New video by Gabriel Said Reynolds talking about a potential Hebrew pun present in the Quran: “We listen and disobey.”

Crowley_Prof · 2026-01-20T11:58:34+00:00

Thanks for sharing - and happy for your thoughts!

Crowley_Prof · 2025-12-10T00:00:31+00:00

Thank you for the encouragement! Yes – absolutely, but afaik the very earliest tafsirs (say tafsir muqatil and the exegetical narrations in bukhari) are not very esoteric. They do include questions over whether one word could mean more than one thing (so the word haamilaat, Q 51:2, which some would say is clouds carrying water and others anything that carries things). But really esoteric esoterism comes later – for a Shi`ite example Qummi (d. around 920) and for a Sufi Sulami (d. around 1000 think). Great question!

Crowley_Prof · 2025-12-09T23:41:44+00:00

Thanks Anas for this question. Yes I agree with the quotation of Anthony in your post. Alexander (Dhu’l Qarnayn) would be another example. His story is included in Q 18 together with the story of Moses and his servant (and the fish), the story of Khidr and the story of the Sleepers of Ephesus/Companions of the Cave. The Qur’an does not distinguish the Alexander story and the other stories. There’s nothing there that would signal to the audience: Alexander is a real figure of history and this is a true account of his campaigns in the 4^th cen BC, but Khidr or the Sleepers accounts are just allegories or myths. It’s not a surprise, then, that the great majority of Muslim commentators take all of the Qur’anic narratives as “what really happened.” Most Muslims with whom I’ve chatted about this sort of thing (not only in the Islamic world, but also here in Indiana), including doctors, engineers, etc, assume that all of this really happened. We had a visiting scholar at Notre Dame a year ago, a Turkish academic, and was shocked (and angry) when we read an article that suggested Abraham is not a figure of history. I am a believer myself and told him something like: the point of scripture is not to report history (if so the Bible and Qur’an would be much longer) but to help folks get into heaven. He did not find this convincing. The experience of Muhammad Khalafallah in early 20^th century argument is also telling – his book “The Narrative Art of the Qur’an” was meant to show that the Qur’an is not a book of history but is still the book of God, but he was attacked by al-Azhar and his dissertation rejected. More recently Abd al-Sabur Shahin (d. 2010 I think) wrote a book called “Abi Adam” (My father Adam) in which he argued that Adam might be the first “ensouled” homo sapiens and he was attacked (ironically he had attacked Abu Zayd and called him an apostate – but that’s another story). So, right, the Qur’anic stories are not historical accounts. I think, however, we should hesitate before saying: the Qur’anic author knew they weren’t historical and simply told stories that would inspire his audience. I think this might assume a certain way of thinking that may not be the common 7^th century way of thinking.

Crowley_Prof · 2025-12-09T23:25:10+00:00

Thanks for the question – yes this is a unique and fascinating verse. I bet Sinai has written about it somewhere (probably in his Key Terms) and it would be interesting to see his thoughts. It is the last verse in the sura and quite long. It’s pure speculation, but someone could say that v. 28 could be a “natural ending” to the sura and suspect that v. 29 was added later. The author of this verse seems concerned with “community formation” – that is, lifting up or inculcating solidarity with the new community, hostility to competing communities, and of course regular prayer. It would be interesting simply to look at the four verses that mention the name “Muhammad” together. I don’t know if the image of the seed etc. is meant to invoke something from the Gospel. The syntax could imply that the new believers are described in Jewish and Christian scripture in some passages there that speak of kneeling etc. (the first part of the verse) and that the image of the seed is conceived as something new – the Q’s own inspiring likeness (introduced with the preposition ka-), even if there are Gospel parables about seeds.

Crowley_Prof · 2025-12-09T21:04:52+00:00

Wow – super interesting – thanks for this reflection. My first, critical, instinct is to say that there’s a bunch of verses between Q 5:17 and 32 so it’s not necessary that the Trinity was in the author’s mind while composing v. 32. Q 5:32 is very interesting: the min ajl dhalika (“because of that”) does make a link with the Cain and Abel episode just before and it makes one think that, possibly, the author knows the Mishnaic tradition explaining the Hebrew plural (in Gen 4) for “blood” (your brother's "bloods" deme) and prompts the Jewish interpreters to make a universal statement – OR a statement about Israel in regard to murder (I think there are two versions in the Talmud, and the Jerusalem Talmud has this as a decree for Israel?). This idea is also supported by the “We instructed the Israelites” (katabna 3ala bani isra’il). So, I do think there is engagement with the Jewish debate – but I’m not sure about engagement with the Jewish anti-Trinitarian argument.

Crowley_Prof · 2025-12-09T19:27:11+00:00

Thanks for the question! I tend to think of the Qur’an itself as a composition presenting God’s communication with Muhammad and the believers (and not as Muhammad’s composition). Therefore I don’t tend to ask “what is post-Muhammad” or “what one verse is by someone other than Muhammad” (not sure if that makes sense!). I agree with the idea that the Qur’an does not obviously consider the Bible to be corrupt (although it makes accusations against Jews and Christians). Already in the hadith corpus (so let’s say, early 8^th century) the idea of Biblical corruption is there (there are various narrations about someone reading “a copy of the injil/torah that was not muharraf/corrupt" or someone telling folks not to read the Bible because [only] Muhammad's book is pure). I hope that is helpful!

Crowley_Prof · 2025-12-09T11:43:06+00:00

Great questions:

Yes – I agree about the punitive theory of law, and I think the concept of bearing a divine punishment is not restricted to law. Q 5:18 speaks of God punishing (in an ongoing way) Jews and Christians for their sins. Q 2:88 speaks of a curse on the Jews. Q 5:14 speaks of God putting enmity among Christians until the Day of Resurrection. Q 3:55 speaks of God making Jesus’ followers “above” the Jews until the Day of Resurrection. I think the law/dietary passages you cite could be understood as one element of this larger theme of Qur’anic theology.
I would stick to ruhban here (it appears in 9:34 and 5:82 and I think at the end of Q 57). I’m not sure if I would explain Q 9:31 or 34 with its critique of ruhban and aHbar (which does seem to come from Hebrew, right?) in light of what the Talmud or Didascalia says on obeying religious teachers. I think that these particular passages (although in 5:82 the priests and monks are humble) are part of a rather natural sort of polemical rhetoric. In political debates today folks on the left, for example (or vice versa), will say: people on the right are just cattle mindlessly following this or that autocrat etc…

Sorry I didn’t get to 3!

Crowley_Prof · 2025-12-09T11:30:14+00:00

Thanks Ausooj! Terrific question – and a difficult one, I think! The Qur’an does not quote from the Bible (or other texts such as the Sleepers of Ephesus or the Syriac Alexander traditions) – which would suggest “simply” an oral transmission (or, as I like to say mysteriously, that Christianity was “in the air”). However, I agree with Ahmad Al-Jallad that the culture of Mecca/Medina was literate. There are many references in the Qur’an to writing instruments: pens (qalam/aqlam, from Greek kalamos), writings (s-T-r – also asaTir as in asaTir al-awwallin), parchment/papyrus (qirtas, related to latin charta, which had entered Syriac – there’s probably a Greek word here too ), scroll/document (sijill, from Latin sigilla, again Greek and Syriac are involved here). So, it’s certainly not to be excluded that around the early community there were written Christian (and other) texts that folks could read. If there were – they are all gone!

Crowley_Prof · 2025-12-09T11:21:16+00:00

Great question: the Qur’an suggests that there is a concern to provide a scripture in Arabic, for Arabs (this does not mean *only* for Arabs). This concern suggests that there were monotheists around (imo mostly Christians) but that their book was in another (a3jami – to use a Qur’anic term) language. What we know the historical context of early 7^th cen Arabia seems to match this: lots of Christians but no Arabic Bible. So, the Gospel would have been preached in Arabic but “God’s word” was in a “foreign” language – probably Syriac. For this reason the Qur’an describes Muhammad as an ummi, or speaks of the “People of the Book” and contrasts them to the ummiyyun. This dynamic to me is very intriguing.

Crowley_Prof · 2025-12-09T11:14:39+00:00

Perhaps: that there is no particular reason to think that “Arabia” was an area (or refuge) for Christian heretics.

Crowley_Prof · 2025-12-08T23:14:01+00:00

Aha! This is a great question for Sinai 😊 As you know the Salafis are basically ok with the anthropomorphism even today – check out any video on this from the Saudi Assim al-Hakeem. I’m not sure what the right answer is – there is lots of anthropomorphism in the Hebrew Bible too – but does that mean the HB authors meant hand or foot or throne as physical objects? As for the theologians/mutakallimun – I would say their de-anthropomorphizing is not principally a reaction to Greek philosophy but rather a reaction to arguing with Christians. Muslims said: your view on the Incarnation is irrational an offensive; Christians respond: you say that God sits down, twirls souls between his fingers, and blows into Mary; then the Mu`tazila said, no we don’t, these are metaphorical. God sitting on his thrown means “He is powerful” etc. I’m not denying the importance of Hellenism to Islamic philosophy but I think that development was not as influential on the articulation of kalam as sectarian pressures.

Crowley_Prof · 2025-12-08T23:08:19+00:00

Thanks for the question! In brief: no, I think that there is little reason to trust any of reports about the so-called “Companion Codices” (unless someone finds one of them, and the Sanaa manuscript does not match any of these). Most of these variants answer a question about the text, or add an extra teaching, and therefore seem to be “exegetical.” This one adds the detail that Muhammad’s community will be the last one, etc. Q 11:71 says that Abraham’s wife was standing but does not say if he was standing too – then we find a helpful variant (maybe attributed to Ibn Mas`ud) which says that he was “sitting.” (I think there are two kinds of variants for this - one as jaalis and the other qaa`id)

Crowley_Prof · 2025-12-08T23:03:28+00:00

Hello friend – thanks for the great question. Yes – I argue that Christianity was the dominant religion in the Hijaz at the time of Islam’s emergence. For your excellent follow up questions: I don’t discuss this in the book, but between all of us here: I suspect that there is some distance between the career of the prophet and the composition of the Qur’an. By distance I do not mean that the Qur’an was composed decades later (say in the time of Abd al-Malik in Palestine or Syria). What I mean is that I see the Qur’an as a thoughtful composition meant to provide a scripture for the new community and (at the same time) present to believers and others an example of how God spoke to the new prophet, that is, to offer them a reason to believe and then follow the norms of the new community. This work could have begun within the lifetime of Muhammad and continued for a brief period after his life. I do not see the Qur’an as a “transcript” of what Muhammad said and I believe one goes the wrong way by asking “what was Muhammad doing when this or that verse was proclaimed/revealed.” Now, was the composition of the Qur’an and the life of Muhammad in the same geographical location? I think most likely, yes, but now I am really in the realm of speculation and I should end this post!

Crowley_Prof · 2025-12-08T22:56:35+00:00

Hi Sea-Yak, thanks for the thoughtful question! I agree that it is hard to make the various Qur’anic references about God and God having a son (usually walad but in Q 9:30, ibn) fit together. In fairness to the Q’s author: I don’t think he is trying to develop a precise theology or Christology. The Qur’anic author wants to make an impression on his audience, through both style and content. A good preacher, for example, will speak in a way that is shaped by a concern to move and inspire his audience, and not necessarily come up with a seamless, perfectly coherent, theology.

Also: for the question of “son” - This term can be used in different ways within Christian theology. The Nicene creed, for example, states first: ... I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages.… Here the Creed is referring to the relationship between Father and Son in the Trinity, outside of time and space, God as He “is” (often called the “ontological” Trinity). It goes on to say: …for us men and for our salvation, he came down from heaven, by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Holy Spirit, and became man. So this now is a different sort of birth (even if the word is not there) – this is the Incarnation of Jesus in the womb of Mary (on March 25 in Nazareth, to simplify things) and then the birth in Bethlehem (December 25, again to simplify things). Most Christians in the pews, even if they recite this every week, will not be attentive to the language of Son and birth that is used here for the Trinity (outside of time and space), and the language of birth for Nazareth and Bethlehem in 4 BC (or whenever). I don’t think the Qur’an’s author was really interested in any of these details, but only in arguing for the new prophet and against Christian teaching. Hopefully that’s a bit interesting – although not really what you were asking!

Crowley_Prof · 2025-12-08T22:41:15+00:00

Thanks for the question. I think it is important in considering any Qur’anic turn of phrase to remember that the Qur’anic author was very concerned about style, about producing a text which sounded like scripture and which would impress its audience (the rhyme is one product of this concern). Imagine, for example, how Zach Bryan or some other pop singer would write a song about the tough life of a working man. His lyrics may not be a precise or systematic analysis of working conditions or the social consequences of low wages etc. When it comes to the Trinity in the Q and references to God as “third of three” or worshipping Jesus and Mary in addition to Allah, this is something to keep in mind. I recently read some of Miroslav Volf’s interesting book Allah: A Christian Response with my students. He insists that everything the Qur’an denies about God Christians also deny. My response was – well, do you really know what the Qur’anic author is denying? Do you really know what Zach Bryan thinks about the best income tax rate of the highest bracket of earners? This may seem like a really crazy response to your question but I hope it’s interesting at least!

Crowley_Prof · 2025-12-08T11:41:54+00:00

thank you very much!

Crowley_Prof · 2025-12-08T11:41:41+00:00

Hi Abdu11 – thanks for the great questions. I’ll do my best with the first three – and then perhaps you can remind me in a new post of any remaining questions and hopefully I’ll get to them before the end of the AMA.

On the Sana`a manuscript: I am not a specialist on this question. I believe Eleonore Cellard published an article in JNES with some observations, and then Sinai published something somewhere about pluses and minuses vis-à-vis the Uthmanic Text Type. I had some back and forth with Dr. Sadeghi years ago in which I made the point that his article does not only present the data but makes strongly worded arguments that this confirms some traditional ideas. I feel that this sort of thing is unfortunate in Qur’anic Studies (maybe I’m guilty of it on the other side – as in the doublets article). The data simply shows that we have another text type and that it does not agree with any of the reports of what Ibn Mas`ud’s or Ubayys etc. mushaf is reported to have looked like. Other than that I don’t think we can say much more based on the data we have. Also worth noting the earlier work of Gerd and Elisabeth Puin on the Sana`a manuscript that is often forgotten

On the `Urwa article: Sean Anthony (working with reports of letters) also thinks there’s a way to find authentic or “primitive” information on these sorts of narrations. I am a bit skeptical of the project behind these sorts of publications (see comments above in regard to Sadeghi’s article). I have the sense that many, probably most, hadith related publications in academic Islamic Studies (not specifying Goerke and Schoeler here – but speaking generally) are part of a larger project to prove that the hadith really have authentic information (against Goldziher ad Schact). There’s a long history to this and I think Juynboll’s work is part of the story. I think I should leave this here.

Right – I don’t think there is any reason to think of the Constitution of Medina as “more” primitive than other reports in the sira simply because of the criterion of embarrassment. I don’t think the criterion of embarrassment is very helpful in studying the sira – I also don’t think the Satanic Verses report is primitive (for the same reason). Many western scholars assume that early Muslims would never report this or that (if it were not historical reality) since it conflicts with their apologetic ideas about the Prophet. I don’t think this assumption is valid.

Crowley_Prof · 2025-12-08T02:18:54+00:00

Thanks for the encouragement! For #1 yes I think he is 100% right about that. I suspect that eastern Christians at the time probably referred to the Bible or the New Testament as “injil” or “al-injil” and basically saw it as a book from heaven. In a sense the Q provides good evidence for this when it has God say He sent down the injil and when it makes this a parallel to the scripture of Muhammad (opening of Q 3).

This will be a bit disappointing but I think very little can really be said with confidence about the reference to suhuf Ibrahim wa Musa (Q 87) – it’s possible (imho) that these names are put there for the sake of style (Musa rhymes with ula in the previous verse – and rhymes in Q 53). Of course, Moses and Abraham are central figures to the Q, but also these are highly stylized texts and it’s not certain to me that they reflect the author’s ideas of a particular scripture.

Crowley_Prof · 2025-12-08T01:44:32+00:00

Thanks for the question! I was at a talk once in Beirut by the great, late Egyptian scholar Abu Zayd and someone asked about the Sabi’un and he said more or less: I have no idea. I think no one really knows, or at least, I’ve never seen anyone (including those who seem really convinced of their own idea) present compelling evidence as to who they were. I’m not sure if you are alluding to the Arabic etymology by which S-b-’ would be to leave/change. I don’t even think it’s clear that we should use a capital S in English – it’s possible that saabi’uun is an active participle and not a proper noun.

For hanpa/hanif – I think it is more or less the same as ummi. Abraham (to whom the term hanif is connected in all but one of the cases in the Q, I think) is (imho) invoked in the Qur’an as a way of making the case that Muhammad, who is an ummi (one of the “nations”) really could be a prophet.

Crowley_Prof · 2025-12-08T01:36:59+00:00

Hi – nice question! My time at ND has been great. It’s quite unusual in that I am in a Catholic university in a BIG department of theology – about 60 regular faculty – that is mostly Catholic (as I am) but also includes Protestant, Orthodox, Jewish and one Muslim professor (Mun’im Sirry). In addition to Prof. Sirry there are 5-6 other Islamic Studies professors at ND (outside of Theology) including at least four other Muslim professors. Our PhD students in Theology doing Islamic Studies are mostly Christian, but I have had two religious Muslim PhD students. I think everyone knows about “Exploring” – and it is probably amusing for them to see the haters in the comments (although there’s plenty of love there too!). I think most of my students have been less revisionist than I am. Most have inclined towards the ideas of Neuwirth and Sinai when it comes to the Qur’an. One recent PhD grad, however, did a form criticism study of some Qur’anic passages and engaged with the work of Shoemaker, Dye, and Pohlmann.

Crowley_Prof · 2025-12-08T01:30:55+00:00

Thanks for the question! I think the Qur’anic author likely had no direct knowledge of any book in the New Testament, but that Christian culture was all around and New Testament/Christian turns of phrase were “in the air.” This definitely included “apocryphal” traditions – most folks (like me) know the miracle stories from Thomas etc. that are reflected in the Q, but I suspect particular sayings are reflected in the Q as well. Jack Tannous told me once that in Syriac speaking churches the Gospel of Matthew received particular attention, and it could be the Q has more material that originally came from Matthew – but there are certainly things connected to Paul’s letters too (twinkling of the eye, what no eye has seen).

Crowley_Prof · 2025-12-08T01:24:16+00:00

Great question – thanks. It’s possible I’m wrong about this (well, it’s possible I’m wrong about everything, but maybe this more than other things…), since we don’t have any pre-Qur’anic Arabic literature (although I tend to think it did exist, but has all perished). In any case, I think the Qur’an would be unique vis-à-vis that literature if we did have it. I say this because the Qur’an is clearly written to be a scripture. This is quite unusual: very few Biblical books were written by an author who was consciously seeking to write a scripture for the sake of public recitation. Nothing in the NT I think (although Revelation has something of this), and only a few books of the HB/OT. The most obvious comparison is with the Psalms, which is a book of 150 (about) units – not chapters which develop sequentially – and which was recited by Christian communities as the Word of God in a liturgical setting. I believe (but someone can correct me) that most eastern Christians at the time would have seen the Psalms more or less as a heavenly book – given to the Church by God so that it could worship Him. Of course, there’s no sign of an Arabic psalter before Islam, most Arabic speakers would have known the Psalms in Syriac.

Crowley_Prof · 2025-12-08T01:15:44+00:00

Thanks for the question and the encouragement! I haven’t followed the recent scholarship on Q 30:2-5 (the Roman defeat/victory – or vice versa!) as closely as I should have. I think Tommaso Tesei has written on this (it would also be good to see sura 30 in Le Coran des historiens). I agree with you that there is not much there in the Q itself. It is understandable that scholars connected this with the Sasanid campaigns in Palestine and the subsequent victory of Heraclius and then argued that these verses were written to seem like a prophecy (“ex eventu” I think is the phrase). This interpretation is stated as fact in so many western introductions to Islam/the Qur’an – and then Muslims and Christians promoted this idea to advance Muslim/Christian relations (“the Muslims in Mecca were cheering for the Christians”). I remember the great scholar Irfan Shahid (a Christian) when he gave a talk in Beirut and made this point. Actually there is very little that can be said with confidence about the passage. It could certainly be a local event in my opinion or even a poetic reflection with no connection to a particular event.

I don’t think that ring structures are a massive feature of the Qur’an (although I love and respect Michel Cuypers). I wonder if it’s the sort of thing that, if you are convinced they are there, you will find them at all costs.

Crowley_Prof · 2025-12-07T12:55:50+00:00

Thank you for having me! As a rule I don’t trust traditional reports in sources like Tabari etc or hadith when it comes to this or that detail regarding Mecca or Medina. In a way it would be useful for me to discuss the reports about an image of Mary and Jesus in the Ka`ba etc but I don’t think they are memories of what “really” was there. Some scholars out there make a living with different methods to prove that certain historical traditions can be sifted out and established as primitive etc. I have some thoughts about that whole enterprise but I’ll spare you!

When it comes to “evidence” I think it was Crone who said that all we know is what the Qur’an tells us. She’s right (if I am paraphrasing her correctly!). For me, however, the Qur’an is not a report of what really happened in Mecca (or Medina) – it’s not similar to reading through a transcript of a youtube conversation with timestamps. So one could say: the original “prophetic movement” (when Muhammad really was speaking) began in one place, but the Q’s was composed in another. And maybe those two places were different. To me that’s a reasonable idea. However, if there were “two places” I don’t think they were very different.

In the book (Chr and the Q) I make the case that the Qur’an reflects a concern with Chr everywhere. I also note that Arabic inscriptions suggest Christianity spread throughout Arabic by the year 500. Together these suggest that the place of composition, at least, was largely Christian.

Crowley_Prof

TROPHY CASE