u/DhulQarnayni

And if many companions heard the a report from Muhammad, would Muhammad then be considered the common link in the isnad?

I haven't looked into how many isnads actually have these features. I just want to understand whether these situations would count as a common link if i came across them.

Do most researchers rely on the traditional Islamic chronology or the Nöldeke chronology or newer revised approaches by scholars like Nicolai Sinai and Angelika Neuwirth?

Edit: Not just Jewish and Christian tradition..Does any tradition mention 19 angels? Quran talks about 19 angels being guardians of hell. Iam trying to figure out whether any tradition influenced islam on this.

I recently read a version of 1 Enoch 6:7 that lists only 19 angels by name even though the passage says there were 200 angels. Since 20 leaders with 10 angels each would account for all 200, i assume the missing name may be due to a textual variant or scribal error.

Is there any tradition that specifically recognizes 19 angels?

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?

Did Nietzsche want people to become amoral that is, to stop caring about conventional ideas of good and evil and simply do whatever they want without worrying about what other people think or feel?

For example, suppose someone says, "I want to kill, rape or commit other acts that society considers evil and I don't care what anyone else thinks. I'll do whatever I want."

How would Nietzsche view a person like that? Would he see this as an example of "going beyond good and evil," or would he reject that interpretation?

Title

I'm skeptical of religions that describe God as all-knowing, all-powerful and the creator of everything while also holding people ultimately morally responsible and rewarding or punishing them based on their deeds.

My intuition is this: at the deepest level we do not create ourselves. We don't choose our genetics, upbringing, personality or the factors that shape what we value.

For example, suppose someone chooses to be kind rather than cruel. Why did they choose kindness? Presumably because they wanted to or because they valued kindness more. But where did those wants and values come from? It seems that at some point, the chain ends in factors outside the person's control.

Because of that, i fnd it difficult to see how anyone could deserve ultimate praise or ultimate blame. For practical reasons, i think society should still reward good behavior and punish crime to protect people and encourage cooperation. But that's a pragmatic justification not an ultimate one.

My difficulty is with an all-knowing Creator. If God created every person, knew exactly how they would develop and understood that they did not ultimately create themselves then why would God eternally reward or punish them for actions that ultimately arose from factors they didn't choose? Unlike human societies, God doesn't need punishment or reward for deterrence or social order, since an omnipotent being has no practical constraints.

Is this a reasonable philosophical position? What are the strongest philosophical counterarguments to this line of reasoning?

The narrative that i am familiar with is that, during the caliphate of Uthman, Muslims from different regions were reciting the Quran differently and this led him to produce and distribute a standardized text.

My question is this: Even today Muslims recite the Quran differently because there are different qirāʾāt that are accepted within Islam.

So, was this the same situation that Uthman was trying to solve or was the problem at that time something different? If it was different, what exactly was the issue he was addressing?

I don't believe in God because i don't think there is sufficient evidence for God's existence.

At the same time, i think there is a good chance that extraterrestrial life exists somewhere in the universe because the universe is so vast and there are so many planets.

However, we currently don't have direct empirical evidence that aliens exist either.

So my question is: am i being inconsistent? If I reject belief in God due to lack of evidence, should I also reject the idea that aliens probably exist? Or is there an important difference between these two cases?

One reason I’m asking is the absence of the definite article “al-” before Firʿawn in the Quran. In the story of Yusuf, the Quran says “al-malik” (Q12:43) clearly treating it as a title. But Quran consistently says “Firʿawn” without the definite article “al-”

So I’m wondering whether the Qur’an is using Firʿawn more like a proper name than a title. Is there any academic work on this topic?