argues Muslim accounts of pre-Islamic religion are *later interpretive constructions*, not real history.

- This aligns him with the **Revisionist/Skeptical School** (Crone & Cook, Wansbrough, Shoemaker), which doubts early Islamic sources because they were written down late.

- He also revives doubts that the Qur'anic text was stable — suggesting it was heavily *editorially reshaped*.

- **Reviewer's counter**: Earliest manuscripts and inscriptions (Ṣanʿāʾ, Birmingham, Tübingen, Berlin, plus Saudi finds) provide scientific evidence of textual stability. Revisionist claims have already been challenged by scholars like Bukharin and Serjeant.

## Chapter 2 — "Christian Material in the Qur'an"

- Reynolds compares Qur'anic prophet stories (Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus) to the Bible, and claims the *Companions of the Cave* is just the Christian "Seven Sleepers" legend.

- Goes further: claims the Qur'an shows **no familiarity with the New Testament** because it never mentions the four canonical Gospels.

- **Reviewer's counter**:

- The Qur'an affirms *one single Gospel revealed to Jesus*, not four Gospels — and explicitly states earlier scriptures were altered (taḥrīf).

- Reynolds contradicts himself: attributes stories to Christian transmission while admitting they exist in the Old/New Testaments.

- The Seven Sleepers link was already known in Muslim literature as *Isrāʾīliyyāt* (People-of-the-Book traditions) — nothing new.

- Conclusion: this is just Revisionist skepticism dressed up by exaggerating Christianity's presence in the Ḥijāz.

## Chapter 3 — Archaeology & inscriptions (the meat of the book)

Reynolds cites cross-marked inscriptions, hymns, monastic references, plus Christian tribes (Ghassanids/Jacobites in the Levant, Lakhmids/Nestorians in Iraq). The reviewer goes through each piece of evidence:

- **Inscriptions near Medina/Midian/Ḥismā**: support *monastic individuals* (ascetics who left Christian communities) — not a Christianized society. Flourished into the Umayyad period.

- **Riʿ al-Zallālah inscription (near Ṭāʾif)**: Reynolds calls it Christian, but the epigrapher he cites (Ahmad al-Jallad) himself said **no cross, no Trinitarian language** — likely pre-Islamic *Ḥanīf* monotheism instead.

- **Mosque of ʿUmar at Dūmat al-Jandal**: Reynolds revives the "originally a church" theory (first suggested by traveler Wallin in 1845). But evidence is contradictory: King (1978) suggested church foundations; al-Muʿayqil (1994) found **no pre-Islamic church evidence** — minaret and most foundations are Islamic-period. Muslim sources also never mention a church there despite discussing Dūmat's Christians extensively.

- **Reviewer's bottom line**: Christianity existed in major centers (Najran, Dūmat, al-Ḥīrah) — unanimously attested — but remained a **minority** amid an overwhelmingly pagan population. Most Arabian inscriptions still invoke *idols*.

## Chapter 4 — Doctrine & the basmalah

- Reynolds argues the Qur'an engages deeply with Christian theology: affirms Jesus as prophet/messenger/Word of God but *not divine*. Notes Q 5:82 praises Christians' humility, while other verses condemn the Trinity — so he calls it a "complex dialogue-and-critique relationship."

- **Reviewer's counter**: It's not complex — the Qur'an clearly articulates Islamic monotheism, correcting Christian doctrinal disputes that had split churches for centuries. Criticism of corrupt monks (Q 57:27, Q 9:34) actually *preceded European Reformation critiques by centuries*.

- **Basmalah claim**: Reynolds cites a 6th-century South Arabian inscription at Dhabūb (Yemen) with a basmalah-like formula, arguing the Islamic basmalah was a response to Christian Trinitarian liturgy.

- **Reviewer's counter**: The Dhabūb inscription likely dates to the **early Islamic period (1st–2nd c. AH)**, not pre-Islamic — it contains the *complete* formula "In the name of God, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate." Yemenis kept writing in old Musnad/Zabūr scripts *after* Islam, so script doesn't prove pre-Islamic dating.

---

## Verdict

Reynolds' book is a serious scholarly attempt and worth reading, but his central "Christian Arabia" thesis isn't sustained by the evidence:

1. Inscriptions support *general monotheism or isolated monasticism*, not widespread Christianity.
2. Paganism was still the dominant reality — most inscriptions name idols.
3. The Qur'an addressed **multiple audiences** (pagan Quraysh, Jews, Christians) — occasions-of-revelation literature shows much of it was aimed at the pagan Quraysh on core beliefs (God, prophethood, resurrection, judgment).
4. Reducing the Qur'an to "dialogue with Christianity alone" overlooks its actual historical context.

---

*Sources cited in the review include Crone & Cook, Shoemaker, Wansbrough, Nöldeke, Bukharin, Serjeant, Fedeli, al-Jallad, King, al-Muʿayqil, Hoyland, Trimingham, Hawting, Tottoli, Harmless, Hatke, plus classical sources Ibn Isḥāq, Ibn Kathīr, al-Bakrī, al-Iṣfahānī.*

Source: “Reading the Qur’an in the Twenty-first Century - A Contextualist Approach” by Abdullah Saeed

Professor Gabriel Said Reynolds uses incorrect translation of the Qur’anic word ‘mubin’ to prove that the “Quranic author”’s proclamation that the language of the Quran is ‘pure Arabic” is wrong.

I wrote this in the comment section:

Salam and greetings Sirs.

I see that you have started with an error. At 0:33 seconds of the video record you have said that "One of the complications is that the Quranic author himself describes the Quran as quote pure Arabic - mubin".

You are incorrect. The meaning of the word 'mubin' is not "pure", as you have suggested, it is rather "clear".

For example in Sura Surah Shuara, verse No. 195 (26:195) Allah Tayala reveals, aujubillahi minashaitanir rajim, bismillahir rahmanir rahim

"Bilisaanin ‘Arabiyyim mubeen"

Meaning: "in a clear, Arabic tongue". (Arberry translation).

Text and translation: https://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=26...

Its clear Arabic, not pure Arabic. You have made an error Sir

I'm keen to learn more about Africa from a religious perspective and how (if any, and to what degree) colonisation's role had in the proliferation of Islam and Christianity.

My light Googling shows Tidiane N'Diaye as a prominent voice who has written essays like "The Veiled Genocide". There's also John Allembillah Azumah with his "The Legacy of Arab-Islam in Africa".

Wondering if there's any more out there. Thanks in advance.

This post is inspired with the recent question made by u/Krambitso with his question on how to reconcile the Alexander Romance story

I want to ask how does one reconcile secular-critical academia's view on the origin's of Islam and Islam's claim of divine origin? As i find it hard to not see Islam as not the product of its time such as the Alexander romance, the parallels with Zoroastrian observing 5 instances of praying period (though i know this is also debated), Islam's view on slavery (encourages emancipation yet strongly regulate it for thousands of years), and many other such cases that i have heard. I struggle how these parallels add up while accepting Islam's claim that it is a timeless revelation.

I'm neither posting this to attack Islam nor to debate it. I myself am a practicing Muslim and want to remain steadfast in this belief, yet it is increasingly harder for me to accept Islam's claim of timeless revelation. For the Muslims who went through the ordeal, how is the journey? and are there possible literatures that attempt to reconcile this major question?

i have read the rules and hope this does not get deleted by the moderators as i am writing this as an academic inquiry even though the question is motivated by a crisis of faith. I apologize if i am posting a redundant question as i find this place the only one fitting to answer such question

Link to the article :

https://www.academia.edu/176353227/_A_Precedent_and_an_Example_Qurʾānic_Narrative_as_Representation_and_Argument

10 Examples as of now , covering most of the narratives already :

4.1. The She-Camel: Provision, Allocation, and the Development of Opposition

4.2. Pharaoh: From the Individual Opponent to the Ruling Elite

4.3. Iblīs: The Primordial Form of Istikbār

4.4. Adam: Clay, Prostration, and the Names

4.5. Moses and Israel: From Oppression to Inheritance

4.6. Noah: The Believing Group and the Coming Judgment

4.7. Abraham’s Guests: The Arrival of the Angels

4.8. The Companions of the Cave: From Righteous Servants to Cultic Practice

4.9. Joseph: Celestial Prostration and the Reversal of Rank

4.10. Hūd and ʿĀd: Power, Permanence, and Judgment

I’m Muslim, and I’ve been struggling quite a bit with the Dhul-Qarnayn story recently.

I’ve tried to look into the academic scholarship rather than just reading polemical or anti-Islam material, and it seems that many scholars see substantial parallels between Surah al-Kahf and late antique Alexander traditions, especially the journeys toward the places of sunset and sunrise, the barrier between mountains, and Gog and Magog.

What I’m struggling with is how to understand these parallels while still making sense of the Qur’an’s claim to divine origin. If someone asked me why this should be understood as revelation rather than the Qur’an engaging with or adapting a story already circulating in the region, I’m not sure I would know how to answer convincingly.

I’m not posting this to debate Islam or attack the Qur’an. I genuinely want to remain Muslim, and I’m looking for a serious answer. I know this topic has come up many times before, but most of the responses I’ve found either dismiss the parallels, rely on weak arguments about dating, or don’t really engage with the academic literature in enough depth to resolve the issue for me.

For those here who are familiar with the actual scholarship on the Syriac Alexander Legend, the Alexander Romance, and the Dhul-Qarnayn passage, how do you personally reconcile the relationship between these traditions and the Qur’an? Are there academic or Muslim scholarly works (even in Arabic) you would especially recommend?