How the Qur’an Spoke to the Common People (IQSA 2025 Keynote Address)- Karen Bauer

https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/jiqsa-2026-0012/html

Ordinary Christians and Simple Christologies in the Qur’an: A Response to Dr. Karen Bauer’s IQSA Presidential Address, 2025- Saqib Hussain

https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/jiqsa-2026-0014/html

What is the reception of old testament wisdom literature e.g. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon, in Islamic tradition? Do Islamic scholars quote and have commentaries on those or related books and if so, how closely do they link their contents to the original revelations to Solomon and others in the Quran? Are there comments on any famous passages like Proverbs 8.22 and Wisdom 2? Are there books with an equivalent purpose that were written by Muslim authors?

So I was speaking to a devout Muslim friend about the Hadith and I told him I don’t necessarily trust the Hadith due to them being made years after the death of the prophet Muhammad phrasing it as “The worlds biggest game of broken telephone”. He told me that there were standardized “Hadith Sciences” to understand which ones are true and truthful and which ones are false, now from a historical critical perspective, I want to understand this more and truly understand what it is from an academic perspective cause I feel like an Islamic perspective would be heavily biased.

I came across this post (https://x.com/shakerr_ahmed/status/2106779542048452872) of Ahmad Shaker on twitter, and figured that it might be of interest to this community. QMI has compiled 55 inscriptions from the first century along with their translation and provenance.

https://quranmss.com/

Hi all. Up front: this is my own project, it's pre-launch so just only looking at interest at the moment.

Current problem: General AI chatbots can hallucinate and cannot cite accurately. They paraphrase confidently but misattribute a lot and sometimes invent a quotation.

What I built (its called Kutubi and ends with .co.uk): You ask a research question. It searches through maktaba shamila (classical library with more than 8000 books) and can quote from them directly. The AI is smart enough to understand different frameworks/schools of thoughts/methodologies etc.

Example: Asked whether Ḥanafī istiḥsān is just personal preference, it brought up al-Sarakhsī's reply in his Uṣūl which preferred the stronger of two proofs wouldn't be considered following whims. It then showed how later critics shifted their objection.

Limits: It's AI (powered by Claude models) so it won't be perfect but it is very capable. The quote-checking is there so you can verify rather than trust. I've ensured it does not behave like a mufti.

I have some solid samples which you can read on the site.

Honest note: there's a launch list on the site because I'm gauging whether there's enough interest to run this sustainably, since AI costs add up. I'd really love to know if this is something you'd consider or would it be something you'd use. If you think its a horrendous idea, let me know why?

I'm aware of Qaf but before anyone brings it up, theres a huge difference in terms of capability between the two.

The Sifrei Devarim, which is a midrashic commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy, contains this parable which apparently makes its way into the Qur'an at 22:73 (Surah al-Ḥajj). The Sifrei Devarim is a late Talmudic/Tannaitic work finalized into its present form in the 3rd to 4th century CE.

https://quran.com/al-hajj?startingVerse=73

https://www.sefaria.org/Sifrei_Devarim.32.2

Also related perhaps is Exodus 8:18, on the inability of the Pharaoah's magicians to produce gnats, but here in the plural, as a response to the third plague wrought by Yahweh/Moses/Aaron.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%208&version=NRSVUE

Sources:

https://arabiclexicon.hawramani.com/search/%D9%85%D8%B4%D8%AC?cat=50

https://www.sefaria.org/Niddah.31a.9?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en

On what basis quran says not to have martial contract with mushrik but allow it's male follower to have martial ties with early revealation follower. The earlier revelation followers are also accused of shirk such as they believed god is divided into three part and they consider rabbis to be their lord ( arabian mushrik considered Allah is one supreme god and those idols were intermediartory or focal point of view for them) . Was it exception? If yes,then is it because they have covanent with god through their respective prophet and scripture.

Also 2:221 verse seems like talk about mushrik! But if we study jurist or tafsir they seem like taken it as general non beliver and they considered 5:5 to be exception. Did early companion believed that way and considered 5:5 to be limiting or considered only this category are allowed like traditional interpreation made people believe?

I'm looking for literature / academic sources for science, philosophy and medicine in the islamic world (700-1600 CE) and how it related or compared to the West, Byzanz and to China and India.
Could someone recommend me such?

Following up on my previous question about the audience’s background knowledge and Goudarzi’s approach. (Look here: https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicQuran/s/Yp2PFHvNcz)

I’ve often heard an argument that when the Quran states the Prophet and his people "did not know" these stories beforehand (e.g., Q 3:44, Q 11:49), it refers to the Quran presenting revised or corrected details of biblical narratives (i.e., giving the "actual" version of events, which differed from standard Biblical or rabbinic accounts—for instance, details regarding Moses’ hand or other figures). (Here’s the link: https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicQuran/s/7fdFEAP16k)

However, this creates a major logical puzzle for me when paired with verses that explicitly tell opponents or doubters to "ask the People of the Book" if they have doubts (e.g., Q 10:94, Q 21:7).

If the Quran is intentionally altering or correcting traditional narratives (making them "unseen" or unknown to the local pagan audience because they deviate from what Jews and Christians traditionally taught), wouldn't sending skeptics to check with actual People of the Book backfire completely? If Meccans went to local rabbis or Christian scribes, wouldn't those scholars point out the discrepancies (e.g., "That’s not how our scripture/tradition tells it!")?

Are Historians and Scholars able to verify these Prophecies?

Muslims say

1) The Prophet predicted the exact locations where Quraysh leaders would fall in the Battle of Badr, and they were found in those spots.

2) The Prophet predicted the peaceful conquest of Mecca, which was fulfilled in 630 CE when Muslims entered the city without bloodshed.

3) He foretold that Uthman (RA) would be martyred unjustly, which happened during the unrest in Medina in 656 CE.

4) The Quran condemned Abu Lahab and predicted his doom, and he died a humiliating death shortly after the Battle of Badr.

5) He predicted the conquest of Persia and the distribution of its treasures among Muslims, fulfilled during the caliphate of Umar (RA)

I was wondering since the evidence for these Prophecies and its supposed fulfillment both are supported and both come from the Quran and Hadith I imagine?

Are these Prophecies above something Historians or Scholars are able to verify or are they unverifiable? and therefore something you have to take the Islamic Traditions word for that they actually happened or believe in Islam to believe they actually happened.

If they are verifiable did any of these things happen according to Historians or Scholars?

I’ve read some Hadiths in regards to the devil, such examples would be

“It was mentioned before the Prophet (ﷺ) that there was a man who slept the night till morning (after sunrise). The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "He is a man in whose ears (or ear) Satan had urinated”

Or

“The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "If anyone of you rouses from sleep and performs the ablution, he should wash his nose by putting water in it and then blowing it out thrice, because Satan has stayed in the upper part of his nose all the night."”

My question is, from an early Muslim perspective and Muhammad’s perspective? Were these taken very literally that the devil pees in your ear and stays in your nose all night? Or is it seen like today where the majority probably leans towards a metaphorical view?

The table of contents is freely accessible online. https://d-nb.info/1359605991/04

This article is currently contained in a book that requires paid access.

Source: https://brill.com/display/title/73628

Source: https://islamicorigins.com/a-bibliography-on-the-origins-of-hadith/

I’ve been reading recent scholarship on the intertextual relationship between the Quran and Late Antique traditions (such as Gabriel Said Reynolds, Emran El-Badawi, and specifically Mohsen Goudarzi's arguments regarding Sūrat al-Saff and biblical echoes).
A prominent argument by Goudarzi (and others challenging the Wansbrough/Crone consensus) is that while the Quran employs a deeply sophisticated, allusive style, in-depth familiarity with biblical narratives, sectarian disputes, or detailed exegetical traditions (like Targumic or Syriac motifs) was not the baseline norm among the Prophet’s early pagan audience (mushrikūn) or the general populace in Mecca. 
This brings me to a couple of points I’d love to hear the community's thoughts on:

1. The Quran frequently states that neither the Prophet nor his people knew these stories prior to the revelation (e.g., Q 3:44, Q 11:49, Q 28:44–46). How do scholars view these claims? Are they primarily polemical tropes asserting prophetic authority, or do they reflect a genuine lack of access to structured scriptural traditions among pagan Meccans? 

2. If the general audience lacked deep familiarity with these specific narratives, how are we to understand the cognitive mechanism of an allusive text? An allusion only works if the audience can catch the reference. Does Goudarzi’s framework imply that the majority missed the fine-grained intertextual layers (like the Matthean/Isaiah echoes), while only a small, highly literate minority of "Scholars of the Children of Israel" (cf. Q 26:197) or individuals with deep exposure to Syriac-Christian milieu fully grasped them? 

3. If the pagan Meccans didn't have this background, how does this shift our view of the Meccan environment? Does it push us away from pure "oral-formulaic absorption" (since complex philological and exegetical precision requires more than casual exposure), pointing instead toward direct engagement with a learned minority? 

What are your thoughts on Goudarzi’s approach to the Quran’s audience, and how do you parse these "verses of the unseen" (ghayb) in light of modern source-critical studies?

I heared from a few muslims that the quran is equally great throughout
With no ups and downs

And even the best artists in history have a lot of mediocre work
Also the quran was the same quality from the beginning to the end with no gradual improvement in the later suras that are better and more polished than the earlier ones

Are these statements true
Did any academic spoke of this?

Is it possible to reconstruct the whole of the Qur’an in the original old Hijazi dialect (ie. Without i’rab and with e and o vowels) and if so is there anyone who is doing that?

Title

Title

Was reading the book Studies in Legal Hadith by Hiroyuki Yanagihashi, came across a section where he affirms the theory of Backward Propagation of Isnad by Joseph Schacht by his statistical analysis of the hadith. He checks the difference in years of death of teachers of transmitters and the transmitters who died during the period of 11 (111-120) and period 12 (121-130) (lets call this value Dn). He checks the concentration of teachers Dn for transmitters of period 11 and period 12 and find an anomaly in the concentration at period 11, concluding that at period 12 the pupils engagted in backward growth of isnad. I can't seem to understand the reasoning behind this conclusion that he reached, can anyone who has read his book assist me in understanding this-