r/AcademicQuran

dead see scrolls were a ground breaking finding that changed biblical studies significantly because it revealed the milieu jesus grew up in and the context early christianity emerged from and explained many contested and unnanswred questions about early cristianity, any finding similar about islam found? if not do you think we'll find something similar or is it hard because of the political restrictions in middle east country especially saudi arabia, yemen, syria, jordan and iraq? or there is none at all because there was no writting culture in the area?

Has anyone made a list of repeated and formulaic phrases in the Quran and their frequencies?

From what I understand, negative views of Paul were widely adopted by later Islamic intelligentsia. He is viewed as an intentional corruptor of Jesus' teachings. I wonder if tropes and narratives found in Toledot Yeshu can be found in some of their anti-Paul polemics.

Amateur here so apologies if my terminology and reasoning is not up to academic standards.

I would like to ask about the possibility of the Old Hijazi Arabic dialect  having a fully functioning case system and tanwin, just like the al-ʿarabiyyah described by the grammarians. Based on the following data:

1. Tanwin is attested to this day in Arabian (including some Hijazi) dialects.
2. Tanwin and fully functioning case is attested in pre-Islamic and early Islamic (including Hijazi) poetry. There is no record of non-tanwined and reduced-case poetry from Hijazi poets. Tanwin and fully functioning case is also attested in the dialectal speech of the grammarians' (admittedly probably non-Hijazi) informants, as a native and not an artificial or literary/high-register feature. The argument could be made that tanwin and fully functioning case was an everyday feature of Najdi/Bedouin speech and a high-register feature of Old Hijazi but, see next point:
3. The grammarians faithfully listed dialectal differences of Hijazi and other dialects, such as the reduction of the glottal stop, imalah, etc. But they did not mention a supposedly reduced case system for Hijazi. If the argument is that they could not tell that Old Hijazi had a reduced case system, then how could they tell that Old Hijazi was not hamzated? Reports from the proto-grammarians should have mentioned then that Old Hijazi had a reduced case system just like they mentioned that Old Hijazi did not pronounce hamza.
4. The indefinite accusative case written with alif in the Nabataean script is attested in the ʿEn ʿAvdat inscription.
5. Tanwin is not written with nun in the Nabataean script inscriptions. This is regardless of whether the Nabataean Arabic language had tanwin or not.
6. Arabic documents in the Greek script of Hijazi Arabic are (as far as I know) only after the very early Islamic era. Case (and tanwin in the urban dialect) can be said to have broken down at that point. Pre-Islamic Arabic inscriptions in the Greek script are not of Old Hijazi, but of other Arabic varieties (correct me if I am wrong) where case and tanwin may very well have broken down earlier.

For the Arabic script, the path to arriving at the orthography where tanwin is pronounced but not written is: 

When the Arabic script developed from the Nabataean script, the Arabic script scribal school simply continued some of the conventions of the Nabataean scribal school and standardized them.

So the indefinite accusative is written with alif. And because tanwin was not written in the Nabataean script, even though this may be because the Nabataean Arabic variety did not have tanwin, they continued that convention as well.

In a similar manner, they would write the definite article with al, regardless of whether it preceded a sun letter or a moon letter, following the Nabataean convention, regardless of whether the Nabataean language had sun letters or not.

The convention of wawation, peculiarly, only survived in the name عمرو. But this name was not pronounced as ʿamrū/ʿamru. Waw here is clearly only an orthographic convention. This shows that orthographic conventions and pronunciation could be different, from the very beginnings of the Arabic script.

By the way, the title is just an homage to Profs. Al-Jallad and Van Putten's paper.

i said in a previous post i'm new to this field of study, i still didn't choose the first book to read yet, but i'm curious to know what's the most interesting or ground breaking finding/s about origins of islam until now? i mean something truly change the tradition narrative.
if none found yet, give me the most interesting one/s.

to better explain my question, the Jesus as told in the Quran seems completely different to the one in the bible, for starters he is not the son of god but rather a prophet like those before him and was not resurrected, with the Quran making no mention of a second coming

the messiah in Islam seems like a different individual with the book making no mention of the other things Jesus had talked about

I guess my question is essentially why and how did Muslims come to this conclusion to this view of a messiah? what outside influence led towards isa exactly?

This is the general discussion thread in which anyone can make posts and/or comments. This thread will, automatically, repeat every week.

This thread will be lightly moderated only for breaking our subs Rule 1: Be Respectful, and Reddit's Content Policy. Questions unrelated to the subreddit may be asked, but preaching and proselytizing will be removed.

r/AcademicQuran offers many helpful resources for those looking to ask and answer questions, including:

• Online resources
• Academic journals
• Bibliographies by topic

Thesis Statement: Modern Islamic apologists often attempt to harmonize the embryological stages in Surah Al-Mu'minun (23:12-14) with modern science by arguing that the stages overlap or are non-linear. However, the foundational laws of Classical Arabic grammar (Nahu) explicitly lock the text into a strict, irreversible chronological sequence one that modern developmental biology proves is false.

1. The Linguistic Proof: The Grammar of Huroof al-Atf

In Classical Arabic, coordinating conjunctions are not interchangeable; they dictate precise temporal relationships. The text of Verse 14 alternates between two specific conjunctions to establish its timeline:

The Law of Fa (فَـ): Used four times consecutively to connect the biological transformations (e.g., Fa-khalaqna al-nutfata alaqah). In Arabic grammar, Fa dictates Tartib ma'al-Taqib (Sequence with Immediate Succession). Grammatically, Event B must begin rapidly after Event A completely concludes, with zero time gaps.

The Law of Thumma (ثُمَّ): Used to mark major developmental pauses, such as the transition to a "New Creation" (ensoulment). Thumma dictates Tartib ma'al-Tarakhi (Sequence with a Delay), legally signaling a lengthy duration of time before the next phase materializes.

The Omission of Wa (وَ): If these developmental stages occurred simultaneously, or if the order did not matter, the text would have used Wa ("and"), which grammarians like Sibawayh define as providing absolute grouping (Mutlaq al-Jam') without implying chronology. By completely avoiding Wa, the text enforces a strict linear sequence.

The grammatically locked timeline: Nutfah (Drop) ──> Alaqah (Clot) ──> Mudghah (Lump) ──> Izam (Bones) ──> Lahm (Flesh/Muscle).

2. The Scientific Reality: The Timeline is False

While the Arabic grammar is masterfully precise at establishing this strict structural sequence, modern embryology demonstrates that this exact sequential order is biologically incorrect.

Simultaneous, Not Sequential Development: Muscles and bones do not develop in a linear, step-by-step sequence. Musculoskeletal development happens simultaneously from the same embryonic origin; the paraxial mesoderm (somites).

The Myth of the "Bare Skeleton": There is no point in human gestation where an embryo consists of a bare skeleton of bones (Izam) that is later "clothed" with flesh (Lahm). Myogenesis (muscle formation) and chondrogenesis (cartilage modeling) occur concurrently; muscle tissue surrounds these zones well before true bone ossification ever begins.

Historical Anachronism: This specific linear sequence semen > clot > flesh > bones > muscles does not require divine revelation to explain. It perfectly mirrors the flawed, naked-eye medical theories written centuries prior by ancient Greek physicians, specifically Galen (in De Semine) and Aristotle. Secular historians argue the Quran simply reflected the common medical misconceptions of the 7th-century Near East.

The Theological Dilemma

This creates a profound paradox for Islamic inerrancy:

To preserve the scientific accuracy of the text, an apologist must break the strict, classical rules of Arabic grammar (by claiming Fa does not mean immediate succession). Conversely, to preserve the linguistic perfection of the Arabic, one must accept a literal timeline that modern medical scans have proven false. You cannot structurally have both.

Points for Discussion:

For Muslim debaters: How do classical exegeses (like Al-Tabari or Ibn Kathir), which strictly upheld Tartib (sequence) for these verses, reconcile with modern embryological data without rewriting classical grammar?

For secular/historical debaters: Is there any valid linguistic argument where Fa can lose its sequential property (Tartib) in a chain of consecutive verbs like this?

In the Qur'an, we read that Mary's mother and father were regarded as faithful people by the Jews of that time.(Q 19:28) The Qur'an also portrays Mary's mother as a woman of faith. Doesn't this suggest that the Qur'an is not in conflict with mainstream Judaism of the first century BCE on this point? Both the Jews and the Qur'an view Mary's family as people who were righteous and faithful.

Yeah, basically the title. Is there a scholar of Islamic studies who partake in content creation that views Islam and Islamic sources in academic, historical-critical methodologies?

I know about and frequently follow Filip Holm and Syawish Rehman's contents, but they seem to have different vibes.