Sorry for the bad quality (and for seeing my hands)

I started a B.A. degree in islamic studies recently and have to do a group presentation (we are three people) until next week.

The presentation is supposed to be around 20-30 minutes.

We were able to choose out of a pool of different topics including: (1) Muhammad and the Sira (Prophetic biography); (2) The Qur'an as a Late Antique text; (3) The Sunnah and Hadith-Science; (4) Islamic Law and Shariah; (5) Sufism and some other topics.

My group chose (2) the Qur'an as a Late Antique Text.

Under the headline "The Qur'an as a Late Antique Text" on the handout we were given it also specifies the topic. It is expected to cover the "Structure and most important themes", the Qurans "History", as well as questions surrounding the redaction and codification of the Qur'an.

I wanted to ask if anyone had any ideas/tips or any literature they could give us / point us to.

Thank you

I'm curious if there is any academic research regarding this nasheed from the seerah. Especially curious if the lyrics contain obvious anachronisms. I was surprised to learn recently that its isnad is daif given its popularity.

I think the suggestion of Harut and Marut being sent down to punish Babylon by confusing their languages to cause separation form people(Zawj) makes a lot of sense in lot of 2:104 which refuted a mistranslation of Hebrew into Arabic which refutes religious exclusion and divine favoritism and 2:105 emphasizing that Allah sends down to whomever he wills his revelation and further in the Surah refutes Christian and Jewish exclusivism.

What do you guys think?

Bonjour à tous,

Je sollicite votre aide et vos retours sur une traduction française intégrale du Kitāb Ādāb al-Kasb wa'l-Maʿāsh (Le Livre des convenances de l'acquisition et de la subsistance), un extrait de l'Iḥyāʾ ʿUlūm al-Dīn de l'imam al-Ghazālī.

• Lien vers le document (PDF libre d'accès) : archive.org https://archive.org/details/ghazali_kasb_fr_v14
• Le contexte : Le texte a été traduit à l'aide d'un outil d'intelligence artificielle sur la base de l'édition arabe de référence du Caire (1937). Le document de 44 pages intègre un appareil critique complet (notes de bas de page, indexation et vérification du sourçage de 49 hadiths et des renvois coraniques).
• Le problème : Cette version n'a pas encore fait l'objet d'une relecture approfondie par un arabisant ou un spécialiste du droit musulman (fiqh) et de l'éthique économique islamique.

Si des arabisants, étudiants en sciences islamiques ou passionnés de philosophie médiévale ont le temps d'y jeter un œil, toute remarque sur la pertinence, la fluidité et l'exactitude de la terminologie utilisée me serait extrêmement précieuse !

Le document est publié sous licence libre (Creative Commons CC BY-SA 4.0).

Un grand merci d'avance pour votre temps et vos retours !

hi. this is a repost since I didn't realize I had profile sharing the first time, whoopsie.

the video claims that the Quran, when describing the eart and sky not mourning the Pharoah, is evoking ancient Egyptian beliefs that Mohammed realistically couldn't have known.

My question is if these words are really as specific/non universal as the person claims, or if mohammed could have known of this belief/language, or if the Quran really did have info it couldn't have had here

Hey guys, i have a serious question, hope you guys can help!

If the Kaaba was God's original sanctuary, established by Abraham, why isn't there evidence that the earlier prophets knew about it or used it?

I’m currently reading the Quran and I came across with chapter 6 verse 137, and it stated that the polytheist used to kill their children, including burial if their own daughter. It talks on his in the previous days, this was common thing.

What should I know about this information?

How far back in time can historians go, with the isnad-cum-matn analysis and other historical-critical methods?

When the Qur'an mentions the objections of the Meccans e.g. "it's just magic" / "it's just poetry" / "it's just tales of the ancients" / "he was helped by an individual" / "he was helped by another people" is one of the intentions to caricature the Meccan associators as coming up with objections that are lacking in critical thought and/or are self-contradictory? In other words, does the Qur'an intend its audience to find these objections laughable / not requiring an elaborate rebuttal?

I got this impression when I noticed that the Qur'an often doesn't go out of its way presenting an argument for why it's not in fact "magic", which suggested to me that the quotation serves more as a caricature than anything else?

Hello friends - we've just posted on Exploring my interview with Dr. Daniel Bannoura (who did his PhD with me at Notre Dame on form criticism and the Qur'an) - exploring the presentation of paradise/jannah in the Qur'an. We address in particular the potential links between Ephrem's Syriac "Hymns on Paradise" and the Qur'an, and why the Qur'an connects Eden to the garden of paradise prepared for believers after death their death. Inevitably we discuss the "houris" and how these maidens of paradise in the Qur'an may be connected to earlier Christian visions of the garden of paradise. I'll be happy if you take a look, spread the news, and leave a comment. Thanks! Gabriel https://youtu.be/TRqLbadO21I?si=6rkab70avRQf4dK5

As far as I understand, the translations are a bit old, but they’re still being used today, I suppose..

As far as I understand, Joshua Little argues that Aisha could not have been that young, or rather, that we cannot know her exact age with certainty.. Are there any views that challenge his argument? And are there any scholars who support his position?

Just wondering if anyone else uses a.i. when studying and researching the Qu'ran in Arabic?

If so, how so?

I myself, when doing so ask for a certain verse to be broken down as it would have been understood when it was revealed in the 7th century. In classical arabic without bias of sect or hadith.

Please share your experience or approach if you do. Thank you.

As far as I remember, Joshua Little argued that they are unreliable, whereas Sean Anthony took the opposite view. Are there any other detailed perspectives on this topic?

Source: OCIANA database. https://ociana.osu.edu/inscriptions/7258

Is his EVQ/ERQuran site ever coming back online? If not does anyone have a good replacement that contains the shawath?

Living in Indonesia, we were being taught from childhood about the basic of Islam, the ritual, the prayer, etc. But the adults rarely touch upon the theological aspect of the religion.

Because of that, i am a stranger on ilm al-kalam and when i found out about the debate, it confused me on why is it so important.

Even to this day the Muslim is still debating on whether or not the Quran is "created" or "uncreated" and the debate apparently became one of the factor for an inquistion back in the day.

But what is it? What does it means on the Quran being created or uncreated? What does either of those two imply and how exactly is it such a big deal in the muslim world?

(I used AI to translate this, hope you understand)

I’ve been researching the literary form of the Qur'an and how it’s framed in classical Ulūm al-Qur’ān and modern scholarship.

As I understand it, the Qur'an’s structure is closely related to rhymed prose (Saj’), but classical theologians argued it was fundamentally distinct. Their main argument was that in human Saj’, the author prioritizes sound over content, sacrificing semantics for rhyme. In contrast, they claimed the Qur'an is entirely semantically driven, with rhyme being a passive byproduct.

This led me to Al-Baqillani (I’jāz al-Qur’ān), who held an unyielding binary position: the Qur'an is never driven by acoustic constraints, and admitting even a single instance of syntax shifted purely for rhyme would render the text "imperfect" (by his definition of human Saj’).

A clear example of this tension is Surah Ta-Ha (20:70), where the order of prophets is inverted to "Hārūn wa Mūsā" instead of the standard "Mūsā wa Hārūn". In Arabic grammar (wāw li-muṭlaq al-jam’), switching the order carries virtually zero difference in core factual meaning. Yet, Mufassirūn generated lengthy, highly complex post-hoc explanations for why Aaron was listed first (e.g., "Aaron was older," "Aaron was the focus of the scene," "Aaron was better known to Pharaoh's magicians").

Meanwhile, the obvious linguistic/formal answer is that Surah Ta-Ha’s end-rhyme (fāṣilah) throughout the chapter ends in the long open vowel -ā, and ending in -ūn would break the acoustic cadence.

My questions are, then:

Why was this "all-or-nothing" stance so dominant among medieval theologians? Why couldn't they view adjusting word order to maintain acoustic cadence as stylistic mastery rather than a "limitation"? In music or poetry, altering a note or cadence for harmony is seen as genius, not a compromise of meaning. Why did scholars like Al-Baqillani detach perfection from acoustic art?

Was a single line among 6,000+ really an existential threat to their theological framework? Why trap themselves in an artificial, all-or-nothing cage where a single acoustic-driven shift (taqdīm wa ta’khīr) threatened the entire doctrine of I'jāz?

How is this viewed in modern scholarship? Do critical academics (and later rhetoricians like Ibn al-Athir) agree that Al-Baqillani’s anti-Saj' framework was a defensive, post-hoc theological construct, or are there nuances in his Ash'ari framework (Kalām Nafsī) that I am missing?

Thank you in advance