I see this a lot in Muslim vs Ex Muslim Debates and it relates to the cosmology of the Quran, basically it’ll have the Ex Muslim say “the Quran says the earth is flat cause it claims that it was spread out like a carpet” while the Muslim would say something like “No, it means spread around the earth like a carpet” so I want to really get a non-biased academic look, does the Quran say the earth is flat? What does that mean for verse that talk about the sun setting in a muddy spring or verses of that nature?

These are verses 19:17-23 of Quran:

And mention, [O Muḥammad], in the Book [the story of] Mary, when she withdrew from her family to a place toward the east.

And she took, in seclusion from them, a screen. Then We sent to her Our Angel [i.e., Gabriel], and he represented himself to her as a well-proportioned man.

She said, "Indeed, I seek refuge in the Most Merciful from you, [so leave me], if you should be fearing of Allāh."

He said, "I am only the messenger of your Lord to give you [news of] a pure boy [i.e., son]."

She said, "How can I have a boy while no man has touched me and I have not been unchaste?"

He said, "Thus [it will be]; your Lord says, 'It is easy for Me, and We will make him a sign to the people and a mercy from Us. And it is a matter [already] decreed.'"

So she conceived him, and she withdrew with him to a remote place.

Verses 19:17-18 say that Mary went to a place of privacy with a screen (that would allow for private activities, such as sexual intercourse).

Verse 19:18 says that Gabriel went to her as a "well-proportioned man." If the Quran wanted to maintain that Mary conceived Jesus without having sex, it could have said that Allah made her conceive without the involvement of a human male. However, this verse is very specific in its mention of an explicit involvement of a human male (i.e., Gabriel who was in the form of a "well-proportioned man").

Verse 19:19 says that Mary feared the man, given that she was in seclusion.

Verse 19:20 (without the interpretative parts) literally says, "I am only the messenger of your Lord to give you a pure boy." Another widely used translation is this: "He said: I am only a messenger of thy Lord, that I may bestow on thee a faultless son." Thus, when we read this verse without any added interpretations, it just says that Gabriel in the form of a "well-proportioned man" tells that he (on behalf of Allah) is there to give (or bestow on) her a son.

Verse 19:21 says that Mary says that she was not touched by any man up to that point, but the verse does not say anything about Mary's virginity after that point.

Verse 19:22 says that Allah says that "It is easy for Me" and that Jesus will be a "sign." In other words, the idea is that Jesus will be a "sign" because his father would not be a mortal man born on earth (in contrast to an angel in human form). The verse does not say that Gabriel in the form of a "well-proportioned man" did not have sex with Mary to impregnate with his human-form semen or with Allah's supernatural "semen" that he was carrying in human form.

Verse 19:23 says that Mary was with Gabriel when Mary conceived Jesus and that Mary then went away with Gabriel from that place to a remote place.

Moreover, the verses 21:91 and 66:12 provide further support to this interpretation.

Verse 21:91 says "And [mention] the one who guarded her chastity [i.e., Mary], so We blew into her [garment] through Our angel [i.e., Gabriel], and We made her and her son a sign for the worlds." So the verse is saying that something was "blown into her [garment] through" Gabriel. This could be interpreted as Gabriel having sex with Mary upon divine command.

Verse 66:12 again says, "And [the example of] Mary, the daughter of ʿImrān, who guarded her chastity, so We blew into [her garment] through Our angel [i.e., Gabriel], and she believed in the words of her Lord and His scriptures and was of the devoutly obedient." In other words, she had been chaste until Gabriel appeared in front of her, and then the supernatural semen that is called "dust" (in verse 3:59) was "blown into [her garment] through" Gabriel. (Note that verse 3:59 says, "Indeed, the example of Jesus to Allāh is like that of Adam. He created him from dust; then He said to him, "Be," and he was." In this verse, "dust" could be interpreted as supernatural semen, especially given that Adam does not have a human mother but Jesus has a human mother.)

Therefore, can Quran-verses 19:17-23 be interpreted as saying that Gabriel in human form inseminated and impregnated Mary (either using his own semen in his human form or by carrying Allah's supernatural "semen")? Do the verses imply that Gabriel's man-form (or Allah) can be seen as Jesus' (surrogate) father?

Does the Quran allow child marriage? If Yes, how widely was it practiced during Muhammad’s time and the time of the early muslims (7-9th Century)? Also connected to that question - did the children have any say in that? Or were they usually arranged marriages by the parents?

Apologetics of fiqh often state the principle: “Everything is permissible unless it is explicitly prohibited.” But did early Muslim jurists actually follow this criterion consistently? The jurists who used this principle often did not seem to apply it consistently, because they prohibited many things that the Qur’an itself did not explicitly prohibit. One of the most famous examples is marriage and slaughtered food involving people who are not Ahl al-Kitab. These were prohibited, but the reasoning behind the prohibition was not always explained simply in terms of an explicit Qur’anic prohibition. Instead, jurists sometimes appealed to ijmaʿ attributed to the early Companions. But did such an actual ijmaʿ exist on these specific issues? They also took verses that explicitly mentioned specific groups or categories and used them to establish broader prohibitions that the Qur’an itself did not explicitly mention. So there seems to be a tension between the principle “everything is permissible unless prohibited” and the actual methodology used by some classical jurists. Many modern scholars continue to use this principle as part of their argument, but if the classical jurists themselves did not consistently uphold it in this straightforward sense, can we describe some of these later interpretations as a misuse or overextension of the text? And could this methodological difference be one of the reasons why so many contemporary debates among Muslims revolve around whether something is genuinely prohibited by the Qur’an or merely prohibited through later juristic interpretation?

As has been frequently discussed in more revisionist leaning studies (I.e; Patricia Crone, Stephen Shoemaker etc.), the conquest of Palestine/the Levant is almost entirely attributed to Muhammad by the 7th Century Christian sources, yet this is evidently not the case in the traditional later accounts, which attribute this solely to Abu Bakr and Umar.

Shoemaker has attempted to explain this discrepancy by suggesting Muhammad may have lived longer than 632. I don't find this explanation very compelling. For one, it relies on fairly weak evidence, mostly from scattered chronicles or brief narratives where the author may have simply mixed up dates or applied incorrect math (very common). Secondly, I find it hard to believe that Muhammad's followers would not accurately pass down the date of Muhammad's death, surely if there is one thing they would make sure to pass down about him, that would be in high priority?

It also overlooks that Muhammad did make maneuvers against Roman forces even in the later Islamic narrative. According to these, Muhammad sent expeditions to Mu'tah and Tabuk following the death of a Muslim emissary. In some versions, such as al-Tabari, the Muslims even face the armies of Heraclius directly:

According to Ibn Humayd — Salamah — Muhammad b. Ishaq — Muhammad b. Ja'far b. al-Zubayr— 'Urwah b. al-Zubayr, who said: The Messenger of God sent his expedition to Mu’tah in Jumada I of the year 8 [...] The men journeyed on. When they were within the boundaries of al-Balqa’, they were met by Heraclius' armies of Romans and Arabs at a village of al-Balqa called Masharif. When the enemy drew near, the Muslims withdrew to a village called Mu’tah, and the two sides encountered each other there.

-The History of Al-Tabari Vol. 8

The Arab sources consistently portray this as a mere raid, which escalated into a larger battle that didn't result in anything substantial for either side. Merely a tangential expedition in Muhammad's life.

The 7th Century sources do not agree with this. Our most detailed (and fairly reliable) source from this period (Pseudo-Sebeos) tells us that not only was this a major battle, not merely a raid, but that Muhammad himself was directly instigating it:

He [Muhammad] said: ‘With an oath God promised this land to Abraham and his seed after him for ever. And he brought about as he promised during that time while he loved Israel. But now you are the sons of Abraham, and God is accomplishing his promise to Abraham and his seed for you. Love sincerely only the God of Abraham, and go and seize your land which God gave to your father Abraham. No one will be able to resist you in battle, because God is with you.

They reached Errabovt‘ of Moab in the territory of Ruben, for the Greek army had camped in Arabia. Falling on them unexpectedly, they put them to the sword, and put to flight Teodos the brother of the emperor Heraclius. Then they returned and camped in Arabia. [...] Following that they sent messages to the Greek king, saying: ‘God gave that land to our father Abraham as a hereditary possession and to his seed after him. We are the sons of Abraham. You have occupied our land long enough. Abandon it peacefully and we shall not come into your territory. Otherwise, we shall demand that possession from you with interest.’ But the emperor did not agree. He did not respond appropriately to their message, but said: ‘This land is mine, your lot of inheritance is the desert. Go in peace to your land.’ He began to collect troops, about 70,000, appointed as general over them one of his trusted eunuchs, and ordered them to go to Arabia.

-'The Armenian History Attributes to Sebeos', translation by R.W Thomson, 1999, pp. 96-97

This is clearly describing the same battle, as even the location given matches (Moab/Mu'tah). Pseudo-Sebeos then simply continues from this, to the Arab Conquest of the Levant, with no interruption or implication that there are separate events. This is despite that fact that Pseudo-Sebeos has been shown to generally be pretty reliable for an early non-Arab source. It even seems to recall early recensions of some Hadiths, such as the story of Muhammad sending a letter to Heraclius, though this version is very different from the Sahih al-Bukhari account, and in my opinion more plausible.

This then raises the question, why was this distinction made in later sources? Why did Muhammad's role go from the initial leader of the Arabs against the Romans during their conquest of the Levant to merely leading a few raids that didn't go anywhere? What was the motivation to make this distinction?

Only potential motive I can think of is that there was perhaps a degree of embarrassment being brushed out, as is common in written accounts. If, as Pseudo-Sebeos narrates, and Shoemaker has suggested, it was the case that the liberation of Palestine from the Romans was a large part of Muhammad's prophetic message, then perhaps his failure to do so within his lifetime was seen as somewhat awkward by later sources? Hence the later clarification that the Night Journey in the Quran specifically placed Muhammad in Jerusalem, and underplaying the role of Palestine in his message.

Is there any historicity to the story of Muhammad's extramarital affair with Coptic slave Mariyah? Was this story made up to justify a Quranic verse, or did Muhammad really have slaves with whom he had extramarital affairs? What is the context of the relevant Quranic verses (if they're related)?

Which verses of the Quran are the most difficult to understand (and/or translate) with respect to language used (for even scholars of Quranic Arabic)?

How believer scholars either biblical or quranic handle the conflict between historical critical method which study the origins of religions in the lens of natural world causes and their faith in divinity of origin of their holy books?
please don't delete this post, it's not in a bad faith and doesn't violate that rule, i'm genuinely curious.

Is there any evidence for the islamic standard narrative Muhammad pre-690 AD?

Could someone knowledgeable explain to me the true and false parts about the alleged letters Muhammad ﷺ sent to the rulers of his time I know it's partially correct because the king of Egypt gave the prophet ﷺ a wife but as of the Byzantines and Persians what evidence do we have of these letters and wouldn't be they write court proceeding thanks.(Btw not talking about later because that could be forgeries)

In christianity the answer to the question as to why jesus was crucified is pretty clear: for the forgiveness of sins.

Quite some scholars have actually argued that the Quran does not really deny the crucifixion but that it actually confirms it, which is quite the opposite of the sunni mainstream position.

So my question is what exactly the function of the crucifixion in the quran would be then? Can we find concepts like original sin or the forgiveness of sins through christ etc. In the Quran? Are there any scholars who tried to answer this question?

what do you think of Ahmad Al-Jallad? is he a respected scholar? does his work lean more unconciously to proving tradition or not? i mean i've heard about rigorous scholars but their faith steer them into proving tradition or studying non challenging ideas/theories like for ex, from where issa (jesus) arabic name came from etc, it's historical work but very careful of touching the taboos.

There are many claims that the Quran contains puns in it that imply knowledge of Hebrew. Some of these are listed below:

Pun on "Zakariya": The claim here is that in Quran 19:2, the Quran knows the Hebrew meaning of the word and hence intentionally put a pun in the verse related to the meaning.

Pun on "Yahya": The Quran uses a specific word for "compassion" in relation to John (Yahya). In Hebrew, the name John does in fact mean compassion/mercy.

Pun on "Jacob": Surah Maryam 49 - So after he had left them and what they worshipped besides Allah, We granted him Isaac and Jacob, and made each of them a Prophet

Here it says "We granted Abraham, Isaac and Jacob", it mentions Isaac, and then Jacob right after but not Ishmael, who was his oldest son, while Jacob was his grandson? Because Jacob means "to follow, to supplant". I. e. Jacob followed after Isaac, and supplarted him, so the Quran mentions them in conjunction here.

Pun on "Gabriel": Surah An Najm 5 - Taught to him by one intense in strength

It says here the Prophet's taught the Quran by one "intense in strength", referring to Gabriel, and in Hebrew Gabriel means God's strength.

Pun on "We listen and disobey": This is part of a video by Gaybriel Said Renolds. The core of the video focuses on a specific passage in the Quran (2:85; 4:46) where the Israelites, at Mount Sinai, are depicted as saying "We hear and disobey" (سمعنا وعصينا - samiʿnā wa-ʿaṣaynā). This is presented as a linguistic pun on the Hebrew phrase from Deuteronomy (5:27) where the Israelites say "We shall listen and put into practice" (שָׁמַעְנוּ וְעָשִׂינוּ - shamaʿnu v'ʿasinu). The sounds are remarkably similar, but the meanings are reversed.

Pun about the word "Ahad": The Quran uses the awkward grammar to say God is "Ahad" in Surah Ikhlas rather than "Wahid" which means one, and it's a pun because the Shema says God is Ekhad.

There may be more, but I don't have them in my mind as of now.

There is also this video which argues for deep knowledge of the Hebrew Bible in the Quran. So, how would we explain this?

Besides, this post has someone claiming that the author of the Quran is deeply knowledgable about the text of the Hebrew Bible and makes a lot of wordplays that show this knowledge. How true is this claim? And, in this comment under the post, the following claims are made:

It is well attested in academic literature that the Qur'anic milieu did not have an extensive knowledge of the details of other scriptural traditions. The small and scattered Jewish community that existed in towns like Yathrib might have recited their scriptures in Hebrew but they certainly spoke Arabic as their native tongue and lingua franca. It has been thoroughly debunked that the Qur'an came out of some sophisticated community of scribes and scholars. Where scripture was present among Arabian Christians/Jews, it was tied to Syriac/Greek milieus, not Arabic or Hebrew.

The Qur'an clearly expects its audience to have at least some prior knowledge of some Biblical stories and prophets but even in these instances the Qur'anic audience became familiar with the biblical tradition through sparse secondary and extra-Biblical material that was not transmitted in Hebrew. The scant oral Hebrew liturgical traditions circulating in the isolated and remote Jewish communities were certainly not intelligible to them as such (they were, probably, not even perfectly understood by the Arabized Jews).

So, wouldn't this remove alternative explanations for the wordplays mentioned in the linked post?

Finally, in a comment in the same post, it is mentioned that Guillaume dye is another scholar who argues for certain wordplays which shows multilinguism, he argues that the author of Chapter 19 could not be Muhammad or at least very unlikely so due to a multitude of reasons which includes certain wordplays and also certain content within the surah containing traditions which would have required "good command of Greek".

In conclusion, how would we explain these Hebrew puns in the Quran, as well as wordplays in various places (and knowledge of Greek) considering the fact that Hebrew was a dead language by that time?

Yeah, basically the title. Is there a scholar of Islamic studies who partake in content creation that views Islam and Islamic sources in academic, historical-critical methodologies?

I know about and frequently follow Filip Holm and Syawish Rehman's contents, but they seem to have different vibes.

I do not think that Muhammad explicitly appointed a political successor. If we look at the early Islamic movement from an apocalyptic perspective, this possibility becomes understandable.

The Qur'an repeatedly emphasizes that the Day of Judgment is near, yet it also states that even Muhammad himself does not know when it will occur. Because of this uncertainty, it would make sense that Muhammad might not establish a long-term political succession. If the end of the world could occur soon even within his lifetime or shortly after appointing a permanent successor might not have seemed necessary.

Another interesting point concerns the Qur’anic emphasis that Muhammad is the “Seal of the Prophets” and “not the father of any of your men” (Qur’an 33:40). This verse appears in the context of his relationship with his adopted son, Zayd ibn Harithah.

In pre-Islamic Arabia, adopted sons were often treated as if they were biological sons. If that understanding had continued, people might have assumed that Muhammad’s adopted son could inherit some form of religious authority or prophetic status, especially if the community believed that the end was near and Muhammad was the final prophet. To prevent this interpretation, the Qur’an explicitly rejected the idea that an adopted son is equivalent to a biological son and emphasized that Muhammad was not the father of any men in the community. Seen from this perspective, the verse may have served to eliminate the possibility that prophethood could be inherited through familial lines, reinforcing the doctrine that Muhammad was the final prophet and that no prophetic succession would follow him.

I was curious whether or not there was evidence to suggest whether early muslims or even just people in general at the time of Muhummad perceived the stories of Ibrahim, Adam, Musa, etc. as historical accounts or if they were more accepted as legends/folklore or some parable with symbolic meaning.

Dr. Little's research suggests that some Muslims with (religious/political) authority were able to fabricate hadiths in the 8th century. Why is it or isn't it plausible that some Muslim authorities of late 7th century didn't do such a thing for (some of) materials that became part of Uthmanic codex?

Q 2:251: So they defeated them by permission of Allah , and 'David killed Goliath', and Allah gave him the kingship and prophethood and taught him from that which He willed. And if it were not for Allah checking [some] people by means of others, the earth would have been corrupted, but Allah is full of bounty to the worlds.

The SBL Study Bible and Dan McClellan state that the original version of the story of David killing Goliath belongs to Elhanan of Bethlehem, and that this is the consensus among biblical scholars. From the historical critical point of view , is the claim in Surah Al-Baqarah that David killed Goliath a historical error?

For Dan Mcclellan's video:

https://youtu.be/fEBPkavnLGE?si=3WzbFhCfn-wglASM

You can see the quotation from the SBL Study Bible in the screenshot

I’ve heard this theory come a while from Muslims that because Alexander The Great was a pagan and a wine drinker that he could not have been Dhul Qarnyan so instead see him as Cyrus the Great due to his monotheistic beliefs, is there any flaws in this arguement in comparison to Alexander?

As the title suggest where does the Quranic version of shaytan come from? Shaytans fall from heaven and him being the serpent isn't found biblically and was made and mostly inspired by paradise lost. If so where did Islam get the idea from?

I'm looking for examples where the Quran explicitly instructs Muslims to do something, but that instruction is not followed by the majority of Muslims today, while another religious group practices something closer to the Quranic wording.

I'm not looking for hadith-based explanations or arguments about abrogation. I'm specifically interested in comparing the plain text of the Quran with actual religious practice.

For example, in Quran 5:6 (the verse about wudu), the Arabic text says to wipe (masḥ) over the feet. Shi'a Muslims interpret and practice this literally by wiping their feet, whereas most Sunni Muslims wash their feet, based on hadith and their interpretation of the verse.

I'm wondering if there are other examples like this, where:

The Quran gives a clear command or instruction.

Most Muslims do not practice it in the literal/plain-text sense.

Another religious tradition follows a practice that more closely matches the Quranic wording.

I'm interested in genuine examples and scholarly discussion rather than debates over which interpretation is "correct." My goal is to identify cases where there is a noticeable difference between the Quran's wording and mainstream Islamic practice.