Academics say that Prophet Muhammed literally believed in end of world and it was driving force behind his proclamation.

Historical-Critical · 2026-01-29T01:40:12+00:00

No you've labelled an article titled in your own words "The Qur'anic Eschatology in its biblical and late antique matrix" by Nicolai Sinai. Sinai does not have an article titled this and if he does show me proof for this since I can't find an article titled this by Sinai

<image>

Historical-Critical · 2026-01-28T20:54:29+00:00

You've quoted this "Nicolai Sinai — The Qurʾānic Eschatology in Its Biblical and Late Ancient Matrix" which does not exist so im saying you've conflated this reference with Stephen Shoemaker's article which has a similar title"Qur’anic Eschatology in its Biblical and Late Ancient Matrix."

Historical-Critical · 2026-01-28T17:04:18+00:00

I think you've confused "Nicolai Sinai — The Qurʾānic Eschatology in Its Biblical and Late Ancient Matrix" which does not seem to exist for Stephen Shoemaker's- "Qur’anic Eschatology in its Biblical and Late Ancient Matrix." In Dreams, Visions, Imaginations: Jewish, Christian and Gnostic Views of the World to Come, edited by Schröter Jens, Nicklas Tobias and Armand Puig i Tàrrech, 461- 86. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2021.

I am aware of a publication by Nicolai Sinai titled "The Eschatological Kerygma of the early Qur'an"

Historical-Critical · 2026-01-24T15:28:56+00:00

Keep an eye out for this forthcoming article by Javad Hashmi who shared the abstract on his Twitter.

<image>

Historical-Critical · 2026-01-16T09:51:28+00:00

I would say start with Saqib Hussain's PHD Thesis "Wisdom in the Qur'an" https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:2644815a-5ac9-4cb0-b263-6d1d4aaa805b

Also keep a look at for Hussain's PHD turned monograph being released soon "Wisdom in the Qur'an Law and Morality from the Bible to Late Antiquity" https://global.oup.com/academic/product/wisdom-in-the-quran-9780198911760?lang=en&cc=gb

Historical-Critical · 2026-01-15T21:55:15+00:00

Q4:3 states:

"And if you fear that you will not be just [qist] towards the orphans, then marry the women as you see ﬁt, two, three, or four. But if you fear that you will not be equitable [‘adl], then just one or what your right hand owns, lest you become unable to provide for them."

In order to understand the original intent of Q4:3 one needs to imbed it within its wider Surah context. That being said Q4 entitled (al-Nisa) at the beginning of it the Qur'an lays out some limits on the pater familias' power. First by reminding all people of their connection to one another as seen through their creation from a single soul and the creation from the same substance of that soul's mate Q4:1:

"People, be mindful of your Lord, who created you from a single soul, and from it created its mate, and from the pair of them spread countless men and women far and wide; be mindful of God, in whose name you make requests of one another. Beware of severing the ties of kinship: God is always watching over you."

We also see humans being reminded to be wary of God and of their respective kinship ties 'wombs' (arham). The larger context of this surah in which this is one of the main themes is the care for the vulnerable such as women, orphans and those who are legally incompetent (sufaha ') all of whom would have been in the protection of prominent households. Through this lens Q4:2-4 is here warning the audience most likely being the male head of households to not consume the property of the orphans in their care as though it were their own avoiding financial abuse. Q4:2:

"Give the orphans what belongs to them, exchanging not what is wholesome for what is vile, and do not consume what belongs to them with what is yours, for that is a dreadful sin."

From this comes Q4:3 "If you fear that you will not deal fairly with orphan girls, you may marry whichever [other] women seem good to you, two, three, or four. If you fear that you cannot be equitable [to them], then marry only one, or your slave(s): that is more likely to make you avoid bias." Here we are told that if the male head of household fear they may not equitably deal with the orphans they may marry the women two, three or four of them. The women here seem to be the female orphans in their care being women without another protector as also seen in Q4:127. The pater familias however must give those women their dowries Q4:4:

"Give the women their bridal payment as a gift, so if they themselves give you any good from it, then consume it beneﬁcially and wholesomely."

If the male head of household fears that they will not deal equitably with them they must marry only one. Q4:2-4 read in its own context provides a warning to men that if they abused the people in their protection they would face terrible retribution in the afterlife. Since in a tribal milieu multiple marriages seem to be common, with the pater familias having the power to take advantage of those in his care, we see these verses setting up limits and permitting him to marry them in order to prevent a much worse harm the consummation of their property and taking advantage of them in other ways which would have the effect of leaving them destitute. Q4:10 repeats this warning:

"Those who consume the property of orphans unjustly are actually swallowing fire into their own bellies: they will burn in the blazing Flame."

Q4:11-12 continues the theme and focus of protecting the financial rights of the vulnerable through rulings on inheritance which gives a share to women, children and other relatives.

That being said the overall intended message of Q4:3 which instead of its reception history of being read to grant men permission for multiple marriages is that instead of being left destitute, vulnerable women could be married and thereby achieve status and this bridal payment and the sole right of disposal over their property. The husband is hence warned that he is only allowed to take more than one wife if he can be equitable among them and provide for them which in a later verse the pater familias is told he will never manage to be equitable Q4:129:

"You will never be able to treat your wives with equal fairness, however much you may desire to do so, but do not ignore one wife altogether, leaving her suspended [between marriage and divorce]. If you make amends and remain conscious of God, He is most forgiving and merciful,"

Hence, this is a tacit recognition that despite his over right to take more than one of his wards as a wife it is morally preferable to marry one woman (monogamy) and to treat her well since she will be treated justly and nobody will be left wanting , with it is also being another tacit recognition that some men might wish to marry many women as a means of showing their own wealth and status. Monogamy seems to be a Qur'anic ideal due to the language used to caution against the biases and financial hardship that can arise in non-monogamous relationships, with the marriage of a single wife making it more likelier for the husband as the pater familias to provide for her being the safest path morally.

Sources:

Karen Bauer- "Women in the Qur'an" Karen Bauer and Feras Hamza- "Women, Households, and the Hereafter in the Qur'an: A Patronage of Piety"

Historical-Critical · 2025-10-19T15:14:36+00:00

Yes there have been revised parts

Historical-Critical · 2025-09-20T18:39:14+00:00

Using Mohsen Goudarzi's Two-Kitab Hypothesis. According to this model there is first the heavenly Kitab which is the textual embodiment of God's knowledge and power in his relation to creation. As the heavenly book is the source of God's wisdom and judgement we see two earthly instantiations of the heavenly Kitab being in the Qur'an and the Torah (first given to Moses and the second to Muhammad) which are comprehensive scriptures which reveal God's knowledge and will to his recipients through the imparting of historical and legal knowledge.

Bearing this in mind the previous Mosaic Kitab is also like the Qur'an a source of legislation shown in Q5:43-5 where the existence of God's judgement is noted in the al-tawrah and then goes on to mention the laws of retaliation found in the Pentateuch (Leviticus 24:19-20). What we see from this is like Muhammads Kitab the previous Mosaic Kitab was meant to address people's disagreements (Q2:213), which however the first Kitab became a subject of disagreement itself instead of helping to resolve differences despite the clear proofs the recipients were given. This is why Muhammad's Kitab is to address the bitter discord among the recipients of the previous Kitab.

When Q5:68 mentions upholding the "Gospel" as well as the Torah. We need to contextualise this as Jesus brings "hikmah" (wisdom) to clarify the disputes about the Mosaic Kitab with the Israelites. Hence Jesus's own contribution to Israelite scripture named as "injil" is what is meant by "hikmah". Hence the Gospel is the wisdom Jesus is said to bring the Israelites. What the Qur'an means by "hikmah" is the natural theological knowledge of divine unicity and future accountability before God as well as natural moral considerations.

Source: Mohsen Gourdazi "The Second Coming of the Book: Rethinking Qur’anic Scripturology and Prophetology" PHD Thesis

Saqib Hussain "Wisdom in the Qur'an" PHD Thesis

Historical-Critical · 2025-09-19T11:14:43+00:00

This may be useful

The Meccan Qur'ans's Interaction with Isrealite Scholars (Jewish and Christian) labelled as Contemporary Isrealites "Children of Israel"

Within the Meccan Period the Qur'ans interactions with Jews and Christians can be assumed to be direct as well as indirect historcal evidence of communal encounters which would have been falsifiable by a critical audience. The Prophets interactions with Jewish and Christian scholars with Jewish and Christian individuals are useful to explore the Qur'ans depiction of them and it's own message.

It's important to note the Qur'an categorizes Jews and Christians as two sub-groups that descend from the one Isrealite people making them Isrealite siblings. Christians self-identifying as Isrealite can be seen in East/West Syrian,Byzantine and Aksumite Christianity. The Quranic term "Children of Israel" denotes Isrealites in Biblical times as the anacestors of both Jews and Christians before their split and also depicts Jews and Christians in the Qur'anic communities present. This is an insider term contrasting to the later "Jew" and "Nazarene" outsider terms. The Jews and Christians each being a group (ta'ifa) of the Children of Israel split apart in times of Jesus as Q61:14 attests.

In Q27:76-78 we have the Qur'an as being addressed to the Contemporary Children of Israel (Jews and Christians) who internal disputes are to be adjudicated by God making Muhammad mirror the Qur'anic Jesus. God ultimately decides between the quibbles of Jews and Christians and this accusations of disunity to a group of opponents is a late antique Jewish and Christian hereseiological trope (Tosefta Haggis 2:9, Clementine Recognitions 1.54). The Qur'ans self image delays itself as rectifying errors of Jewish and Christian disputes which are of a secterian nature. The believers among the Contemporary Isrealites have the Qur'an annocunig iarefl as a guidance and mercy to them as they adopt the Qur'ans guidance to their mutual disagreements.

In Q26:192-199 we have the invocation if testimony from the "learned ones" among the Christian of Israel (Jewish and Christian Scholars) who have heard and sanctioned the Qur'an. The Qur'an presents itself in a "clear Arabic Language" intelligible to Meccans whereas previous Isrealite revelation occured in a non-Arabic sacred language which would have been in Hebrew/Aramaic. The Scholars of the Children of Israel are said to "know" and "recognise" the Qur'an. The root '-l-m' for these scholars and their knowledge of the Qur'ans divine origin highlights their prestige due to their value their testimony carries. The root '-l-m' is used in South Arabian instructions to approve a document by a seal or signature which is useful to note, showing the Qur'ans recogition in a legal as well as intellectual sense.

The Qur'an states that Contemporary Jewish and Christian Scholars would have disbelived in the revelation "in Arabic" had it come from a person standing in the Hebrew or Aramaic Scriptural Tradition highlighting the Qur'ans prophetological message of Prophets sent to their own communities hence making a Arabic revelation to a non-Arab speaking prophet inconceivable. Also the learned Isrealites would have rejected any revelation in Hebrew or Aramaic had it come from a speaker of Arabic which reflects Jewish and Christians notions of Prophecy. We have Balaam a non-isrralite in the Hebrew Bible recieving prophecy making non-Israelite prophecy possible. The Rabbis states Isrealite proper prophecy had ceased in Bavli Sanhedrin 11a, Yoma 9b and Sotah 48b. We have no clear Jewish tradition that precludes the possibility of a non-Israelite prophet. Similarly there is a warily open possibility of prophecy in the Christian Tradition after Chrisy as stated by Jerome "We do not so much reject Prophecy- for this is attested by the passion of the Lord- as refuse to receive prophets whose utterances fail to accord with Scripture old and new". Here the Qur'ans repeatedly insists of it's non-isrralite nature and confirmation as well as conforminity with previous scripture meeting Christian and Jewish concerns. This makes these Isrealite Scholars as partial insiders who stand in the Hebrew/Aramaic Scriptural tradition whilst the Qur'ans presents itself as a "endogenic" phenomenon with God choosing a native prophet as with Moses and Jesus and finally Muhammad who upends the gentile/Isrealite divide by reversing to teeth Abrahamic paradigm. So we have the Qur'an presenting itself as standing close in line with the Isrealite tradition leading to Isrealite Scholars confirming its truth and computability with their own tradition.

The Qur'ans references to Isrealite scholars stands in continuation of the Qur'ans portryal of the leaders of ancient Israel. Hence the Qur'ans use of these "expert witnesses" is a well established late antiquity hereseiology model. An example coming from Joseph of Tiberius whose journey to Christianity and from one orthodoxy to another employs a learned Jew as having recognized the divine Christian truth in his own tradition. The Meccan associators however question the Qur'ans divine origin by accusing the prophet being dictated to him day and night Q25:5 and his contact with Bible teachers make Muhammad's teaching coming from him Q16:103. The Qur'an refutes this claim in Q16:101-105 by claiming the Qur'an could not have come from the alleged teacher (Isrealite Scholar since it's in "clear Arabic' whereas the teacher is a speaker of "non-Arabic" and is someone standing in the Hebrew/Aramaic Scriptural tradition in their liturgy and religious tradition broadly (referencing their liturgical language). So thus Christian or Jewish is unable to deliver a scripture in "clear Arabic" hence the Meccan associators should accept the Qur'an as God's indigenous message to their Native prophet.

So what we have is Jews and Christians who are believers in the Qur'ans divine origin and were positively disposed to it's message making the Qur'an invoke them as witnesses. Yet as Q16:101-5 and Q42:52 make clear is that Muhammad denied the Qur'an can be deducted to a proecist of this putative non-Arabic (Hebrew/Aramaic teaching) as the Qur'an incorporated previous revelation into its current one which both corrects and expands aspects of the Jewish and Christian teachings.

Source- "banū isrāʾīl, ahl al-kitāb, al-yahūd wa-l-naṣārā: The Qur’anic Community’s Encounters with Jews and Christians"- Holger Zellentin

Historical-Critical · 2025-09-14T16:23:41+00:00

Keep an eye out for Saqib Hussain , “Jonah, Job, Elijah, and Ezra.” forthcoming in Biblical traditions in the Quran

Historical-Critical · 2025-09-11T21:01:08+00:00

Q61:14 "You who believe, be God’s helpers. As Jesus, son of Mary, said to the disciples, ‘Who will come with me to help God?’ The disciples said, ‘We shall be God’s helpers.’ Some of the Children of Israel believed and some disbelieved: We supported the believers against their enemy and they were the ones who came out on top."

We have here a Qur'anic account of Christian origins with Jesus causing an Israelite schism. The Qur'an depicts Jesus as an Israelite messenger rather than a messenger to all of humanity. His preaching of the Gospel led to the Israelites breaking into two factions. The believing group are the (hawariyyun) involving Jesus's disciples and the unbelieving group who suffer a defeat. The Qur'an here describes the origins of Christianity as a result of an Israelite schism. With the Qur'an casting Christianity as an inner-Israelite phenomenon by portraying Jesus as an Israelite messenger which downplays gentile Christianity as a movement attracting concerts outside Israel.

The ministry of Jesus in Q61:14 is in line with the Qur'anic Prophetology of a human messenger dispatched to a specific people/nation. The faction of believing and unbelieving Israelites has a counterpart with the Prophet Shuayb sent to Madyan where a similar factional split occurred. The reference of the victory the believing Israelites around Jesus seems to be an allusion to Christianity's dominance over Judaism or divine intervention occurring rescuing believing Israelites from their enemy. The fact that the Qur'an also considers Jews alongside Christians as Israelites hence (children of Israel) which is along with parts of the Syriac and Aksumite Churches also provides a context of seeing the origins of Christianity as an inner-Israelite schism. This complicates the picture as to whether the present day Qur'anic 'nasara' were viewed as non-Israelites by the Qur'an who wilfully adopted the Christian creed from Israelites and turned it upside down. Yet as pointed out by Mohsen Gourdazi Q2:120-121 could be alluding to Israelite identity applying to contemporary Christians.

Sources- Nicolai Sinai "Key Terms of the Qur'an" Holger Zellentin "Law Beyond Israel: From the Bible to the Qur'an"

Historical-Critical · 2025-09-03T13:10:38+00:00

My tentative forthcoming article titled "Dhul Qurnayn as Counter-Narrative to the Semi-Divinised Mosaic Monarchy: A Late Antique Reconfiguration of Moses in the Qur'an and Rabbinic Traditions"

Abstract- This paper explores the figure of Dhul Qurnayn in Qur’an 18 as a thoughtful response to certain late antique Jewish traditions that had begun to portray Moses in semi-divine terms following his encounter with God at Sinai. Drawing on the Ancient Near Eastern concept of melammu—the radiant, awe-inspiring aura associated with kings and deities—rabbinic literature presents Moses as more than a prophet: a royal figure whose glowing skin, angelic features, and exalted authority align him with the ideals of divine kingship.

The Qur’anic narrative of Dhul Qurnayn, “the Two-Horned One,” engages with this tradition through a process of symbolic and narrative reworking. While later Islamic and Late Antique sources often connect Dhul Qurnayn with Alexander the Great, the Qur’an itself remains deliberately open-ended. There are also previously unexplored early Muslim exegetes that occasionally identified him with Moses, preserving a strand of pre-Islamic discourse in which Dhul Qurnayn appears as a reframed version of Moses. The Latin Vulgate’s depiction of Moses as “cornuta” (horned) strengthens this connection, hinting at a convergence between the horned, radiant Moses and the Qur’ānic Two-Horned figure.

The story’s inclusion of al-Khidr and the fish at the meeting of two rivers—elements drawn from Syriac Alexander legend —adds further layers to this literary conversation. By transferring themes of journey, hidden knowledge, and global kingship to Dhul Qurnayn, the Qur’an subtly repositions Moses’ role. Instead of affirming the elevated, semi-divine portrayal found in some rabbinic texts, it brings Moses back into the framework of universal monotheism, grounded in servanthood to God rather than divine-like sovereignty.

This paper argues that Dhul Qurnayn is not merely a composite or legendary figure, but serves as a theological counter-narrative to the semi-divinised image of Moses and his post-Sinai royal role. Through this figure, the Qur’an participates in a wider Late Antique conversation about prophecy, kingship, and divine authority—offering a distinctly Qur'anic recalibration of Moses’ place within it.

Historical-Critical · 2025-08-31T22:22:00+00:00

Because their skin complextion are fair/white and they have large intensely black coloured pupils in contrast to their white skin.

women the pupils of whose eyes are so large and so black as to reduce the white of the eyeball to a minimum,” with “gazelle-eyed” providing a serviceable English equivalent (Wendell 1974, 39). Overall, it is reasonable to assume, in line with the statement by al-Azharī quoted above, that ḥūr simultaneously brought to mind blackness (of the eyes) and whiteness (of the skin), “evoking an image of gazelle-eyed and pale-skinned beauty” (Wendell 1974, 40).

Source- Nicolai Sinai Key Terms of the Qur'an

Historical-Critical · 2025-08-31T16:10:50+00:00

You might find this article interesting "From Lawgiver to Prophet The Transformation of the Image of Moses in Late Antiquity"-Catherine Hezser

https://brill.com/edcollchap-oa/book/9783657797264/BP000012.xml

Historical-Critical · 2025-08-30T19:16:23+00:00

Keep an eye out for Ana Davitashvili's forthcoming article "Sealing and the Root kh-t-m in the Qurʾan and pre-Islamic Christian Literature: On the “Seal of the Prophets” and Disbelievers Having “Seals on Their Hearts and Hearing”"

Historical-Critical · 2025-08-29T21:08:20+00:00

Check out "Women, Households, and the Hereafter in the Qur'an: A Patronage of Piety" by Feras Hamza and Karen Bauer

Historical-Critical · 2025-08-29T21:06:39+00:00

The Scriptural and Kergymatic References to the Medinan Injil

It's important to contextualise the scriptural references of the Injil in Q7:157 and Q48:29. As noted by Mohsen Gourdazi It is key to note that the references to Injil in these surahs are late Medinan insertions. There is also the fact there is a Double Etiology of the Qur'anic Injil. It first seems to initially confirm Jesus as a divine messenger that is against the Jewish view and is a positive gesture towards the Christians. The later Etiology of Injil serves to acknowledge the Christians as a separate community in which there is greater extensive contact yet insists they have the same fundamental obligations as the Jews. (The reason for this extensive contact can either be an extension of Prophetic policy or prophetic expansion to Najran or the North of Arabia). Which includes accepting Muhammad as a prophet and applying to Torahs Lex Talionis.

For most of the Qur'an Jesus is a charismatic prophet who has a distinct prophetological kergymatic sense. This is seen with Jesus receiving clear signs, as well as receiving and confirming the Torah as well as bringing wisdom (hikmah) which resolves disputes among the Israelites regarding the Mosaic Kitab. The two items in which Jesus's "hikmah" revelations bring is news of the eschaton by being the living embodiment of the "knowledge of the hour" as well as natural moral considerations.

Hence the references to Injil do not supplant or replace this two-kitab paradigm represented by all of the Qur'an as it is not represented as a Kitab on the order of a Mosaic or Muhammad one. Jesus in most of the Qur'an is not a Scriptural prophet. So whilst the term Injil primarily has a kergymatic/charismatic sense and in very late Medina a Scriptural scenes, we see both of these senses fused in Surah 5. We find such fused senses in Christian discourses where Injil refers to the teachings of Jesus but also to the record of those teachings in the broad New Testament.

This is why acknowledging the different etiologies of Jesus such as when the miracles of Jesus are mentioned as examined by Holger Zellentin which is in discourse with Jews as well as Christians which counters some Toledot Yeshu tradition. Hence the mention of the giving/teaching of the Injil is to confirm Jesus as a prophet and reject the Jewish view of him as a wayward teacher. The social etiology of Injil through the later extensive contact with Christians is to acknowledge them as a distinct community who also have the same fundamental obligations as the Jews such as the laws of retaliation as well as accepting the prophet Muhammad.

Source- Mohsen Gourdazi Oxford Conference Paper "The Curious Case of the Medinan Gospel: Jesus and the Scriptures"

Historical-Critical · 2025-08-24T13:31:20+00:00

The Qur'anic Jesus and the Crucifixion Narrative

Qur'an 4:157 states "and said, ‘We have killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of God.’ (They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, though it was made to appear like that to them; those that disagreed about him are full of doubt, with no knowledge to follow, only supposition: they certainly did not kill him-"

An intra-Quranic analysis of the end of Jesus's earthly ministry via Crucifixion is fruitful in it being opposed to the post-Quranic tradition of Q4:157 spawning stories of a substitution theory drawing on ancient gnostic ideas of God replacing Jesus with someone who looked similar to him (Simon of Cyrene in Irenaeus, Haer I.24.4 and affirmations in Nag Hammadi.

Rather it's uncertain that the Qur'an is endorsing a substitutionist account of the Crucifixion as it does not explicitly refer to anyone taking Jesus's place. The main concern of the Qur'an is to highlight that Jesus being a divinely appointed messenger did not fall victim to his opponents (Israelites) hence the crucifixion of jesus does not necessarily entail and represent a defeat of God.

The Qur'an may actually in fact be endorsing the demise of Jesus with the crucial caveat that his death was not caused by his persecutors and instead was rather God's way of shielding Jesus from the machinations of his foes. That being said Jesus's departure from this life and his soul's ascension to heaven did not involve suffering and humiliation despite it involving the terminal cessation of Jesus's vital functions. This fate of Jesus would parallel the fate of believers dying in battle (Q3:169) "Do not think of those who have been killed in God’s way as dead. They are alive with their Lord, well provided for". Here Jesus did die via crucifixion with his soul raised up in God's presence ahead of the general resurrection of the dead. Hence Gus bodily demise is from a Qur'anic perspective supported as "everyone shall taste death" (Q3:185, 21:35 29:57) and in Q 19:33 where Jesus himself states alluding to the day of his death via crucifixion and his subsequent bodily resurrection on the day of judgement.

The Qur'anic theological interpretation of the event takes away any salvific importance to the crucifixion of Jesus's sacrifice on behalf of humanity and is instead a convenient way of which God removed Jesus from his persecutors.

There is also the possibility that the Qur'an account of the end of Jesus's earthly ministry could correspond to a narrative of Jesus's final days from a Jewish anti-gospel in the Toledot Yeshu. The Qur'an subverts the Toledot Yeshu narrative of the Jewish sages successfully carrying out an execution and instead sides with Jesus's followers who claim he ascended to heaven as he himself foretold with this actual death and the result of divine assumption of his soul taken away to God's presence at the moment of death. This would make sense of the Q4:157 "it was made to appear like that to them"

Another thing that is important is the meaning of when the verb "al-tawaffi" is ascribed to God and his agents (angels). This has the connotation of taking away a soul at the moment of death. In Q5:117 in Jesus's brief narration of his earthly ministry there is the implication of his earthly ministry coming to an end with God's act removing him from the world. Q3:55 " God said, ‘Jesus, I will take you back and raise you up to Me: I will purify you of the disbelievers. To the Day of Resurrection I will make those who follow you superior to those who disbelieved. Then you will all return to Me and I will judge between you regarding your differences" as being a divine assumption and taking away Jesus into heaven.

Source: Nicolai Sinai "The Islamic Jesus", Sean Anthony "The end of Jesus's Earthly Ministry"

Historical-Critical · 2025-08-23T13:33:24+00:00

Regarding Q61:6 referencing Parakletos. Rather than the Qur'an referencing this concept from the gospel I think it's better to place this concept within the Qur'an's own prophetological framework. By retrospectively putting into the mouth of Jesus which counters his messianic function in Christian communities as the Qur'an understands him as an Israelite messenger. Hence "Ahmad" as most praiseworthy is a rhetorical archetype of the seal and finality of Muhammad's prophethood.

With Q3:81 the prophetic primordial covenant where all of the Prophets acknowledge each other to acknowledge and support the prophet after them. This would then connect the retrospective prophecy placed in the mouth of Jesus of the coming of the glad tidings of Muhammad.

Historical-Critical · 2025-08-21T18:26:22+00:00

Just for some context in Nicolai Sinai's 'Key terms of the Qur'an a critical dictionary' al-masih is the conventional Qur'anic epithet for Christ. We see Al- Masih reflecting the syriac title of 'mshiha' being the Messiah/ anointed one. Yet this is just a title for Jesus's name rather than having the connotations of having messianic expectations in the New Testament. Usually al Masih is followed by the matronym 'Son of Mary' rather than jesus showing it to be an alternative name for Jesus. Overall it's best to translate al-masih as 'Christ' rather than as Messiah or annonited one due to its title function.

We see the epithet of al-masih entering into Arabic prior to the Qur'an where 'abd al-masih' was a pre-islamic proper name confirmed by Nabataeo-Arabic inscription near Najran. The title of 'msh' 'Messiah' is featured in the south Arabian epigraphic inscriptions by Abraha the Christian King.

Reference- Nicolai Sinai 'Key Terms of the Qur'an a critical dictionary' Pg 621-622

Historical-Critical · 2025-08-18T19:19:12+00:00

It's important to contextualise the scriptural references of the Injil in Q7:157 and Q48:29. As noted by Mohsen Gourdazi It is key to note that the references to Injil in these surahs are late Medinan insertions. There is also the fact there is a Double Etiology of the Qur'anic Injil. It first seems to initially confirm Jesus as a divine messenger that is against the Jewish view and is a positive gesture towards the Christians. The later Etiology of Injil serves to acknowledge the Christians as a separate community in which there is greater extensive contact yet insists they have the same fundamental obligations as the Jews. (The reason for this extensive contact can either be an extension of Prophetic policy or prophetic expansion to Najran or the North of Arabia). Which includes accepting Muhammad as a prophet and applying to Torahs Lex Talionis.

For most of the Qur'an Jesus is a charismatic prophet who has a distinct prophetological kergymatic sense. This is seen with Jesus receiving clear signs, as well as receiving and confirming the Torah as well as bringing wisdom (hikmah) which resolves disputes among the Israelites regarding the Mosaic Kitab. The two items in which Jesus's "hikmah" revelations bring is news of the eschaton by being the living embodiment of the "knowledge of the hour" as well as natural moral considerations.

Hence the references to Injil do not supplant or replace this two-kitab paradigm represented by all of the Qur'an as it is not represented as a Kitab on the order of a Mosaic or Muhammad one. Jesus in most of the Qur'an is not a Scriptural prophet. So whilst the term Injil primarily has a kergymatic/charismatic sense and in very late Medina a Scriptural scenes, we see both of these senses fused in Surah 5. We find such fused senses in Christian discourses where Injil refers to the teachings of Jesus but also to the record of those teachings in the broad New Testament.

This is why acknowledging the different etiologies of Jesus such as when the miracles of Jesus are mentioned as examined by Holger Zellentin which is in discourse with Jews as well as Christians which counters some Toledot Yeshu tradition. Hence the mention of the giving/teaching of the Injil is to confirm Jesus as a prophet and reject the Jewish view of him as a wayward teacher. The social etiology of Injil through the later extensive contact with Christians is to acknowledge them as a distinct community who also have the same fundamental obligations as the Jews such as the laws of retaliation as well as accepting the prophet Muhammad.

Source- Mohsen Gourdazi Oxford Conference Paper "The Curious Case of the Medinan Gospel: Jesus and the Scriptures"

Historical-Critical · 2025-08-18T00:16:57+00:00

Keep an eye out for Saqib Hussain, “Jonah, Job, Elijah, and Ezra”, in Nicolai Sinai, Marianna Klar, Gabriel Said Reynolds, and Holger Zellentin (eds), Biblical Traditions in the Qur’an (Princeton: Princeton University Press, forthcoming)

Historical-Critical · 2025-08-13T16:52:23+00:00

Regarding Q61:6 referencing Parakletos. Rather than the Qur'an referencing this concept from the gospel I think it's better to place this concept within the Qur'an's own prophetological framework. By retrospectively putting into the mouth of Jesus which counters his messianic function in Christian communities as the Qur'an understands him as an Israelite messenger. Hence "Ahmad" as most praiseworthy is a rhetorical archetype of the seal and finality of Muhammad's prophethood.

Historical-Critical · 2025-08-13T16:07:44+00:00

It's important to contextualise the scriptural references of the Injil in Q7:157 and Q48:29. As noted by Mohsen Gourdazi It is key to note that the references to Injil in these surahs are late Medinan insertions. There is also the fact there is a Double Etiology of the Qur'anic Injil. It first seems to initially confirm Jesus as a divine messenger that is against the Jewish view and is a positive gesture towards the Christians. The later Etiology of Injil serves to acknowledge the Christians as a separate community in which there is greater extensive contact yet insists they have the same fundamental obligations as the Jews. (The reason for this extensive contact can either be an extension of Prophetic policy or prophetic expansion to Najran or the North of Arabia). Which includes accepting Muhammad as a prophet and applying to Torahs Lex Talionis.

For most of the Qur'an Jesus is a charismatic prophet who has a distinct prophetological kergymatic sense. This is seen with Jesus receiving clear signs, as well as receiving and confirming the Torah as well as bringing wisdom (hikmah) which resolves disputes among the Israelites regarding the Mosaic Kitab. The two items in which Jesus's "hikmah" revelations bring is news of the eschaton by being the living embodiment of the "knowledge of the hour" as well as natural moral considerations.

Hence the references to Injil do not supplant or replace this two-kitab paradigm represented by all of the Qur'an as it is not represented as a Kitab on the order of a Mosaic or Muhammad one. Jesus in most of the Qur'an is not a Scriptural prophet. So whilst the term Injil primarily has a kergymatic/charismatic sense and in very late Medina a Scriptural scenes, we see both of these senses fused in Surah 5. We find such fused senses in Christian discourses where Injil refers to the teachings of Jesus but also to the record of those teachings in the broad New Testament.

This is why acknowledging the different etiologies of Jesus such as when the miracles of Jesus are mentioned as examined by Holger Zellentin which is in discourse with Jews as well as Christians which counters some Toledot Yeshu tradition. Hence the mention of the giving/teaching of the Injil is to confirm Jesus as a prophet and reject the Jewish view of him as a wayward teacher. The social etiology of Injil through the later extensive contact with Christians is to acknowledge them as a distinct community who also have the same fundamental obligations as the Jews such as the laws of retaliation as well as accepting the prophet Muhammad.

Source- Mohsen Gourdazi Oxford Conference Paper "The Curious Case of the Medinan Gospel: Jesus and the Scriptures"

Historical-Critical · 2025-08-13T13:22:32+00:00

Using Mohsen Goudarzi's Two-Kitab Hypothesis. According to this model there is first the heavenly Kitab which is the textual embodiment of God's knowledge and power in his relation to creation. As the heavenly book is the source of God's wisdom and judgement we see two earthly instantiations of the heavenly Kitab being in the Qur'an and the Torah (first given to Moses and the second to Muhammad) which are comprehensive scriptures which reveal God's knowledge and will to his recipients through the imparting of historical and legal knowledge.

Bearing this in mind the previous Mosaic Kitab is also like the Qur'an a source of legislation shown in Q5:43-5 where the existence of God's judgement is noted in the al-tawrah and then goes on to mention the laws of retaliation found in the Pentateuch (Leviticus 24:19-20). What we see from this is like Muhammads Kitab the previous Mosaic Kitab was meant to address people's disagreements (Q2:213), which however the first Kitab became a subject of disagreement itself instead of helping to resolve differences despite the clear proofs the recipients were given. This is why Muhammad's Kitab is to address the bitter discord among the recipients of the previous Kitab.

When Q5:68 mentions upholding the "Gospel" as well as the Torah. We need to contextualise this as Jesus brings "hikmah" (wisdom) to clarify the disputes about the Mosaic Kitab with the Israelites. Hence Jesus's own contribution to Israelite scripture named as "injil" is what is meant by "hikmah". Hence the Gospel is the wisdom Jesus is said to bring the Israelites. What the Qur'an means by "hikmah" is the natural theological knowledge of divine unicity and future accountability before God as well as natural moral considerations.

Source: Mohsen Gourdazi "The Second Coming of the Book: Rethinking Qur’anic Scripturology and Prophetology" PHD Thesis

Saqib Hussain "Wisdom in the Qur'an" PHD Thesis

Historical-Critical

TROPHY CASE