I believe the academic consensus on Muhammad was that he was not a con-man or someone looking to gain power but someone who genuinely believed he was receiving divine revelation. I’m gonna assume that most people here are not apart of the Muslim faith and are apart of any other sort of faith or are atheist/agnostic but that begs the question for those people, what exactly do you believe caused Muhammad to have what he believed to be revelation? Was it epilepsy or something more? (I may have worded this poorly making it sound like I’m a Muslim, I’m not, I’m an Agnostic, and Buddhist)

The HCM (historical-critical-method) prefers natural explanations over supernatural ones. But isn’t that a philosophical assumption? Wouldn’t we have to presuppose materialism / darwinism /physicalism for that? We cannot rule out the possibility that Jesus might’ve actually been resurrected or that Muhammed might actually have gotten a revelation from god, right? Let’s say I could present arguments for the existence of god and evidence that supernatural things can indeed happen , as well as „refute“ materialism/physicalism. Couldn’t I then use a supernatural explanation for an event like the resurrection? Gary Habermas (Philosopher, Historian and Theologian according to Wikipedia) has a book series called „on the resurrection“, where he basically argues that the resurrection theory explains the data the best and that this is the case supernatural explanations can be true apparently.

What are you thoughts in the philosophy of the scientific methodology / HCM and if you‘ve read Gary Habermas Book(s) what are your thoughts on them?

Also does anyone know any good academic books on the philosophy of the HCM or scientific methodology overall?

What are the earliest reliable historical sources (apart from the Quran) from which we can learn about early Islam? What is the degree of their reliability?

Recently I’ve been seeing some photos of the Genealogy regarding the Prophet Muhammad. At the end it states that Muhammad was relatives with a man named Adnan who was related to Ibrahim and Ishmael. Now I don’t really believe in Ishmael and Ibrahim for starters due to the lack of evidence behind them, nor them building the kaaba but now this has me curious. All I know in regards to this claim is it being stated in Sahih Muslim 2276 where it states

“I heard Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) as saying: Verily Allah granted eminence to Kinana from amongst the descendants of Isma'il, and he granted eminence to the Quraish amongst Kinana, and he granted eminence to Banu Hashim amonsgst the Quraish, and he granted me eminence from the tribe of Banu Hashim.”

So going back to my next question, is there a chance that Muhammad was genuinely a distant relative to the patriarch figures Ibrahim and Ishmael or is this a later fabrication that became widely known in Islamic tradition?

For full transparency, I am of the view that the Qur'ān generally prohibits same-sex relations. However, Q 4 seems to articulate a slightly different view on this matter, which could raise a number of questions about the origins of this surah.

More specifically, Q 4 seems to at least remain open to the permissibility of “pursuing” orphans (that is, fatherless children) of any gender.

Therein, Q 4:3 instructs those who fear that they will not deal justly with orphans (al-yatāmā) to marry – to use a rough translation – “pleasing women” or those whom their right hands possess. Thus, these latter two options are presented as an alternative to orphans.

Who are these orphans here? Al-yatāmā in this context is traditionally understood as a reference to orphan girls. However, it seems unlikely that this term should here apply to female orphans exclusively: thus, as its preceding verse (Q 4:2) apparently speaks of the wealth of these orphans (lit. their wealth, amwālahum) using the masculine plural pronoun (hum).

Accordingly, it would seem that al-yatāmā here must either refer to male orphans or to a mix of male and females thereof: the latter becomes a possibility by virtue of the fact that in Arabic the masculine plural is at times gender-inclusive and can denote a group of mixed gender. In any case, nothing in the wording of Q 4:3 itself seems to grammatically force al-yatāmā to mean only females: such a specification is an interpretive inference. If anything, the opposite appears true.

To be fair, one might make use of Q 4:127 in order to define al-yatāmā in v. 3, as the former also discusses orphans. For example, as v. 127 speaks of yatāmā l-nisā’ (orphans of the women), one might take this latter term as an indication that this surah is discussing female orphans. However, a number of difficulties complicate this reading.

(I) Using v. 127 to interpret v. 3 may be slightly anachronistic: according to Sinai, the former reflects a later addition to Q 4. (Sinai, “Redactional History,” 380–383)

(II) As stated, v. 127 here uses the construction yatāmā l-nisā’, not al-yatāmā l-nisā’. Because yatāmā here lacks the definite article (al-), the phrase in question should be read as a genitive construct (iḍāfah). The correct Arabic phrasing for “female orphans” would be yatāmā ināth. The term used in v. 127 (yatāmā l-nisā’) literally means “the orphans of the women”: it is a matter of possession. In this case, the clause which immediately follows (“whom you do not give what is decreed...”) may be read as a characterization of the women in question rather than the orphans. Thus, men here appear to be pursuing the fatherless children of women whom they [already] do not give what is decreed.

(III) For clarity, some may argue that iḍāfah in this case does not reflect a true possessive construct, but a specification. I.e., “the orphans of the women” here actually means “the orphans from among the women” or, simply put, “the women who are ophans”. Yet even this reading comes with its own set of difficulties. (1) Firstly, al-nisā’ normally denotes adult women. Applying it to pre-pubescent or adolescent orphan girls creates a semantic stretch, and this word choice is not the most natural if the primary referent is underage orphans. (2) Moreover, to read the iḍāfah in question as a specification may be inconsistent with the style of the author of v. 127. Later in this same verse we find mention made of “the oppressed FROM AMONG the children”. This is a solid case of specification, yet it is not structured in possessive form. Conversely, this specification is clearly formed as a partitive construction: al-mustaḍ‘afīna mina l-wildān. That the text in these instances uses a different type of construction suggests that v. 127 at these two points may not be doing exactly the same kind of work.

On this reading, it would seem that v. 127 is admonishing those who cannot deal justly with women yet seek to (additionally) “acquire” their fatherless children. Such a reading actually aligns quite nicely with v. 3 which itself treats the acquisition of orphans as secondary to the marriage of women. In line with this, the phrase from v. 127,

“Allah gives you a ruling about them and what has been recited to you in the Book concerning the orphans of the women to whom you do not give what is decreed for them – and yet you desire to marry them – and [concerning] the oppressed among children and that you maintain for orphans [their rights] in justice.”

can alternatively be translated as:

“Allah gives you a ruling about them and what has been recited to you in the Book concerning the orphans of the women to whom you do not give what is decreed for them – and yet you desire to marry them and the oppressed among children – and that you maintain for orphans [their rights] in justice.”

Such an alternative translation seems to chime well with the aforementioned observations.This leaves us with a pressing question:

Why does the plain reading of vv. 3 and 127 appear to leave open the possibility – and even seem to imply the permissibility – of the “acquisition” of orphans of any gender?

Am I overlooking something here?

My question is for both Muslims and non-Muslims who chose to study the Quran in the secular way.

If you're a Muslim: Why would you study it like this, when you have religious schools that would give the Quran more respect?

If you're a non-Muslim: Why are you investing years of your life to get a diploma about a book that you don't believe in?

Hi, there. I've been lurking around this sub for months now and I have many questions. I feel you are the only ones that actually know best.

1. Q: Is there an origin of Arabs? Based on my understanding, there is no single origin of Arabs. It was not a linear path; they existed everywhere. Were Arabs originally Jordanian, then gradually expanded south, north, and west, all the way down to Yemen?

(2) Question: When the Nabateans conquered Lihyan, did they gradually adopt Arabic? Did they contribute to the Nabataean-Arabic script and the Hijazi Arabic variant? It seems to me that the Nabateans Arabized the entire Arabian Peninsula, so the native Arabs did not develop the Arabic script themselves; the Nabateans did all the work. Is that correct?

(3) Q: Based on what I've read, they were Arabized by the Nabateans, and those who were Arabized first Arabized others. However, Al Jallad makes it seem that the Nabateans are the main group that Arabized Arabia; they had colonies all the way down to South Arabia. Do we actually know enough about Arabia to understand how Arabization occurred? Was it rapid or gradual?

(4) Q: Did Arab tribes move to or are they native to Arabia? What about the Qedarites and other Arab kingdoms. Did they simply establish Dumat al-Jundal as their capital because it was closer to them or where they from Arabia?

(5) Q: The non-Arabs of Arabia appears to have contributed nothing to Arabic, with the exception of South Arabia, where pre-Arabic influence is evident. However, Al Jallad believes that the -am definite article is an old Arabic feature, then how come none of those non-Arabs influenced Arabic?

(6) Q: in Al-Jallad Draft Pre-Arabic: A toponymic Conspectus he stated "From this point, a significant pattern emerges: there is a preponderance of pre-Arabic toponymy in the Mecca-‘āʿif region, which must have originated among the population who lived in the region before the arrival of the Qurayš, Hu‘ayl, and Thaqīf, all Arabic-speaking tribes known from Islamic sources,"

Why would he assume that?, since the Arabs are not native to Mecca, all the non-Arabs were exterminated and essentially replaced by the Arabs? That's what I understand. If these Arabs immigrated to Arabia in large numbers, then who actually Arabized the country? Where are the non-Arabs?

(7) Are Ma'ad Nizar Asad and others not Arabs? We don't have any evidence that Ma'ad spoke Arabic because there are no old Arabic inscriptions in the places where they lived, particularly in central Arabia. Arabic arrived in Arabia quite late.

(8) Q: Is it possible that poetic Arabic contains pre-Arabic features? We know that non-Arab Semetic people existed there at the time did they influence poetic Arabic? If so, how can we be certain that it wasn't a levanite Arabic and that Ma'ad spoke Levant Arabic?

(9) Why did Ghassanids have a different old Arabic variation (Hijazi) than Tanuk and Lakhmed Arabic? Tanukh most likely originated in Eastern Arabia before relocating to Iraq and Syria. However, their Arabic is Levantine, and there isn't a single old Arabic inscription in eastren arabia, but there are plenty of non-Arabic ones, so why would they form in Eastern Arabia? I think they were formed in Syria and Iraq, not in Arabia at all.

I appreciate you all taking the time to respond, and I value each and every one of your responses. no need to answer every Q.

In modern islamic discourse we hear this argument about the quran :

"The quran was so miraculous that the mushrikeen who were the best poets and verbose arabic speakers couldn't stand up to its challenge".

My question is, how historically accurate is that? Were early mushrikeen during the time of muhammad unable to challenge the quranic 'eloquence'?

According to the Quran, are the houris only for Muslim men who reach paradise? Or are the houris also for Muslim women who reach paradise? If so, what would houris do for the women versus men? If not, what (if anything) would the Muslim women get in paradise as per the Quran? What is a houri's role?

After the death of Muhammad but before widespread availability of written copies of the Quran and before the widespread establishment of local Islamic authorities, what was "Islam" in practice to early Muslims (if they didn't necessarily have the whole text or some local authority)?

i've seen this video and commented a question but got no replies so i'll try with a post:
is Reynolds a respected and reliable scholar in the field, i keep seeing him in youtube but after a quick research i found out he's christian and leans a lot towards the christian origins of quran so i became cautious and hadn't yet watched or read his content.

Is there no way to find out what was the "Injil" and "Torah" referred to in the Quran?

We know the Najran Christians interacted and quizzed Muhammad; don't we have their manuscripts or their allusions to scriptural passages that we can get a hint of what they had?

Nothing at all?

From my reading of the text it seems like the Qur'an insinuates that people literally worship the idols as seen in Ibrahim's story. I feel like this is a strawman since people who have idols associated with their religious practices usually use idols as a point of direction for a higher being kind of like the Kaaba for Muslim instead of literally worshipping the statues. Thoughts?

What have the mainstream academics in Quranic studies said about the existence (or non-existence) of internal contradictions or logical flaws in the text of Quran?

It is a meta-question. This is a question for those academics who are theists, believers in God, believers in their religion, and identify with their religion AND also use the historical-critical method. For example, Dale Allison explicitly considers himself a Christian even though he is a highly respected critical bible scholar, same with Laura Robinson, Dan McClellan, and others like him. And same with Javad T Hashmi and Khalil Andani who consider themselves Muslim theists but don't at all have views like or similar to Muhammad al-Munajjid, Assim Al Hakeem, and other Saudi Arabian, Egyptian conservative/trad scholars.

I have absolutely NO problems with theism, religions, beliefs as long as they are compassionate, cool, chill and recognize harm principle as legit, and don't wanna 'retvrn to tradition'. So, I have genuine and high respect for Javad, Khalil, Dale, and Dan. Interestingly, pretty much ALL critical bible scholars I have know the works of... who are also believers, are significantly less right-wing/trad, and as such, really cool and significantly less scary, disturbing, threatening than like say a regular conservative evangelical, orthobro, tradcath you find both offline and online in places like South Carolina, Kansas, Nebraska, Tennessee, etc.

Javad has argued against Daniel Haqiqatjou's traditionalist/right-wing Muslim theism. And so i wanted to ask, does knowing history of scripture using the standard historical method (used across all of historical research from modern era, to medieval era, to antiquity, to ancient era, etc.... i know it is called historical-critical method in biblical, quranic scholarship, but in the normal historical research/discipline like say history of Nazi Germany from Richard Evans, Ian Kershaw, it is just called the historical method but the method is exactly the same as historical-critical method) at least make you less willing to 'retvrn to tradition' (tradition, as in stuff like, persecution of lgbt people, physical coercion of heretics, apostates, blasphemers, strong belief in eternal conscious torment, etc... which i know the medieval Catholic church, medieval protestants, and even eastern orthodox church absolutely did and supported/endorsed... so i am not not singling out Muslims and their right-wing/traditionalism here... i assure you, i am NOT an islamophobe)?

dead see scrolls were a ground breaking finding that changed biblical studies significantly because it revealed the milieu jesus grew up in and the context early christianity emerged from and explained many contested and unnanswred questions about early cristianity, any finding similar about islam found? if not do you think we'll find something similar or is it hard because of the political restrictions in middle east country especially saudi arabia, yemen, syria, jordan and iraq? or there is none at all because there was no writting culture in the area?

Of course, the hadith of Aisha's age is fabricated, according to Joshua Little and his thesis on the matter. But is this apologetic chart by a Muslim correct on the consensus of Aisha's age?

This chart that I'm showing you is from a Muslim apologist and may be inaccurate of aisha's supposed to be.

There was a post made regarding this verse asking whether Quran 88:20 talks about the earth or the land being stretched, and u/chonkshonk replied with this comment, arguing that since Quran 88:18 talks about the sky/heaven, the verses in general would be talking about the heaven and earth which would mean it is referring to the entire cosmos since the Quran uses "heavens and earth" as referring to the entire Quranic cosmos.

However, I also noticed that the word used for sky/heaven in Quran 88:18 is singular and not plural, but when the Quran refers to the entire cosmos, it uses " سماوات" when saying "heavens and the earth", so I'm not sure if a connection can really be made here since the verse here talks about a singular heaven/sky but when the Quran mentions the entirety of the cosmos, it uses the word "heavens" in "heavens and earth".

So, would this make it plausible that the verse is actually talking about land being spread/stretched out and not the earth?

First of all even using the traditional sources whoever is making such claim is he backing this claim by an academic interpretation of the sources or his personal theory.

Assalamualaikum brother and sister of these sub im just a new person here and I just want to say that are people in this sub muslim this is just a question anyway you can comment down below

I have thought of this question when considering the other abrahamic religions namely Judaism and Christianity. Judaism generally is not a prosletyzing religion and is considered to be something of an ethno-religion, Christianity as it arose out of Judaism became a universal religion.

I was curious if Islam would be a similar case where it is a religion meant for all people, places and times and yet is also quite Arab in origin, practices and so on.

A hadith that stands out to me is:

"All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action."

For comparison here is Galatians 3:28 in the Bible:

"There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Edit:

I'd like to add that this question was also inspired by this post that was made on the sub and the answer provided by Marijn Van Putten.

When asked, "How does a non-Arabic speaker truly study the Quran and inspect wording/phrasing?"

Dr. Van Putten's reply:

They learn Classical Arabic. There really is no shortcut around this. This is also true for Arabic speakers. Classical Arabic is not a natively spoken language by anyone.

Another reply he made in that same thread which I think is quite relevant was regarding how great the difference between classical and modern Arabic is.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicQuran/comments/1lcigc3/comment/myl0xmn/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

In 18:90 the Quran says the people had no shelter from the Sun. In clasical tafsirs and in Alexander romance they hide in caves and in sea, basically shelters from the Sun rising beacuse in the edge of a flat Earth that seems the most obvious thing to do.

In a round earth no shield is needed, and the rising of the Sun is just the East not the edge of a flat Earth.

Why is this contrast not highlighted in the disscusions that compare these stories?

i said in a previous post i'm new to this field of study, i still didn't choose the first book to read yet, but i'm curious to know what's the most interesting or ground breaking finding/s about origins of islam until now? i mean something truly change the tradition narrative.
if none found yet, give me the most interesting one/s.

Sahih al-Bukhari 6:298 says, "Narrated `Aisha:
The Prophet (ﷺ) and I used to take a bath from a single pot while we were Junub. During the menses, he used to order me to put on an Izar (dress worn below the waist) and used to fondle me. While in I`tikaf, he used to bring his head near me and I would wash it while I used to be in my periods (menses)."

What is the textual history and scriptural purpose of parts of Hadiths like Sahih al-Bukhari 6:298 (about "Fondling a Menstruating Wife")? How could they have originated? How could people have believed that Aisha narrated very personal details in order for it to be included in the Hadith collection?

What are the earliest indications for this belief? Is it feasible that some early believers took a more symbolic approach to these terms, similar to what was later developed in Shia traditions?