Source: Nicolai Sinai, "The Two Types of Inner-Quranic Interpretation," pg. 281

https://www.academia.edu/35655499/_Two_Types_of_Inner_Qur_anic_Interpretation_in_Exegetical_Crossroads_Understanding_Scripture_in_Judaism_Christianity_and_Islam_in_the_Pre_Modern_Orient_edited_by_Georges_Tamer_et_al_Berlin_De_Gruyter_2018_pp_253_288

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?

Is there any pre islamic parallel to this??
Ibn al-Kawwa' asked 'Ali about the Milky Way. He said, "It is the water-trough (or loop of the bag) from which the heaven opens up flowing water." - https://sunnah.com/adab:766

Ibn 'Abbas said, "The rainbow is security for the people of the earth that they will not be drowned. The Milky Way is the door of the heavens and forms a furrow through it." - https://sunnah.com/adab:767

Both Graded Sahih by Albani - https://shamela.ws/book/9647/403

And then follows this question, Do academics/Scholars believe the Quran and Sunni Hadith teaches geocentrism?

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.

Does the Quran, in its conception of prophetic doctrine, clearly state that earlier Israelite prophets believed in things such as a clearly defined heaven, hell and a day of judgment?

I've been thinking about an alternative historical explanation for Qur'an 30:2–5.

Rather than proposing a post-Muhammadan interpolation, I think the better explanation is that verse 4 is a Medinan authorial expansion made by Muhammad himself.

This would also fit the wider context of Late Antique Christian imperial eschatology, in which Byzantine recovery after Persian victories was already expected as part of God's ultimate restoration of the Christian empire.

The hypothesis is simple. The original proclamation may have been something like:

"The Romans have been defeated. But after their defeat they will be victorious. Through God's help. He helps whom He wills."

Under this reconstruction, the prediction is simply that Rome will eventually recover through God's assistance. Nothing in the passage specifies when that recovery will occur or links it to the Muslim community.

Everything that makes the prophecy unusually specific appears in verse 4. The phrase "within a few years," the declaration that "to God belongs the command before and after," and the statement that "on that day the believers will rejoice" are all concentrated in a single verse. If that verse represents a later expansion, this concentration is exactly what we would expect.

The literary flow also becomes much smoother without verse 4.

Without it, the sequence reads naturally:

"The Romans will be victorious. Through God's help. He helps whom He wills."

The Romans are the obvious recipients of God's help, and the final clause generalizes the point that God grants victory to whomever He wills.

Once verse 4 is inserted, however, a new subject immediately precedes bi-naṣr Allāh:

"On that day the believers will rejoice... through God's help."

Now the most natural referent of "God's help" is the believers rather than the Romans. The passage shifts its focus from Roman victory to Muslim victory, which also explains why the traditional interpretation connects these verses with Badr.

That brings me to what I think is the strongest piece of evidence.

One early tradition preserved in Jāmiʿ al-Tirmidhī associates these verses with the Day of Badr.

If the passage already existed in its present form as a Meccan revelation, this is somewhat puzzling. One would naturally expect traditions saying that the prophecy was fulfilled around Badr, not traditions associating the passage itself with Badr.

The traditional solution is that the report refers to the fulfillment of the prophecy rather than to the revelation of the verses.

The authorial expansion hypothesis offers a simpler historical explanation. If verse 4 was added during the Medinan period, then the tradition may preserve a genuine memory that the passage reached its final form around Badr. Once later generations regarded the entire surah as Meccan, that memory could easily have been reinterpreted as referring to fulfillment instead of revision.

This reconstruction obviously cannot be proven. But it seems to explain both the literary flow of the passage and the otherwise awkward Badr tradition better than either the standard reading or a theory of post-Muhammadan interpolation.

are there any writing style differences between groups of verses in the quran? do tradition or scholars found some and discuss them? if yes, what are the possible theories from scholars and what are aplogetics saying?

I am aware of the problems around Reza Aslan’s credentials and academic training. I also understand that he forces a modern liberal perspective on the life of the Prophet.

But in terms of its historical content, does the book contain any inaccuracies?

I am not very familiar with this topic, but I have encountered claims that early Islamic scholars, particularly the authors of sīra literature, believed that prophets were capable of making mistakes. To what extent is this claim historically accurate?

Many scholars say the reason the Genesis Creation narrative sounds similar to Babylonian Creation stories, but is also different, is because it's a politically/religiously motivated response to promote a monotheistic correction to a pagan Creation narrative current in Babylonia in the Iron Age.

After speaking with some scholars in Eastern Christian and Middle Eastern Jewish traditions, I am starting to wonder if the same thing is happening with the Quran, and why it appears to have a docetic view of the Crucifixion and similarities with Gnostic Infancy narrative accounts about Jesus and Mary. It preserves the Gnostic duality of the lower and higher realms (the Dunya versus the Akhirat), and the life in the lower realm (the Dunya) being considered lesser than that of the higher (the Akhirat). Whereas in normative Christianity and normative Judaism there is a greater acceptance of "living-in-the-world" (compare Augustinian Just War theology or the Jewish idea of Tikkun Olam neither of which exist in Gnosticism).

By contrast, consider the following differences:

• its account of the Torah is far more philo-Judaic than conventional anti-Judaic Gnostics who view Elohim as an evil class of demiurges headed by the God of the Jews. The Arabic cognate of Elohim, Allah, related to the Hebrew El, is viewed as all-Good by the Quran's author;

• Gnostics who promote a docetic view of the Crucifixion and the Gnostic Infancy narratives about Jesus and Mary are normally anti-Torah and view the Mosaic Law as evil, while the Quran's legislative ideology is far closer to Torah and Kosher laws, and view its ruling as a current 7th Century revival of that Mosaic Law;

• Gnostics discount prophetic continuity through Abraham, sometimes bypassing the Sethian line altogether and promoting a Cainite genealogy, while the Quran emphasizes the Abrahamic prophetic lineage throughout.

This appears to be similarly motivated to be a political response to situations in the Late Antique Near East, within the frontiers and fringes of the Roman/Byzantine and Sassanid Empires, where these various heterodox groups co-existed and competed with one another for adherents. These various heterodox groups would have been more successful amongst the nomadic Arabs, rather than normative Christianity or normative Judaism, as they were outside of the core of these empires. It sounds like the recipe for a political alliance. We see concepts of this in the Ansar and Muhajirun for example.

Let's assume for the sake of the post the connection between Matthew 10 and Surah 61 is true.

Just trying to clarify something reading what I can from the paper:

1. The Qur'an, as per usual, is knowingly and purposeful "corrective retelling" of the Bible story by removing Matthew's attribution of Isaiah 42's servant applicated to Jesus; and now giving a new story in which Jesus now prophesies that same servant.

2. Another perceived "corrective retelling": it corrects "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" by replacing it with "Who does more wrong than the one who fabricates lies about Allah?" implicitly removing the claim of divinity to the Holy Spirit.

Am I on track here? Or is the Qur'an not giving any sort of corrective retelling like it does for a ton of stuff?

In general, most of the comments on this sub have a scholarly source to back up their claims. Is there any platform or specific method where I can find the fitting academic works on a specific question/topic ?
It seems like you guys just know the works by heart lmao

What is scholarly consensus about this matter?

A four-part blog series by Mathieu Tillier comparing prayer formulae in early Arabic inscriptions and Hadith. Tillier argues for a Schachtian explanation of the data: prayer formulae in early inscriptions embody a "living tradition" that evolves over time; those that ended up in Follower hadiths may be genuine; and the Companion and Prophetical versions of the hadiths are secondary and tertiary developments. [In fact, Tillier's tentative acceptance of Follower hadiths seems more like Juynboll, Muslim tradition, ch. 1, and "Islam's first fuqahāʾ".]

I have two questions if anyone could tell me please -

1. We all saw great islamic thinker, philopsopher etc in medival time. Why all of them always followed classical rulling created by fiqh. Evening mutazilite followed this system. If we compare to current modernist or progressive they seems like belive this classical rulling isn't in quran so they give their own view

2. Did islamic orthodoxy existed from rashidun caliphate or it is creation of medival islam

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?

I recently came over tiktoks/reels where people are selling 1:1 replicas of biblical Manuscripts like the p66 and the p52. Does anyone know if something similar exists for the Quran? Can we buy any Quran Manuscript Replicas anywhere?

The early Islamic conquests were quite impressive there must be a general or generals of high caliber leading them.

Throughout the Hadiths Muhammad claims that hellfire is causing heat on earth, so I am asking if Muhammad thought Hell was inside earth?

Sahih al-Bukhari 539
Narrated Abu Dhar Al-Ghifar:
We were with the Prophet (ﷺ) on a journey and the Mu'adh-dhin (call maker for the prayer) wanted to pronounce the Adhan (call) for the Zuhr prayer. The Prophet (ﷺ) said, 'Let it become cooler." He again (after a while) wanted to pronounce the Adhan but the Prophet (ﷺ) said to him, "Let it become cooler till we see the shadows of hillocks." The Prophet (ﷺ) added, "The severity of heat is from the raging of the Hell-fire, and in very hot weather pray (Zuhr) when it becomes cooler."

Sahih Muslim 615 a
Abu Huraira reported that the Messenger of Allah (may peace he upon him) said:
When it is very hot, say (the noon prayer) when the extreme heat passes away, for intensity of heat is from the exhalation of Hell.

Sahih Muslim 616
Abu Dharr reported:
The Mu'adhdbin (the announcer of the hour of prayer) of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) called for the noon prayer. Upon this the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: Let it cool down, let it cool down, or he said: Wait, wait for the intensity of heat is from the exhalation of Hell. When the heat is intense, delay the prayer till it becomes cooler. Abu Dharr said: (We waited) till we saw the shadow of the mounds

Sahih Muslim 2209 c
Ibn Umar reported Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) as saying:
Fever is from the vehement raging of the fire of Hell, so extinguish it with water.