u/zinarkarayes1221

What are your favourite Quran commentary,translations?

I’m trying to understand the academic discussion surrounding the so-called “stoning verse” (āyat al-rajm).
The traditional Islamic narrative is that there was once a Qur’anic verse prescribing stoning for married adulterers, that its recitation was later abrogated while its legal ruling remained, and that ʿUmar referred to this in his famous sermon.
However, I recently came across an argument attributed to Seyfeddin Kara that seems to propose a different explanation. From what I understand, based on isnād-cum-matn analysis (ICMA) of the rajm traditions and evidence such as the Constitution of Medina, he argues that the historical Muhammad likely ordered the stoning of a Jewish man and woman according to the Torah’s law, referring to the Torah as “the Book of Allah.” The suggestion is that this expression may later have been interpreted by ʿUmar (or by later transmitters) as referring to an abrogated Qur’anic verse rather than to the Torah itself.
Is this actually an accurate representation of Kara’s argument?
More broadly, what is the current academic consensus (if any) on the historicity of the “stoning verse” traditions? Do scholars generally consider ʿUmar’s statement to preserve evidence of a lost Qur’anic verse, or are alternative explanations such as Kara’s regarded as more plausible?
I’d appreciate answers from the perspective of historical-critical scholarship rather than traditional theological arguments.

I recently came across a video making the claim that some Jews may have viewed ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb as a kind of messianic or even “Messiah-like” figure after the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem.
The video mentioned the title al-Fārūq and claimed that some Jews may have seen Umar as a liberator or a figure connected to their own messianic expectations. I also remember hearing that some Jews may have welcomed the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem because of their hopes surrounding the Temple Mount and the rebuilding of the Temple.
I’m not sure how accurate any of this is, so I’m looking for proper academic sources.
Was Umar ever actually viewed by any Jewish groups as a Messiah, messianic figure, or someone fulfilling Jewish eschatological expectations?

I’m interested in learning the variety of Kurmanji spoken by Êzidî (Yazidi) Kurds, particularly around the Lalish/Shekhan region in northern Iraq.
I’m aware that there are different varieties of Kurmanji (Turkey, Syria, Armenia, Iraq, etc.), and I’d specifically like to focus on the dialect spoken by the Êzidî community around Lalish rather than Standard Kurmanji if there are noticeable differences.
Can anyone recommend:
Books (grammar, textbooks, or readers)
Dictionaries
Audio courses or YouTube channels
Native speakers or online tutors
Academic resources on the dialect
Recordings of everyday conversations
Podcasts or TV/radio in this variety of Kurmanji

I've been researching early Islamic history and keep coming across claims that many aspects of what is now considered Sunni Islam were heavily shaped by the Umayyad dynasty.
Some authors (including certain Quranists, revisionists, secular Turkish writers who use the phrase "uydurulan din", and some Shia writers) argue that:
Many hadiths were fabricated during the Umayyad period to legitimize the rulers.
Court scholars promoted obedience to the caliph through politically motivated narrations.
Early Islamic history was rewritten or selectively preserved by the victors.
Sunni orthodoxy gradually developed under Umayyad and later Abbasid influence rather than simply preserving the teachings of the Prophet ay and the earliest Muslims.
Much of the traditional historical narrative relies on sources written generations after the events.
Some questions:
How much influence did the Umayyads have on the davalament of Sunni theology and practices?
Is there good historical evidence that Umayyad authorities sponsored or encouraged hadith fabrication?
How reliable are the classical hadith collections according to modern academic scholarship?
How reliable is early Islamic history (Sīra, al-Tabari, Baladhuri, etc.) given that most of it was written centuries after the Prophet ﷺ?
Is the phrase “invented religion” supported by mainstream historians, or is it primarily a modern polemical claim?

As-salamu ’alaykum everyone,
I’m looking for solid and well-sourced books on Tasawwuf (Sufism) that cover the subject from a historical and theological perspective.
In particular, I’m interested in books that discuss:
The origins and early development of Tasawwuf.
Whether the principles of Tasawwuf can be traced back to the Qur’an, Sunnah, and the practice of the Sahabah and the Salaf.
How early figures such as Hasan al-Basri, Junayd al-Baghdadi, al-Muhasibi, and others contributed to its development etc..

I’m interested in a serious comparative discussion about how Yahweh (YHWH/Elohim) in Judaism and Christianity compares to Allah in the Qur’an. The Quran says they are the same god and continuation.
What similarities do they share regarding:
Absolute monotheism and divine unity.
Attributes (merciful, just, jealous, loving, wrathful, all-knowing, all-powerful, eternal, creator, sustainer, etc.).
Throne
Their actions in history (flood, destruction of nations, covenants, guidance through prophets).
Relationship with humanity and expectations of obedience.
How God speaks, reveals scripture, and interacts with prophets.
Concepts of law, morality, reward and punishment.
Divine transcendence vs. immanence.

Can behdini and sorani speakers understand each and differences and similarities between the two?

I’ve been wondering about this from a historical and comparative religion perspective.
Is there a meaningful equivalent to the Sunni–Shia divide in Christianity or Judaism? For example, would Sunnism be more comparable to Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy as the larger, historically continuous mainstream tradition, while Shi’ism is more analogous to a later breakaway movement such as Protestantism? Or is that comparison completely misleading?
I’m also curious about similarities beyond just political succession:
Which traditions claim the strongest continuity with the earliest community?
How similar are they in theology, ritual practice, law, and everyday worship despite their disagreements?
Are the differences mainly about authority and legitimate leadership, or do they extend deeply into doctrine and scripture?
Is there a Christian parallel where two groups share most core beliefs but differ over who the rightful successors or guardians of the tradition are?
In Judaism, would Rabbinic Judaism vs. Karaism be a better comparison, or is that a fundamentally different kind of split?
How do historians of religion view these analogies, and which comparisons are considered overly simplistic?

I’m interested in the historical and academic perspective rather than modern theological or apologetic arguments.
From what I understand, the Qur’an contains both positive and critical passages about Jews and Christians. Early Muslims also migrated to Christian Abyssinia and were reportedly protected by the Negus, while Muhammad also interacted extensively with Jewish tribes in Medina.
My questions are:
How did the earliest Muslim community (during Muhammad’s lifetime and the Rashidun period) and ummayads generally view and interact with Christians versus Jews?
Which community did early Muslims see as being theologically or socially closer to them, if either?
How did political events influence these relationships?
What do the Qur’an, early Islamic sources, and non-Muslim contemporary sources suggest?
Are there any academic books or journal articles that discuss this topic in depth?

I’m looking for academic and historical sources, not apologetics or polemics.
Specifically:
Which early Muslim scholars (1st–5th century AH) questioned, rejected, or interpreted differently the hadith stating that Aisha was six at marriage and nine at consummation?
Were there scholars who challenged the isnad, matn (content), chronology, or historical consistency of these reports?
Which scholars emphasized that Qur’anic principles should take precedence when evaluating hadith that appear problematic?
Are there examples of early scholars criticizing or rejecting narrations found in Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim, demonstrating that these collections were respected but not considered beyond criticism?
Did scholars from schools such as the Mu’tazila, early Hanafis, Malikis, Zahiris, or others express reservations about specific hadith in these collections?
I’m interested in references to classical works and modern academic scholarship (Arabic or English), with citations if possible. I’m especially looking for evidence that critical evaluation of individual hadith existed within the Islamic tradition itself rather than being only a modern phenomenon.

Silav u rez hevalno, can you reccomend sources, books,pdf,videos,online resources to learn behdini fully? Spas

I’ve come across the term “Uthmanis” in some discussions about early Islamic history and political/theological groups, but I’m not fully clear on what it refers to.
From what I understand, it might be connected to supporters of Uthman ibn Affan and the ummayads or possibly an early faction during the first fitna, but I’m not sure how defined it actually is as a “sect” or school of thought.
So I wanted to ask:
Who exactly were the Uthmanis historically?
Were they a political faction, theological group, or later label?
What were their core beliefs regarding the caliphate and the companions?
How did they differ from other early groups like the supporters of Ali or later Umayyad/Abbasid narratives?
Do we actually have primary sources describing them as a distinct group, or is this mainly a retrospective classification by later historians?

I’ve been trying to better understand the development of Islamic theology (‘aqidah) and I’m curious how historians reconstruct the beliefs of the earliest generations of Muslims.

Many contemporary discussions seem to frame the issue as a choice between a strongly textual/literalist approach and a more reason-based approach that incorporates ‘aql (reason), interpretation, and theological reflection. However, when I read about early figures such as Umar ibn al-Khattab, Ali ibn Abi Talib, Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, Hasan al-Basri, Abu Hanifa, and others, they often appear to employ substantial reasoning, judgment, and contextual thinking in legal and theological matters.

From a historical perspective:
What evidence do we have for how the first three generations understood the role of reason in religion?
Were they closer to what later became Ash’ari/Maturidi approaches, early Ahl al-Ra’y, traditionalist theology, or is that anachronistic?
Did the earliest Muslims engage in theological reasoning in ways that later polemics tend to obscure?
How should we understand figures like Umar and Ibn Mas’ud, who seem to have exercised significant independent judgment, in relation to later theological schools?

I’ve been reading more about the first Islamic century and the Umayyads, especially Muʿāwiya, and I’m curious how modern historians approach him given the nature of our sources.

On one hand, a lot of later Islamic literature—particularly material written under the Abbasids and later sectarian traditions—often portrays the Umayyads negatively.
On the other hand, some contemporary or near-contemporary non-Muslim sources (Syriac, Armenian, etc.) seem to describe Muʿāwiya as a capable, just, and effective ruler who maintained order and worked with Christian officials and communities.

A few questions I’m interested in:
What do we actually know about Muʿāwiya’s personal religious beliefs?
How did he understand the caliphate—primarily as a religious office, a political leadership role, or something else?
Was the conflict with ʿAlī viewed by contemporaries as an ideological/religious struggle, or more as a political dispute over authority and governance?
How reliable are reports portraying Muʿāwiya as personally hostile toward ʿAlī?
To what extent do historians think later Abbasid-era historiography shaped the negative image of the Umayyads?
Why do some contemporary Christian sources appear relatively favorable toward Muʿāwiya compared to many later Muslim sources?

what happened to the Umayyad family after the Abbasid Revolution? We often hear about the massacre of the Umayyads and the survival of the Andalusian branch, but what became of the wider Umayyad lineage in places like Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere? Did they continue as notable families, scholars, Sufis, or local elites?

I’ve recently been reading about Shaykh ʿAdī ibn Musāfir, the famous Sufi associated with the origins of the Yazidi tradition, and noticed that many sources describe him as being of Umayyad descent and overly praising muawiyah and yazid?

I’ve been reading about the early Imams and the development of Sunni, Shiʿi, and Zaydi thought, and it seems like later groups often project their own positions back onto the early generations.

For example, I’ve read reports that Imam Zayd defended Abū Bakr and ʿUmar and allegedly said he had not heard anything bad about them, which raises questions about how the earliest Ahl al-Bayt figures actually viewed the first two caliphs.

What do the earliest sources suggest?
Did the early Imams and 12 imams generally respect Abū Bakr and ʿUmar while disagreeing over succession?
Is there reliable evidence that they openly criticized them?
How much of the strongly pro- or anti-caliph material is a product of later sectarian development?
What do modern historians and academics conclude when looking at the earliest evidence?