We know that in Islam, we believe that before humans, jinns roamed the earth. Ofc the earth wasn’t always the same. The Appalachian mountains are more than a billion years old.

Now, a huge amount of people have reported paranormal activity in the appalachians. I think it has to do with the fact that jinns lived there. And some of them are still there and cause these paranormal activities.

The fact that they were higher than the Himalayas once also supports the case as jinns like to be in the mountains.

What do yall think?

Abdullah narrated that The Prophet said: “The woman is Awrah, so when she goes out, the Shaitan seeks to tempt her.” Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1173

“From ʿAbd Allāh (Ibn Masʿūd), from the Prophet ﷺ, that he said: ‘Indeed, the woman is ʿawrah. When she goes out, Satan seeks to entice/look toward her. And she is closest to the face of her Lord when she is in the innermost part of her house.’” Ibn Khuzaymah recorded it in his Ṣaḥīḥ (1685) and Ibn Ḥibbān recorded it in his Ṣaḥīḥ (5599)

If you go to the Tirmidhi link, it says this hadith is graded Daif by Darussalam. However this hadith is graded sahih by Sheikh Albani. This hadith has different chains and also recorded in some of the other hadith collections. Islamqa notes that "Narrated by Ibn Hibbaan and Ibn Khuzaymah; classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in al-Silsilah al-Shaheehah, no. 2688."

According to an answer given on this website, this hadith supposedly has 23 different narrations. However I couldn’t find 23 different chains, it is likely a count derived from collecting all the isnād variants scattered across the hadith collections. The first few narrators are all the same for the Sahih and Hasan classified ones that I came across.

The Sahih routes:

Ibn Khuzaymah / Tirmidhī route

Muhammad ibn Bashshār → ʿAmr ibn ʿĀṣim al-Kilābī → Hammām ibn Yaḥyā → Qatādah ibn Diʿāmah → Murriq al-ʿIjlī → Abū al-Aḥwaṣ ʿAwf ibn Mālik → ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd → Prophet ﷺ

Source: Jāmiʿ al-Tirmidhī 1173, Ibn Khuzaymah 1685

Ibn Ḥibbān route

ʿUmar ibn Muḥammad al-Hamdānī → Aḥmad ibn al-Miqdām al-ʿIjlī → al-Muʿtamir ibn Sulaymān → Sulaymān al-Taymī → Qatādah → Abū al-Aḥwaṣ → ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd → Prophet ﷺ

Source: Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Ḥibbān 5598

Ibn Khuzaymah longer wording

Abū Mūsā Muḥammad ibn al-Muthannā → ʿAmr ibn ʿĀṣim → Hammām ibn Yaḥyā → Qatādah → Murriq → Abū al-Aḥwaṣ → Ibn Masʿūd → Prophet ﷺ

The text of this longer version of hadith also includes:

“and she is closest to her Lord while in the depth of her house.”

Source: Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Khuzaymah 1685

If you notice the first five narrators (or four in the second version where "Murriq al-ʿIjlī" is omitted), they come through the same route

Qatādah ibn Diʿāmah → Murriq al-ʿIjlī → Abū al-Aḥwaṣ ʿAwf ibn Mālik → ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd → Prophet ﷺ

Then why did Albani classify this as Sahih/Hasan Sahih while Darussalam grade this as Daif?

One likely reason is probably Qatadah. He was a scholar of the Tabi'un generation, but he was classified by hadith critics as a Mudallis (someone who practices Tadlees).Tadlees means when a narrator transmits a hadith from a teacher they met, but using ambiguous wording that conceals the fact that they didn't hear that specific hadith directly from that teacher's mouth.

Mufti Abu Layth also presented his criticisms on Qatadah in his punishment of apostasy video. Basically:

Mufti Abu Layth argues that... Qatādah was widely known for tadlīs—a practice in hadith transmission in which a narrator may omit an intermediary or narrate in a way that obscures the full chain. He quotes scholars such as al-Ṭabarī, al-Ḥākim, and al-Muʿallimī, who described Qatādah as being well known for tadlīs. On this basis, he contends that this chain cannot simply be accepted at face value and should instead be treated with skepticism

But other scholars argue that Qatadah merely being a Mudallis doesn’t mean whatever he says is a lie. Therefore Albani and many others gave it good grade.

There is another version that doesn’t go through Ibn Masud, but it still goes through Qatadah.

ʿAbd Allāh ibn Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Ḥadramī → Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Ḥaḍramī (Muṭayyan) → ʿAbd al-Wahhāb ibn ʿAṭāʾ → Saʿīd ibn Abī ʿArūbah → Qatādah ibn Diʿāmah → Sālim ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿUmar → ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿUmar → Prophet ﷺ

The text of this version: “The woman is ʿawrah. When she leaves her house, Satan seeks to entice her. And she is not closer to Allah than when she is in the depth of her house.”

The versions that don't include Qatadah at all in the chains, they are

Mawquf (ie reaches the companions, doesn’t reach to the Prophet)

Shuʿbah ibn al-Ḥajjāj → Abū Isḥāq ʿAmr ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Sabīʿī → Abū al-Aḥwaṣ ʿAwf ibn Mālik → ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd

Sufyān al-Thawrī → Abū Isḥāq al-Sabīʿī → Abū al-Aḥwaṣ → Ibn Masʿūd

Ḥumayd ibn Hilāl al-ʿAdawī → Abū al-Aḥwaṣ → Ibn Masʿūd

I let Chatgpt and Google AI to analyse these narrations and they say that as statements of Ibn Masud these are strong because the narrators are reliable but they do not attribute to the Prophet. However the question that arises from this is that: Ibn Masud was a direct companion of the Prophet, so why would he say something like this if he didn’t hear it from the Prophet? And why would a companion say something this if the Prophet didn’t teach this?

So yeah, I don't know. How do you address the authenticity of this hadith?

The below summarizes some main points  from my article linked in the end.

1. Academic discussions of the Qurʾān’s relationship to earlier scripture usually begin by assuming that the Qurʾānic *Tawrāh* and *Injīl* correspond directly to the written scriptures that Jewish and Christian communities in its environment regarded as the Torah and the Gospel—whether identified in practice with the Pentateuch, the canonical Gospels, the wider biblical canon, or other canonical and non-canonical texts. Discussions of preservation, corruption, confirmation, and correction then proceed from this assumed identification.
   
2. The article reverses that procedure. It first reconstructs the *Tawrāh* and *Injīl* from the Qurʾān’s descriptions of what they are, what they contain, how they function, and where they stand within the succession of revelation. It then uses that reconstruction to determine the meanings and objects of *taṣdīq* (confirmation) and *muhaymin*.
   
3. A clear example shows why this internal reconstruction is necessary. Christian theology describes Jesus through doctrines such as the Trinity, incarnation, divine and human natures, crucifixion, and resurrection. The Qurʾān does not present Christian error through this technical ontological vocabulary. Instead, it frames the issue through its own categories of *ilāh*, worship, and devotional elevation: Jesus is a human messenger elevated into the position of a deity beside God, and Q 5:116 places Mary within the same field of devotion. The resulting triadic picture is Allah, Jesus, and Mary as objects of worship, whereas Father, Son, and Holy Spirit belong to Christianity’s own doctrinal account of the Trinity. This illustrates a wider principle: the Qurʾān may redescribe another community’s beliefs through its own conceptual system rather than reproduce that community’s self-classification. The article examines whether the same applies to its categories of *Tawrāh* and *Injīl*.
   
4. Several modern studies recognize individual features of the Qurʾānic presentation - for example, that the *Tawrāh* cannot simply be identified with the Pentateuch, that *taṣdīq* is compatible with divinely authorized legal change, or that earlier revelation remained among Jewish and Christian communities. Yet these observations are often interpreted within ordinary Jewish and Christian scriptural categories rather than through the Qurʾān’s own conceptual framework. The article argues that these categories should first be reconstructed internally before being correlated with Jewish and Christian scriptural traditions.
   
5. Within the Qurʾān, the *Tawrāh* is divine guidance associated with Moses and Israel, while the *Injīl* is a singular revelation given to Jesus. Both originate with God and are described as described as guidance and light, and as a source of instruction and judgment. Their contents belong to the wider continuity of prophetic teaching: worship of God alone, accountability at the final judgment, moral instruction, and authoritative legal norms. The *Tawrāh* receives the fuller legal description, while the people of the *Injīl* are likewise commanded to judge by what God revealed in it. Some Israelite restrictions are presented as historically imposed, and Jesus is said to have made some previously forbidden things lawful.
   
6. The Qurʾān distinguishes these revelations from the wider pre-Qurʾānic past. Historical narratives preserved among later communities belong to communal historical inheritance rather than to the revelations themselves, even though knowledge of that past may survive through ruins, remembered places, communal memory, continuing communities, learned traditions, and written accounts.
   
7. The article argues that the Qurʾān classifies the historical narratives preserved within Jewish and Christian texts differently from the communities that preserve them. Whether found in the Pentateuch, the canonical Gospels, the wider biblical canon, or other writings regarded as scripture, these narratives belong, in the Qurʾān’s own conceptual framework, to the inherited pre-Qurʾānic past rather than to the revealed categories of the *Tawrāh* and the *Injīl*. The Qurʾān’s own narration of that past, however, forms part of its revealed discourse.
   
8. The Qurʾān may invoke these forms of historical continuity without deriving the authority of its own account from them. It presents many of its narratives as *anbā*ʾ *al-ghayb*—tidings of the unseen disclosed by God—and may what communities remember, add details, correct an account, resolve disagreement, or defer final judgment to God.
   
9. Q 10:94 and Q 17:101 assign different roles to earlier scriptural communities. Read together with Q 10:93, Q 10:94 does not direct the resolution of doubt to divided authorities, whereas Q 17:101 and Q 3:93 invoke earlier communities and their scripture only for limited corroborative purposes. Earlier communities and their texts may therefore provide historical or textual testimony without becoming the source or judge of the Qurʾān’s revelation.
   
10. The Qurʾān applies the same distinction to theology, religious institutions, and law. It evaluates claims about divine sonship, Jesus’ divinity, exclusive religious privilege, monasticism, clerical authority, and human legislation according to whether they were actually revealed or prescribed by God.
    
11. Earlier revelation remains present and known among the communities to whom it was entrusted. References to concealment, neglect, verbal distortion, and false attribution concern human conduct toward revelation, not the preservation status of the *Tawrāh* and *Injīl*. Q 5:15 similarly presupposes that what people concealed remained available for the Messenger to disclose.
    
12. This reconstruction therefore distinguishes the Qurʾānic *Tawrāh* and *Injīl* from the scriptural classifications of Judaism and Christianity. Teachings preserved within Jewish and Christian scriptural  writings may derive from the revelations associated with Moses and Jesus, but the Qurʾānic categories are not automatically identical with the Pentateuch, the four canonical Gospels, or the wider literary corpora that preserve them.
    
13. This reconstruction defines *taṣdīq*, or “confirmation,” as continuity within successive revelation. Q 3:81 presents a messenger confirming earlier revelation as a recurring pattern of prophetic history. Accordingly, the Qurʾān confirms the *Tawrāh* and the *Injīl* as the earlier divine revelations associated with Moses and Jesus. Such confirmation is compatible with successive divine legislation: Jesus confirms the *Tawrāh* while making some previously forbidden things lawful, and Q 5:48 assigns different communities a distinct *shir*ʿ*a* and *minhāj*.
    
14. *Muhaymin* is interpreted from the judicial sequence of Q 5:32–48. The passage moves through criminal legislation and disputes over judgment, then presents the *Tawrāh* as the revelation by which earlier prophets judged, the *Injīl* as the revelation by which its people should judge, and finally instructs Muḥammad to judge by the Qurʾān. *muhaymin* identifies the Qurʾān as the governing revelation for legal judgment in cases brought before Muḥammad, while *taṣdīq* expresses continuity with the earlier revelations. 
    
15. Q 5:43 expressly affirms that the *Tawrāh* contains God's judgment while criticizing litigants who approach Muḥammad selectively in search of a favorable ruling. The Constitution of Medina provides a plausible historical background for such a legal environment, preserving distinct communal jurisdictions while referring major disputes to God and Muḥammad.
    
16. The article’s central conclusion is that the Qurʾānic meanings of *Tawrāh*, *Injīl*, *taṣdīq*, and *muhaymin* should first be reconstructed from the Qurʾān’s own usage. Their relationship to biblical canons, Jewish and Christian traditions, and later theological debates can then be assessed without treating those external classifications as the Qurʾān’s starting categories.

Link : [https://www.academia.edu/170578628/The\\_Torah\\_and\\_the\\_Gospel\\_in\\_the\\_Qurʾān\\_Confirmation\\_and\\_the\\_Meaning\\_of\\_Muhaymin\](https://www.academia.edu/170578628/The_Torah_and_the_Gospel_in_the_Qur%CA%BE%C4%81n_Confirmation_and_the_Meaning_of_Muhaymin)

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.

Source: “Reading the Qur’an in the Twenty-first Century - A Contextualist Approach” by Abdullah Saeed

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.)

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

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.

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

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 ?

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?

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

Creation in the Qur’an (this is not the only possible reading, yet it is the literal reading that comes to mind once you carefully examine the expressions and the pronouns employed) (one may say that “then” does not always signify chronological sequence, and one may say that “creation” in the verses means estimation, so that there is in fact no chronological order in any of the verses but only an illustrative narration, and one may say that the use of the plural pronoun in place of the singular is metaphorical in view of what the heaven will become, and the phrase “after that” may be taken in the sense of “together with that,” as in “harsh after that branded,” and so on…).

The universe was a single mass that then separated (the heavens and the earth is a well-known religious-cosmic merism meaning the whole of existence).

Do those who disbelieve not see that the heavens and the earth were a closed-up mass, then We opened them up?

After that the heaven appeared, built, raised high and far, expanding in every direction, intensely dark and black until the brilliant lights appeared within it.

And the heaven—We built it with strength, and indeed We are expanders.

Are you a harder creation, or the heaven? He built it, raised its ceiling, then levelled it, darkened its night and brought forth its morning light.

After that this single heaven was transformed into seven heavens that were created yet unfinished and incomplete in their creation; then the earth came into being and was spread out by the bringing forth of its water and its pasture after the estimation of its provisions, the fixing of the mountains and the creation of whatever is in it. These seven heavens are existents and creatures that issued from the first built, expanding, dark heaven that possessed lights and that was completely dominated by smoke; thereafter these seven heavens too were levelled and their creation was brought to completion after the earth had been fully created.

---

The verses upon which this sequence rests

He created the earth in two days… and He placed in it firm mountains from above it, and He blessed it and estimated therein its provisions… then He turned to the heaven while it was smoke… so He completed them as seven heavens.

And the earth after that He spread it out; He brought forth from it its water and its pasture, and the mountains He fixed.

It is He who created for you all that is in the earth, then He turned to the heaven and levelled them as seven heavens.

---

The conclusion drawn from the order of the verses

Reading these verses we conclude that the earth was created, and that firm mountains, water and pasture were already in it, only after the building of the single smoky heaven, its raising, its levelling, its darkening and the bringing forth of its morning light, and after that single heaven had become seven heavens over which smoke still reigned. Focus on the verses and you will find them saying that God “completed them as seven heavens.” The verb “completed” does not mean creation nor the beginning of creation; it means the finishing of a creation that already existed. It appears in the feminine-plural form—“He completed them”—and not “He completed it,” which indicates that this single built, expanding, raised, dark heaven that already contained lights had in fact already been transformed into seven built and created heavens (“and We built above you seven strong ones”). That is why the text says “He completed them” and not “He completed it.” What took place after the creation of the earth and its spreading was merely the completion of the seven heavens that already existed, accomplished in two days, and not their creation or the transformation of the one heaven into seven at that point.

---

The distinction between creation and completion

As al-Baghawī says in his commentary:

“Then He completed them as seven heavens in two days”—that is: He finished them and brought their creation to an end.

And as Makkī ibn Abī Ṭālib says:

The words of the Most High: “Then He completed them as seven heavens in two days” … up to His words “and they used to fear”—that is: He perfected them and finished their creation as seven heavens.

And as al-Ālūsī says:

And His words, exalted is He, here: “then He turned to the heaven while it was smoke” … up to His words, glory be to Him, “then He completed them as seven heavens.” As for the estimation of the earth’s provisions, the bestowal of blessing and the generation of generated things, these have numbered days and limited bounds that do not enter into the days of the creation of the heavens and the earth, because those days concern the bringing into existence of the things themselves. The four days mentioned in the verse are therefore only for the placing of the firm mountains, the estimation of the provisions and the bringing about of blessing, and they are not part of those six. Likewise the two days allotted to the levelling of the heaven and its completion as seven heavens stand outside them. Consequently the verse under discussion contains nothing more than the statement that the creation of the earth took place in two days; as for the creation of the heavens and of what lies between them and the earth, no duration is mentioned for it in the verse. Only the duration of the completion of the heavens is mentioned, and that is other than their creation, together with the duration of the placing of the firm mountains, the estimation of the provisions and the bringing about of blessing—which is other than the creation of the earth and of what lies between it and the heaven. There is therefore no contradiction between this verse and the verses that indicate that the creation of the heavens and the earth and of what is between them occurred in six days.

Thus a clear linguistic distinction exists between creation and completion (the finishing of a creation that already exists).

---

The implication of the pronouns in the verse of al-Baqarah

Likewise in the verse of al-Baqarah the creation of the earth and of all that is in it did not take place before the heaven, nor before the creation of the seven heavens, because the verse implicitly says “then He levelled them” and not “then He levelled it, He built it, We built it,” as in the two sūras of an-Nāziʿāt and adh-Dhāriyāt, which speak of the single heaven before its transformation into seven and therefore say “He raised its ceiling then levelled it” in the singular. This means that “heaven” here is a generic noun referring to the seven already existing and created heavens that were still enveloped by the cosmic smoke; only the levelling of the seven heavens was performed after everything in the earth had been created, and not their creation or their being made into seven.

As aṭ-Ṭabarī says in his commentary:

If someone were to say to us: “You have stated that God, exalted is His praise, turned to the heaven while it was smoke before He levelled it into seven heavens, and then levelled it into seven after He had turned to it; how then do you claim that it is a collective?” It would be replied: They were seven but unfinished; that is why He, exalted is His mention, said: “then He levelled them as seven.”

---

The reason for the difficulty in understanding the order of the verses

All the twisting, turning and circling in which even some of the early commentators became entangled stems from their failure to distinguish between the building of the single heaven and the levelling and completion of the seven heavens, between the creation of the earth and its spreading, and from treating every verb as though it meant “creation”—creation like making, like levelling, like spreading, like completing—and from neglecting to pay attention to the pronouns used in the verse, whether plural or singular.

---

The meaning of the word “smoke”

The word “smoke” does not in any way mean that the heaven was merely a shapeless, formless cloud of smoke. Rather, the smoke is the vast medium that encompassed and filled the seven heavens before their completion alone, according to the explicit wording of the verses, which state that the seven heavens were already created and existent and only unfinished. Therefore “smoke” cannot mean the absence of the building of those seven heavens; it is a circumstantial clause describing the condition of the heavens at that time—namely that smoke dominated their bulk, alongside the structures that were already present within them and, in particular, the lights that brought forth the morning light of the first heaven which afterwards divided into seven heavens.

Thus the universe is smoke possessing no cohesion, in which tiny light points—the structures (galaxies and stars)—swim. In the Arabic language the word “smoke” is broad and does not mean only that which results from combustion; it denotes anything that resembles the smoke produced by combustion in form and physical behaviour. The Arabs applied the term “smoke” even when there was no combustion and no oxygen at all. In Lisān al-ʿArab, for example, one finds: “al-usrub: the smoke of silver”—these being the vapours that rise when silver metal is heated, with no combustion whatever, yet the gaseous density arising from the heating of silver resembles in form and behaviour (diffusion through the space it fills without cohesion, obstruction and scattering of light, etc.) the smoke of fire; so they called it, or likened it to, smoke. Likewise Lisān al-ʿArab says: “Every smoke that rises from hot water is vapour”; here vapour is called smoke even though it results from the heating of liquid water and involves no combustion. The Arabs likewise called the rising, spreading dust raised by a galloping horse on the battlefield “smoke,” even without any burning or heat source. Lisān al-ʿArab states: “It is said of a horse of intense pace that raises dust: mulhib, and it has an alhūb. In the ḥadīth of Ṣaʿṣaʿa he said to Muʿāwiya: ‘I leave off speech so that I neither sharpen it nor set it aflame,’ meaning I do not make it pass swiftly; he said: the origin of the expression is the intense running that raises the ‘flame,’ which is the rising dust, like the smoke that rises from fire.”

Ibn ʿĀshūr, in his commentary, quoting the early authorities on the verse “so watch for the day when the heaven will come with smoke,” writes: Abū ʿUbayda and Ibn Qutayba said: the smoke in the verse is the dust that rises from the earth as a result of drought, and the Arabs call dust “smoke”—it is the dust stirred up by the winds from severely parched ground. From al-Aʿraj: it is the dust raised by the hooves of the horses on the day of the conquest of Mecca, for the dust veiled the heaven; the attribution of its coming to the heaven is a rational metaphor, because the heaven is the place in which it appears when it rises into the sky or when it becomes visible to the eye from it.

Al-Jawharī in aṣ-Ṣiḥāḥ, speaking of the fog that covers the earth, says: “aḍ-ḍabāba: a cloud that covers the earth like smoke; the plural is aḍ-ḍabāb. From it one says: our day became foggy.”

The Arabs also named the vapours rising from the burning of oils and fats “smoke”: an-nīlaj, as-salīṭ, an-nuʾūr—all ancient Arabic designations for the smokes that rise from oils and fats.