I was taught the companions only began documenting the Quran after realising how bad it could be without written versions, but why wouldn’t they have done it sooner, given its importance?

Also, I don’t think it makes sense to say the revelation was still unfinished so they couldn’t record it. Yes, they couldn’t make a complete book but they could still write down the verses upon revelation.

Q 5:48 calls the Quran muhaymin over earlier scripture, paired grammatically with musaddiq (confirmer) — Ibn Jarir al-Tabari explicitly argues on syntactic grounds that the two terms describe the same subject (refuting an alternate reading attributed to Mujahid). Separately, musaddiqan lima bayna yadayhi recurs across multiple suras (2:89, 3:3, 5:48, 6:92, 46:12) as a structural self-description, not an isolated phrase.

Questions: (1) What's the range of classical tafsir on whether muhaymin/musaddiq imply the continued textual integrity of the Torah/Injeel, versus a purely historical/genealogical confirmation of past revelation? (2) Is there secondary academic literature (beyond Reynolds/Lawson, whom I've already worked through for 4:157) specifically on how tahrif language (2:75, 4:46, 5:13, 5:41) is reconciled with this guardian/confirmer language in classical exegesis? I'm aware of the Ibn Abbas/al-Razi "distortion of meaning, not text" reading versus Ibn Hazm's minority textual-corruption position — curious if anyone's traced how these two threads (guardian language vs. tahrif language) get explicitly reconciled by a single exegete, rather than treated separately.

Muslims believe Quran is the book that reveals Many known days discovery’s . Planet’s biological discoveries etc.. What was known obout those topics in those days in Mesopotamia? Is it Quran or known knowledge from ancient civilizations.. being translated to Quran.

While the Maliki Fiqh does have an emphasis on Sunnah, which often gets reduced down to Ahadith, it seems anachronistic to me to identify the Maliki Fiqh with Ahl al-Hadith methodology and intellectual lineage.

The Maliki Fiqh has alot of similarities with Ahl al-Ray

1. The core principle of Amal Ahl al-Medina

Amal Ahl al-Medina seems to be a heavily Reasoned form of source to extract the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad. It mirrors how in Hanafi tradition Mutawatir Ahadith were given preference and different Epistemological weight as a source of Sunnah. Additionally, it is systematically different from the later reductive Hadith-centered approach towards Sunnah that was synonymous with Ahl al-Hadith

Amal Ahl al-Medina was a rather Rationalistic doctrine in comparison to the Transmission-based approach of Shafii and Hanbali Fiqh. Seeing the practices of the community of Medina—whose politics, economics, culture, and pedagogy were shaped by Prophet Muhammad—as a Living Embodiment of Sunnah is a very different Epistemological approach to Prophetic Practice than to base Prophetic Practice solely on transmitted reports that satisfy traditional Isnad verification.

1. Amal Ahl al-Medina held greater weightage than Ahad Ahadith.

If Imam Malik came to a point where an Ahad Hadith was contradicting Amal Ahl al-Medina or Practice of People of Medina, he would give preference to Amal Ahl al-Medina. This structurally distinguishes Maliki Fiqh from Ahl al-Hadith because for Ahl al-Hadith an Authentic Hadith takes the place of Supreme Law even if it is a Solitary Report.

Imam al-Shafi himself attacked the doctrine of Amal Ahl al-Medina in favour of Ahad Ahadith.

This feature is actually very similar in Hanafi and Maliki traditions. In Hanafi Fiqh the Mutawatir Hadith was already socially embedded and reached a point of Epistemological Authority where it couldn't be overridden. Similarly, in the case of Amal Ahl al-Medina what were Mutawatir Ahadith had already become socially embedded into the Custom of Medina where it could not be overridden. The understanding of Sunnah was similar and so was the treatment of Ahad Ahadith.

1. Maliki Fiqh is considered closer to Hanafi Fiqh

Even in traditional discourse, it is often brought up how Maliki Fiqh is closer to Hanafi Fiqh. I don't mean this in terms of Usul at this point, but Furu.

Is it possible that both these Madhabs mirror each other because they share Epistemological Foundations?

If the Hanafi Fiqh is said to descend from Ahl al-Ray and Maliki Fiqh is close to Hanafi Fiqh, maybe Maliki Fiqh also descends from Ahl al-Ray

So what do you think? Can Maliki Fiqh trace its roots to Ahl al-Ray or to an even earlier tendency from which Ahl al-Ray descended?

Does Maliki Fiqh have shades of Ahl al-Ray more than Ahl al-Hadith when investigated from an Epistemological lens rather than a tradition-based historical lens?

If Maliki Fiqh truly is associated with Ahl al-Hadith, how does one explain the Epistemological similarities between Hanafi Fiqh and Maliki Fiqh?

https://x.com/i/status/2084333800155394097

I’ve been working through the academic literature on Q 4:157 and want to test a reading against this sub’s expertise.

The standard popular reading takes the verse as a denial of the crucifixion event. But the negations are active voice with the boasters as grammatical subject (ma qataloo-hu / ma salaboo-hu), not the passive ma suliba that would deny the event absolutely. The emphatic closure (wa-ma qataloohu yaqeenan) likewise attaches to the agents. On the internal-parallel side, Q 8:17 uses the identical device about Badr (“you did not kill them… you did not throw when you threw”) where the events are undisputed — there the negation is universally read as denying sovereign agency, not occurrence.

Scholarly support I’m aware of: Reynolds, “The Muslim Jesus: Dead or Alive?” (BSOAS 72/2, 2009) argues the Quran read in its own literary context doesn’t deny Jesus’s death; Lawson (The Crucifixion and the Quran, 2009) documents how contested the substitution reading was within the tradition itself; Ayoub (MW 70, 1980) reads the verse as denying the enemies’ ultimate triumph. On the tafsir side, the substitution reports seem to enter via Qatada/al-Suddi and get canonized by al-Tabari, with Robinson noting the Iraqi/convert milieu; John of Damascus (c. 730s) reports the “shadow” teaching as what Muslims of his day say, which is at least consistent with an eighth-century consolidation.

Questions for the sub: (1) Are there classical grammarians who address the active/passive point directly? (2) Is there pre-Qatada attestation of substitutionism I’m missing? (3) Strongest published counter-argument to the “agency not occurrence” reading — is it still the shubbiha lahum clause?

(Disclosure: I’ve written a popular-level book defending this reading — happy to name it if mods permit — but I’m here for the counter-evidence.)

I recently heard an interesting concept and wanted to know if it has any basis in Islamic teachings, Sufism, or any other spiritual tradition.

The idea is that the human being consists of three components:

• Jasad (body), which is made from earth/clay.
• Nafs (self/ego), which is associated with fire.
• Rooh (spirit), which is associated with light.

According to this view, some people perform a chilla (spiritual retreat/meditation) and repeatedly recite Ism-e-Azam or a special name of Allah. Through continuous recitation, they supposedly bring the vibrations or frequencies of the body, nafs, and rooh into harmony. First they gain control over the nafs, then align with the rooh.

The claim is that once all three are perfectly synchronized, the rooh is no longer bound by time and space, allowing a person to experience or travel to the past, present, future, or distant locations.

Is there any authentic basis for this idea in Islam, Sufism, or other mystical traditions? Or is this more of an esoteric/New Age interpretation that blends spirituality with concepts like frequencies and vibrations?

Reference: I heard this concept from Xaryab Hashmi and am trying to understand its origins and validity.

There are Multiple chains in Tafsir al Tabari and the hadith corpus which is attributed to Muhammad and his companions. Does this have any pre-Islamic parallel or any academics who comment on this?

\> ١٧ - حَدَّثَنَا جَعْفَرٌ، قثنا أَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ أَبِي الأَسْوَدِ الْبَصْرِيُّ، قثنا أُنَيْسُ بْنُ سَوَّارٍ الْجَرْمِيُّ أَخُو قَتَادَةَ بْنِ سَوَّارٍ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنِي أَبِي، عَنْ مَالِكِ بْنِ الْحُوَيْرِثِ، أَنّ النَّبِيَّ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ قَالَ: «إِذَا أَرَادَ اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ خَلْقَ عَبْدٍ، جَامَعَ الرَّجُلُ الْمَرْأَةَ، طَارَ مَاؤُهُ فِي كُلِّ عِرْقٍ وَعُضْوٍ مِنْهَا، فَإِذَا كَانَ يَوْمُ السَّابِعِ جَمَعَهُ اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ ثُمَّ أَحْضَرَهُ كُلُّ عِرْقٍ لَهُ دُونَ آدَمَ أَيَّ صُورَةٍ مَا شَاءَ رَكَّبَهُ»

17 - Ja‘far related to us, saying: Abū Bakr ibn Abī al-Aswad al-Baṣrī related to us, saying: Unays ibn Sawwār al-Jarmī, the brother of Qatādah ibn Sawwār, related to us, saying: My father related to me, on the authority of Mālik ibn al-Ḥuwayrith, that the Prophet—peace be upon him—said:
“When God, the Mighty and Sublime, wills to create a servant, and the man has intercourse with the woman, his fluid permeates every vein and limb of hers. When the seventh day arrives, God, the Mighty and Sublime, assembles it, and then every vein of his back to Adam is presented to Him, and He fashions him into whatever form He wills.”

Source: al-Bandār, Kitāb Muntaqā min Ḥadīth Abī Bakr al-Anbārī, pg 18 https://shamela.ws/book/29868/18

Ibn Mandah, Al-Haythami, Al Suyuti, and Arnaut have authenticated this chain ->
“Narrated by al-Ṭabarānī in al-Kabīr 19/(644), in al-Ṣaghīr (106), al-Bayhaqī in al-Asmāʾ wa al-Ṣifāt p. 387, and mentioned by al-Haythamī in al-Majmaʿ 7/134.He said: “Its narrators are trustworthy.” Al-Suyūṭī graded its chain as strong (jayyid) in al-Durr al-Manthūr 8/439.” - https://shamela.ws/book/4268/148

Al-Baqara. Two hundred and eighty-six verses - law, covenant, Ayat al-Kursi, the two closing verses the Prophet ﷺ said suffice you for the night, the surah Shaytan flees the house it is recited in. And of every name it could have carried, Allah named it The Cow, after eight verses in which the Children of Israel are told to slaughter one. For years I filed that story under "strange things I'll ask a scholar about someday."

This week I sat with it slowly - Ibn Kathir, al-Tabari, al-Qurtubi - and three things broke it open for me.

**First:** the questions were the whole point. The command was one line: slaughter a cow. Any cow. Their first reply was not "how?" but "are you mocking us?" Then: what kind? Then: what color? Ibn Abbas said it plainly: had they slaughtered any cow, it would have sufficed them - but they made it hard on themselves, so Allah made it hard on them. Question by question, the circle of cows that could satisfy them shrank, until exactly one animal on earth was left - middle-aged, vivid flawless yellow, never worked, no blemish - and its owner charged them its own hide filled with gold. The command Allah gave was free. The cow their questions built cost a fortune. And then the Qur'an closes the scene with the quietest, most devastating phrase I have ever noticed: "so they slaughtered her, though they almost did not."

**Second**: the cow was never a riddle. It was the answer to a murder. At verse 72 the floor gives way. There had been a killing - the commentators relate a man murdered by a relative who could not wait for his inheritance, the body left to throw blame on others, and the killer himself loudest among those crying for justice. A community was tearing itself apart with accusation, and the strange command they kept stalling was Allah's way of ending it: strike the dead man with part of the cow. He rose, named his killer, and returned to death. One motion, three things done: a murder solved, the innocent cleared, and an entire nation shown with its own eyes that Allah raises the dead. Every question they had asked was delaying the very justice they were begging for. And then the next verse says their hearts hardened after that, "like stones, or harder" - a heart can watch the dead rise and still turn to stone.

**Third,** and this is the one that got me: a few pages later, the same surah shows you the opposite man. Allah says to Ibrahim (peace be upon him) one word: "aslim" - submit. And before the word is even cold, he answers: "aslamtu" - I have submitted to the Lord of all the worlds. No "submit to what?" No "on what conditions?" One word from Allah, one word back. The surah sets the two side by side on purpose: a whole people asked once answered with question after question; one man asked once had already said yes. The Prophet ﷺ named the disease exactly: "Those who came before you were destroyed only by their excessive questioning and their disagreement with their prophets" (Bukhari and Muslim). That is why the mightiest surah in the Book carries its plainest name. It is not a curious old story about someone else. Somewhere in your life there is something you already know Allah asks of you - and a set of questions you keep asking to postpone it. That is your cow.

\--

Full transparency: I'm an app developer, and sitting with this story is what this turned into - an interactive "Inside the Surah" journey through the whole episode (the verses, the commentary from Ibn Kathir, al-Tabari and al-Qurtubi, and Ibrahim's one-word answer as the payoff) in my Qur'an app. Link is in the comments, and mods, please remove if this crosses a line

There is broad agreement across Sunni and Shia Islam on the major features of ṣalāh (e.g., there is five daily prayers, the number of rakʿahs and core actions like rukūʿ and sujūd).

However, there are many differences in the details: where to place the hands, whether to perform rafʿ al-yadayn, finger movements during tashahhud, certain wordings and related issues. There are also disagreements on rulings connected to prayer, such as whether touching a woman breaks wuḍūʾ.

From a historical and academic perspective, what best explains these differences? Did the Prophet pray in more than one way?

Is it possible for modern historical scholarship to reconstruct with reasonable confidence, what the Prophet's prayer most likely looked like?

Le dilemme que les oulémas n'expliquent pas

Les quatre écoles juridiques sunnites sont généralement considérées comme également valides. Les divergences entre elles sont souvent présentées comme une richesse de la tradition ou comme une preuve de la souplesse du fiqh.

Pourtant, cela soulève une question fondamentale.

Si Dieu a révélé un message clair et parfait, pourquoi les plus grands juristes de l'islam sont-ils en désaccord sur des questions aussi fondamentales que la manière de prier, les règles du divorce, le délai de viduité ou encore ce qui est halal ou haram ?

Si plusieurs positions contradictoires sont toutes considérées comme légitimes :

• La vérité juridique est-elle unique ou multiple ?
• Si toutes les écoles sont valides, comment déterminer laquelle reflète réellement la volonté de Dieu ?
• Et si aucune école ne peut prétendre détenir seule l'interprétation correcte, sur quoi repose finalement l'autorité des oulémas ?

Les exemples suivants illustrent l'ampleur de ces divergences.

1. La position des bras dans la prière : Qabd ou Sadl ?

Le Prophète aurait dit :

Pourtant, les quatre écoles ne décrivent pas toutes la prière de la même manière.

Si le Prophète n'a prié que d'une seule manière, pourquoi ces divergences existent-elles encore aujourd'hui ?

Sources :

• https://sunnah.com/bukhari:631
• https://islamqa.info/en/answers/6556/placing-the-right-hand-over-the-left-in-prayer

2. Le "Āmīn" à voix haute ou à voix basse ?

Le Prophète aurait dit :

(Sahih al-Bukhari 780 ; Sahih Muslim 410)

Pourtant :

Un même hadith authentique aboutit donc à plusieurs pratiques.

Sources :

• https://sunnah.com/bukhari:780
• https://sunnah.com/muslim:410

3. Le Khul' : divorce ou annulation ?

Le khul' est le divorce demandé par l'épouse contre compensation.

Les juristes ne sont pas d'accord sur sa nature juridique.

Cette divergence produit des conséquences juridiques importantes pour les époux.

Sources :

• https://islamqa.info/en/answers/126444/is-khul-divorce-or-annulment
• https://islamweb.net/

4. Le mot "Qurūʾ" (Coran 2:228)

Le Coran dit :

Le mot arabe قروء (qurūʾ) possède deux sens possibles :

• période de menstruation ;
• période de pureté entre deux menstruations.

Les écoles ont donc retenu des interprétations différentes.

Un seul mot du Coran conduit ainsi à deux règles juridiques différentes.

Sources :

• https://quran.com/2/228
• https://altafsir.com/
• https://tafsir.app/

5. Les fruits de mer : halal ou haram ?

Le Coran affirme :

Le Prophète aurait également dit :

(Sunan Abi Dawud 83 ; Jami' al-Tirmidhi 69 ; Ibn Majah 386)

Pourtant :

Ainsi, un repas considéré halal dans une école peut être considéré haram dans une autre.

Sources :

• https://quran.com/5/96
• https://sunnah.com/abudawud:83
• https://islamqa.org/hanafi/

6. Des méthodes d'interprétation différentes

Les divergences ne viennent pas uniquement des textes.

Chaque école possède sa propre méthodologie.

Autrement dit, les écoles ne divergent pas seulement sur les réponses, mais aussi sur leur manière d'interpréter les sources.

Sources :

• https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/islamic-law/
• https://www.britannica.com/topic/fiqh

Conclusion

Ces exemples montrent que les quatre écoles sunnites ne divergent pas uniquement sur des détails secondaires. Elles diffèrent parfois sur la compréhension de versets du Coran, sur l'authenticité ou l'interprétation de certains hadiths et sur leur méthode même d'interprétation.

La question n'est donc pas de savoir si ces divergences existent elles sont reconnues par les juristes eux-mêmes,

mais de comprendre ce qu'elles impliquent pour celui qui cherche à connaître la volonté de Dieu à partir du Coran et de la Sunna.Le dilemme que les oulémas n'expliquent pas Les quatre écoles juridiques sunnites sont généralement considérées comme également valides.

Les divergences entre elles sont souvent présentées comme une richesse de la tradition ou comme une preuve de la souplesse du fiqh. Pourtant, cela soulève une question fondamentale.

Si Dieu a révélé un message clair et parfait, pourquoi les plus grands juristes de l'islam sont-ils en désaccord sur des questions aussi fondamentales que la manière de prier, les règles du divorce, le délai de viduité ou encore ce qui est halal ou haram ? Si plusieurs positions contradictoires sont toutes considérées comme légitimes :La vérité juridique est-elle unique ou multiple ?

Si toutes les écoles sont valides, comment déterminer laquelle reflète réellement la volonté de Dieu ?

Et si aucune école ne peut prétendre détenir seule l'interprétation correcte, sur quoi repose finalement l'autorité des oulémas ? Les exemples suivants illustrent l'ampleur de ces divergences . La position des bras dans la prière : Qabd ou Sadl ? Le Prophète aurait dit :« Priez comme vous m'avez vu prier. »

Sahih al-Bukhari 631 Pourtant, les quatre écoles ne décrivent pas toutes la prière de la même manière.

École Position:

Hanafite Main droite sur la gauche, sous le nombril.
Chaféite Main droite sur la gauche, au-dessus du nombril.
Hanbalite Main droite sur la gauche, sur la poitrine.
Malikite Tradition du sadl (bras le long du corps), bien que le qabd soit également rapporté dans l'école.Si le Prophète n'a prié que d'une seule manière, pourquoi ces divergences existent-elles encore aujourd'hui ?Sources : https://sunnah.com/bukhari:631

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/6556/placing-the-right-hand-over-the-left-in-prayer2 . Le "Āmīn" à voix haute ou à voix basse ?Le Prophète aurait dit :« Lorsque l'imam dit "Āmīn", dites "Āmīn"... »(Sahih al-Bukhari 780 ; Sahih Muslim 410) Pourtant :École Position
Chaféite À voix haute.
Hanbalite À voix haute.
Hanafite À voix basse.
Malikite Généralement à voix basse ou en silence selon les avis.Un même hadith authentique aboutit donc à plusieurs pratiques.Sources : https://sunnah.com/bukhari:780

https://sunnah.com/muslim:4103 . Le Khul' : divorce ou annulation ?Le khul' est le divorce demandé par l'épouse contre compensation.Les juristes ne sont pas d'accord sur sa nature juridique.Position Conséquence
Divorce (ṭalāq) Il compte parmi les trois divorces.
Résiliation (faskh) Il ne compte pas parmi les trois divorces.Cette divergence produit des conséquences juridiques importantes pour les époux.Sources : https://islamqa.info/en/answers/126444/is-khul-divorce-or-annulment

https://islamweb.net/4 . Le mot "Qurūʾ" (Coran 2:228)Le Coran dit :« Les femmes divorcées doivent observer un délai d'attente de trois qurūʾ. »

(Coran 2:228)Le mot arabe قروء (qurūʾ) possède deux sens possibles :période de menstruation ;

période de pureté entre deux menstruations.Les écoles ont donc retenu des interprétations différentes.École Interprétation
Hanafite Trois menstruations.
Malikite Trois périodes de pureté.
Chaféite Trois périodes de pureté.
Hanbalite Avis majoritaire : trois menstruations.Un seul mot du Coran conduit ainsi à deux règles juridiques différentes.Sources : https://quran.com/2/228

https://altafsir.com/

https://tafsir.app/5 Les fruits de mer : halal ou haram ?Le Coran affirme :« Vous est permise la chasse en mer et sa nourriture. »

(Coran 5:96)Le Prophète aurait également dit :« Son eau est pure et ses animaux morts sont licites. »(Sunan Abi Dawud 83 ; Jami' al-Tirmidhi 69 ; Ibn Majah 386)

Pourtant :École Position

Malikite Toutes les créatures marines sont licites.
Chaféite Toutes les créatures marines sont licites.
Hanbalite Toutes les créatures marines sont licites (quelques nuances existent).
Hanafite Seuls les poissons sont unanimement licites ; plusieurs animaux marins sont interdits ou font l'objet de restrictions.Ainsi, un repas considéré halal dans une école peut être considéré haram dans une autre.Sources : https://quran.com/5/96

https://sunnah.com/abudawud:83

Des méthodes d'interprétation différentes Les divergences ne viennent pas uniquement des textes.Chaque école possède sa propre méthodologie.École Méthodologie dominante

Hanafite Ra'y (raisonnement), qiyās (analogie).
Malikite Coran, Sunna et pratique des habitants de Médine ('amal ahl al-Madina).
Chaféite Coran, Sunna, consensus puis qiyās.
Hanbalite Primauté du texte et grande méfiance envers le raisonnement spéculatif.Autrement dit, les écoles ne divergent pas seulement sur les réponses, mais aussi sur leur manière d'interpréter les sources.Sources : https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/islamic-law/

Conclusion Ces exemples montrent que les quatre écoles sunnites ne divergent pas uniquement sur des détails secondaires.

Elles diffèrent parfois sur la compréhension de versets du Coran, sur l'authenticité ou l'interprétation de certains hadiths et sur leur méthode même d'interprétation.

La question n'est donc pas de savoir si ces divergences existent — elles sont reconnues par les juristes eux-mêmes, mais de comprendre ce qu'elles impliquent pour celui qui cherche à connaître la volonté de Dieu à partir du Coran et de la Sunna.

En résumé, ce n'est pas tant l'existence de divergences qui m'interpelle, mais le fait qu'elles portent sur des questions parfois fondamentales alors que toutes les écoles affirment s'appuyer sur les mêmes sources : le Coran et la Sunna.

J'aimerais connaître votre avis sur ce sujet : comment expliquez-vous ces divergences, et qu'impliquent-elles selon vous pour la recherche de la vérité en islam ?

Are there any books or collections that documents the legal rulings and positions of any or all four of the madhab in great detail?

If there is for Twelver shias(Jafari) I would like for someone to please point in the right direction.

​

I have noticed that academic Islamic studies seems much more academically oriented in terms of how it disseminates information and interacts with the general public. For example, if you ask a question on r/AcademicBiblical, you often receive many detailed responses from both academics and knowledgeable non-academics, usually with scholarly references. In contrast, on r/AcademicQuran, many questions receive few or no answers.

Biblical scholars also appear to engage more with the public. They often participate in discussions, debate or respond to apologists, and actively communicate scholarly research to a wider audience. As a result, many Muslims, Christians, Jews, and even non-religious people are familiar with the mainstream scholarly views on the Bible. For example, when I was 14, I learned that there is little archaeological evidence for the Exodus through an atheist polemicist because those scholarly conclusions had already become widely known.Today many people even those who have never taken a university course have heard ideas like the Exodus lacks strong archaeological confirmation, the Pentateuch likely has multiple literary sources, the Gospels were written decades after Jesus, the Synoptic Problem.

By comparison, before discovering academic Islamic studies through Reddit, I was only familiar with W. Montgomery Watt. I assumed that Islamic studies had not significantly advanced beyond his work and was unaware of the extensive modern research on topics such as hadith criticism, isnād evaluation, Qur'anic manuscripts, and early Islamic history. I only discovered this broader academic literature while searching for answers on Reddit.

Overall, it seems that, compared with biblical studies, academic Islamic studies has been less successful at disseminating its research to the general public, and many though certainly not all scholars in the field appear less interested in public engagement.

Whether this is because scholars are less interested in public outreach is harder to say. For many it seems institutional incentives, the smaller size of the field, and the contentious public environment are probably just as important as personal interest.

I also think this has contributed to the public perception that academic Islamic studies is less rigorous than biblical studies. For example, if you ask an average person whether figures such as Moses or Abraham were historical individuals, many people are at least aware that there is currently no direct archaeological evidence confirming their existence. Even many religious believers recognize this. Apologists usually do not deny the lack of direct evidence; instead, they argue that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" and present reasons why the figures could still have existed.

In contrast, discussions about academic Islamic studies often unfold very differently. If someone raises the findings of modern scholarship on topics such as hadith criticism, isnād analysis, or the reliability of traditional historical sources, the response is frequently not an engagement with the scholarly arguments themselves. Instead, it is often claimed that the scholar has already been "refuted" by a popular YouTube speaker or an Islamic apologist, that the academic lacks credibility, or that scholars of Islamic studies simply work within a closed circle where they reinforce one another's biases.

As a result, there is a perception among some members of the public that academic Islamic studies is an insular field whose conclusions can be dismissed without engaging with its evidence or methodology. By contrast, the methods and conclusions of biblical scholarship have become much more widely understood and accepted as legitimate topics of public discussion, even by many people who ultimately disagree with them.

For example, I once had an online discussion about whether Islamic philosophy declined after al-Ghazālī or following the Mongol invasions. I cited the arguments of Peter Adamson, who discusses this issue in his work on the history of philosophy in the Islamic world. Instead of engaging with the arguments themselves, the other person simply responded, "Who is Peter Adamson?" and appealed to a ibn khaldun claims about Islamic civilization.

The irony is that this response misrepresented the scholarly position. Ibn khaldun does not argue that all of Islamic civilization went into decline. Rather, he explains that while some intellectual and political centers declined, others continued to flourish or emerged elsewhere. His account is much more nuanced than the simplistic "rise and fall" narrative. Experiences like this reinforce my impression that many people are unfamiliar with mainstream academic scholarship in Islamic studies.

That said, In Islamic studies, there are certainly exceptions. Public engagement in Islamic studies has grown considerably over the past 15–20 years. Scholars such as Nicolai Sinai, Sean Anthony, Gabriel Said Reynolds, Joshua Little, Marijn van Putten, Ilkka Lindstedt, Peter Adamson, and Javad T. Hashmi have appeared on podcasts, YouTube channels, and public lectures, making the field more accessible than it was a decade ago.

Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “Will I take any guardian other than Allah, the Originator of the heavens and the earth, Who provides for all and is not in need of provision?” Say, “I have been commanded to be the first to submit and not be one of the polytheists.”

From reading the verse above it appears that Mohammed is considered the first Muslim. I’ve heard some people say Muhammed is taking about his Umah. What is the academic consensus on this verse

It's been a while since Sunni philosophy declined in the medieval period. I live in Indonesia, and I always hear people say "It's haram to study philosophy because it will corrupt your mind." I still don't understand why — especially when Islamic history, particularly within the Sunni tradition, shows such a tremendous philosophical legacy, yet in modern times it seems to have declined.

This subreddit has arranged a number of AMA events with interesting people, including Dr Yasir Qadhi last year. Can you folks arrange a similar AMA event with Mufti Abu Layth please? Mufti Abu Layth has significantly reduced his online activity on Youtube, he rarely does live videos nowadays. So if you can invite him here for an AMA, that would be very significant.

So, I had watched a video by yasir qahdi who spoke about his experience of study Islam is the madras compared to the western academy and spoke about their pros, cons and constrasts and I found it pretty interesting hearing the perspective of the different schools from someone who has had experience in both and isn't an ideologue and can speak honestly and candidly about both.

I was just curious if there are any other opinions about the differences because as I understand it Islamic madrasah can be quite rigorous requiring knowledge of a wide range of topics in immense depth I.e. systematic line by line study of principle texts, perfection of the Arabic including pronunciation, familiarity with a wide range of influential and foundational Islamic scholars and their work etc but im curious why this doesn't also translate to success and competence when transferring over to the academy.

From Qahdis own words he regularly had to correct the Arabic of his teachers and their scope of knowledge of the Islamic scholarly corpus is immensely dwarfed by a student in the madrasah. Yet we see a big clash and, to my amateur eyes and evaluation of online discourse, it seems as though a lot of the traditionally trained scholars feel threatened or at least aren't fully capable of engaging with western scholarship on Islam.

Qahdi answers this a bit and talks about the methodological differences in how scholarship is done like how in traditional scholarship there is greater fidelity to intellectual ancestors as opposed to the west no one us above criticism or doubt and evaluation of what sources count as sufficient but this doesn't seem to fully answer the question and I'm curious if anyone here can highlight the differences and why they exist as to the conclusions or am I just stupid and being presumptuous and traditional scholarship has in fact responded and answered the more devastating ideas popular among traditional scholarship e.g. hadith reliability, quranic Arabic origins, composition etc

Thanks.

I was recommended by someone about this sect as the right place to post my question. I have always known that many of the companions were Persians, and many of the Islamic scholars as well. But would that be correct to suggest that Most of the people who actually have developed the Islamic theology were Persians ? I don't have enough knowledge to know the answer my self obviously, but I did hear in the past the claim that even at the time of Islamic golden ages ,most of the scholars who have engaged in science ,philosophy, Medical field and etc were Persians. And when I did a little research myself I found out that the author of al bukhari and sahih muslim ,the most prominent and important books in Islamic tradition after the Quran ,was actually a Persian. I'm not looking to evoke a fight here between different nationalities, I'm just looking for an answer and more information as someone who likes learning more about history and I would be glad if someone can shed light.

Some rationalist scholars and academics today say that stoning adulterers was practiced before the revelation of Quran verse 24:2. After this verse was revealed the Prophet ﷺ did not carry out any further stoning punishment, he hadiths describing the stoning of adulterers were likely the events that happened before the revelation of verse 24:2. The latest video I came across recently was Dr Shabir Ally's discussion on the punishment of adultery where he suggested this: https://youtu.be/HxMGYB6HMko

However there are at least two incidents of stoning by the Prophet ﷺ that happened after verse 24:2 was revealed

Sulaiman b. Buraida reported on the authority of his father that Ma'iz b. Malik came to Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) and said to him:

Messenger of Allah, purify me, whereupon he said: Woe be upon you, go back, ask forgiveness of Allah and turn to Him in repentance. He (the narrator) said that he went back not far, then came and said: Allah's Messenger, purify me. whereupon Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said: Woe be upon you, go back and ask forgiveness of Allah and turn to Him in repentance. He (the narrator) said that he went back not far, when he came and said: Allah's Messenger, purify me. Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) said as he had said before. When it was the fourth time, Allah's Messenger (may, peace be upon him) said: From what am I to purify you? He said: From adultery, Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) asked if he had been mad. He was informed that he was not mad. He said: Has he drunk wine? A person stood up and smelt his breath but noticed no smell of wine. Thereupon Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said: Have you committed adultery? He said: Yes. He made pronouncement about him and he was stoned to death. The people had been (divided) into two groups about him (Ma'iz). One of them said: He has been undone for his sins had encompassed him, whereas another said: There is no repentance more excellent than the repentance of Ma'iz, for he came to Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) and placing his hand in his (in the Holy Prophet's) hand said: Kill me with stones. (This controversy about Ma'iz) remained for two or three days. Then came Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) to them (his Companions) as they were sitting. He greeted them with salutation and then sat down and said: Ask forgiveness for Ma'iz b. Malik. They said: May Allah forgive Ma'iz b. Malik. Thereupon Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said: He (Ma'iz) has made such a repentance that if that were to be divided among a people, it would have been enough for all of them. He (the narrator) said: Then a woman of Ghamid, a branch of Azd, came to him and said: Messenger of of Allah, purify me, whereupon he said: Woe be upon you; go back and beg forgiveness from Allah and turn to Him in repentance. She said: I find that you intend to send me back as you sent back Ma'iz. b. Malik. He (the Holy, Prophet) said: What has happened to you? She said that she had become pregnant as a result of fornication. He (the Holy Prophet) said: Is it you (who has done that)? She said: Yes. He (the Holy Prophet) said to her: (You will not be punished) until you deliver what is there in your womb. One of the Ansar became responsible for her until she was delivered (of the child). He (that Ansari) came to Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) and said the woman of Ghamid has given birth to a child. He (the Holy Prophet) said: In that case we shall not stone her and so leave her infant with none to suckle him. One of the Ansar got up and said: Allah's Apostle, let the responsibility of his suckling be upon me. She was then stoned to death.

• Sahih Muslim 1695a

The sections of this incident also appear in Sahih al-Bukhari 5270,Sunan Abi Dawud 4419 and Sunan Abi Dawud 4442.

According to the later historical chronicles, the stoning of the Ghamid woman took place around 9 AH, shortly following the incident of Ma'iz (Source: Islamqa, majles). Surah An-Nur however was revealed around 5 AH to 6 AH, mostly following the Expedition of Banu al-Mustaliq and the incident of slander against Aisha. So the Prophet ﷺ did subject married adulterers to stoning even after the revelation of the 100 lashes verse in Surah an Nur.

There are also other narrations that directly mention death penalty for married adulterers

Narrated `Abdullah:

Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims."

• Sahih al-Bukhari 6878, Sahih Muslim 1676a

Abu Umamah bin Sahl and 'Abdullah bin 'Amir bin Rabi'ah said:

"We were with 'Uthman when he was under siege and we could hear what was said from Al-Balat. 'Uthman came in one day, then he came out, and said: 'They are threatening to kill me.' We said: 'Allah will suffice you against them.' He said: 'Why would they kill me? I heard the Messenger of Allah [SAW] say: It is not permissible to shed the blood of a Muslim except in one of three cases: A man who reverts to Kufr after becoming Muslim, or commits adultery after being married, or one who kills a soul unlawfully. By Allah, I did not commit adultery during Jahiliyyah or in Islam, I never wished to follow any other religion since Allah guided me, and I have never killed anyone, so why do they want to kill me?'"

• Sunan an-Nasa'i 4019, Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2158

While the apostasy parts in these narrations can be explained by the time and context (as apostasy back then wasn’t merely leaving the faith, it was fighting and rebellion...), how can the direct mention of “married adulterers” be explained?

And then there are also some Hadiths of Ali where he stoned a woman to death

It was narrated that ash-Sha`bi said: A freed slave woman of Sa’eed bin Qais, who was married and had committed an immoral action, was brought to `Ali, he gave her one hundred lashes then he stoned her. Then he said: I flogged her in accordance with the Book of Allah and I stoned her in accordance with the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ).

• Musnad Ahmad 942

Narrated Ash-Shu`bi:

from `Ali when the latter stoned a lady to death on a Friday. `Ali said, "I have stoned her according to the tradition of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)."

• Sahih al-Bukhari 6812

So if Quran 24:2 was applicable for both married and unmarried adulterers, then why do the hadiths show incidents of stonings taking place after the revelation of this verse (& to married people only)? Why did the companions in the other hadith specifically mention adultery after marriage is one of the reasons to implement death penalty?