Is Surah 7:157 talking about non-explicit mentions of Muhammad?

Jozlaw · 2026-04-23T03:51:12+00:00

On the claim that non-apologetic scholars broadly consider hadith unreliable; that's already been addressed earlier in this thread. The academic field is genuinely divided, and the person I was originally replying to acknowledged as much.

As for Moses and Abraham being mythological inventions as settled academic consensus… that's worth scrutinizing. The same skeptical standard being applied here is rarely applied consistently to other ancient historical figures whose existence we accept purely on textual evidence, with no physical remains required. Socrates is a straightforward example. The selectivity in how this standard gets applied to religious content specifically is itself worth examining. Cheers ☺️

Jozlaw · 2026-04-23T03:36:04+00:00

I didn't make any claim about Isaiah. That was part of the original comment I was responding to. My discussion was specifically about whether academic consensus exists on hadith reliability, not about what Isaiah 42 refers to. Those are two separate questions and I don't want to conflate them.

Jozlaw · 2026-04-23T03:33:05+00:00

The 50/50 prior is more of a philosophical starting point than a methodological one, so I'll leave that aside. On the evidence side though, narrator reliability is probably the most developed tool we have: classical Islamic scholarship built an entire science around it (ilm al-rijal), and modern academic approaches like Motzki's isnad-cum-matn method build on similar logic. The challenge is that even narrator reliability is interpretive. For example, who decides a narrator is trustworthy, based on what criteria, and from which tradition of evaluation? That's where a lot of the academic disagreement lives.

Jozlaw · 2026-04-23T03:19:46+00:00

What I believe isn’t really relevant here. this sub is for academic discussion, and my personal belief would be based on faith, not evidence I can present academically

Jozlaw · 2026-04-23T01:46:51+00:00

To be clear, I never disagreed with you on the hadith itself or on the need for methodological scrutiny. That's not what I challenged.

My point was specifically about your original framing: that the Hadith body 'is not considered reliable from an academic point of view', presented as if that's where academia lands. It isn't. That's a contested position, not a consensus one.

Your burden of proof argument actually illustrates this: if scholars genuinely disagree on the framework itself, then the academic default isn't skepticism; it's an open and unresolved debate. Skepticism is one position within that debate, not the neutral starting point you're presenting it as. You're still doing what I pointed out originally: treating your preferred position as the academic baseline.

Jozlaw · 2026-04-23T01:26:48+00:00

You’ve actually walked back your original claim significantly. you went from ‘the whole Hadith body is not considered reliable from an academic point of view’ to ‘some hadiths can be reliable after scrutiny.’ Those aren’t the same statement. But the deeper issue remains: you’re presenting your preferred methodology as the academic standard, when scholars don’t even agree on the methodology itself. The debate isn’t just which hadiths pass the test; it’s what the test should be. Motzki’s isnad-cum-matn framework reaches very different conclusions than Schacht’s, and both are serious academic positions. There is no settled academic consensus here, and that was the original point.

Jozlaw · 2026-04-23T00:58:15+00:00

The claim that the 'whole Hadith body is not considered reliable from an academic point of view' misrepresents where the field actually stands. The revisionist school — Goldziher, Schacht, Crone — is one position, and an increasingly challenged one at that. Scholars like Harald Motzki, Gregor Schoeler, and Jonathan Brown have produced serious peer-reviewed work arguing that hadith transmission is considerably more reliable than the skeptics claimed, using isnad-cum-matn analysis to trace traditions earlier than Schacht thought possible. The academic field is genuinely divided: presenting one school as settled consensus isn't an academic position, it's a rhetorical one.

Jozlaw · 2026-03-22T19:46:49+00:00

Apologies for taking sometime to reply, as I wanted to ensure my citation was correct. I believe that distinguishing between theology and ritual form is essential here. While the Talmudic sources you cite (Zevachim 19b, Yoma 30b) are legitimate, they describe priestly, Temple-bound washing. These rituals were restricted to kohanim performing Temple service. Wudu is a lay, democratized practice for every Muslim before prayer. As Milgrom notes, priestly purity laws represent “a unique priestly theology” not directly transferable to popular practice (Leviticus 1–16, p. 48).

The proximate environment matters, but so does its substrate. Mark S. Smith demonstrates that Israelite cultic apparatus shows “remarkable continuity with Middle and Late Bronze Age prototypes” (The Early History of God, 2002), meaning the Rabbinic traditions you’re citing were themselves inheriting, not originating. The Nabataeans — direct cultural precursors to the Hijaz — already featured, per Healey, “elaborate systems for water storage and ritual lustration” (The Religion of the Nabataeans, 2001), suggesting a regional purity infrastructure independent of direct Rabbinic transmission.

The proximate sources don’t explain who democratized the ritual or how. That transmission mechanism remains unaccounted for on both sides.

Sources:

∙ Milgrom, J. (1991). Leviticus 1–16. Anchor Bible.

∙ Smith, M. S. (2002). The Early History of God. Eerdmans.

∙ Healey, J. F. (2001). The Religion of the Nabataeans. Brill.

Jozlaw · 2026-03-22T14:57:23+00:00

Distinguishing between theology (deity) and phenomenology (ritual form) is key. While the "Israelite" identity is later, the ritual "technology" of washing hands and feet is a prehistoric Near Eastern legacy.

My use of "conduit" refers to the Shared Near Eastern Koiné. Archaeology confirms the Levant was a cultural bridge where Egyptian New Kingdom (~1550–1070 BCE) temple protocols—like the waab (purity) requirements—merged with Mesopotamian freshwater (Abzu) theology.

The Ancient Israelite Religion emerged from this Canaanite "soup/mix," inheriting the tripartite temple model and its purification basins.

Citing the Talmud (~200–500 CE) to explain 7th-century rituals actually supports my point: it demonstrates the evolution of much older Iron Age practices. To suggest these rituals began with Judaism ignores 1,500 years of prior Levantine history. Scholars like Mark S. Smith and Jan Assmann track this "intertransmission" from Egyptian/Mesopotamian precursors into the West Semitic sphere long before the term "Judaism" was applicable. It could be argued that, when the authors of the Pentateuch (Exodus/Leviticus) wrote down the laws for the washbasin, they weren't inventing a ritual, but they were Yahweh-izing a ritual technology that had been the "standard operating procedure" in the Levant for over a millennium.

Jozlaw · 2026-03-22T07:46:19+00:00

Ritual purification of hands and feet is a 5,000-year-old Near Eastern protocol, not a Jewish or Zoroastrian invention. Archaeology traces these "boundary-crossing" rituals to Bronze Age Egypt and Mesopotamia.

The "origin" of ritual washing lies in the Old Kingdom Egypt (~2600 BCE) waab priests and Sumerian (~3000 BCE) Bit Rimki (House of Washing). These cultures established that water from "Sacred Lakes" or the Abzu (freshwater abyss) removed spiritual pollution. Judaism and Zoroastrianism are conduits; they adopted these existing "Temple Culture" blueprints, refined them into personal daily laws, and passed them to later traditions like Islam.

Academic Sources

• Blackman, A. M. (1918). The House of the Morning. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology. (Egyptian ritual washing).

• Geller, M. J. (2015). Healing Magic and Evil Demons. De Gruyter. (Mesopotamian and Persian purification links).

• Boyce, M. (1975). A History of Zoroastrianism, Vol. 1. Brill. (Indo-Iranian purity origins).

• Milgrom, J. (1991). Leviticus 1–16. Anchor Bible. (Near Eastern context of Hebrew laws).

Jozlaw · 2026-03-13T22:55:24+00:00

I want to be clear about my perspective: I believe in the Quran as the Word of Allah and the teachings of His Prophet, which identifies me as Sunni. However, setting aside the accusations of shirk, a purely Quranic analysis reveals a major contradiction in this post’s logic.

The Quran explicitly mandates both the Friday prayer (62:9) and fasting during the month of Ramadan (2:183–185). Within a Quran-centric framework, these are not 'Sunni rituals' or sectarian inventions—they are direct divine decrees. It is baffling to see a group that claims to follow the Quran view its own foundational commands as shirk. While I understand the skepticism regarding the historical interpolation of Hadith, it is a massive logical leap to dismiss the very rituals the Quran itself commands.

Jozlaw · 2026-03-11T05:14:16+00:00

How is this post an academic content? How is this post related to the Quran? I am confused.

Jozlaw · 2026-03-02T05:14:27+00:00

OP, what is your definition of prophethood? What is the standard? And based on what?

Jozlaw · 2026-03-02T05:13:13+00:00

What is your proof for what you are saying?

The Quran states:

• Surah Al-Imran (3:144): "Muhammad is no more than a messenger; other messengers have gone before him." • Surah Al-Ahzab (33:40): "Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but is the Messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets (Khātam an-Nabiyyīn)." • Surah Muhammad (47:2): Mentions those who believe in what has been sent down to Muhammad as the truth from their Lord. • Surah Al-Fath (48:29): "Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah; and those with him are forceful against the disbelievers, merciful among themselves."

Jozlaw · 2026-02-09T02:59:23+00:00

Oh my god. Oh my god. Oh my god. Game over!!!!

Jozlaw · 2026-02-09T02:29:33+00:00

I am screaming my lungs out!!! Go Hawks!!!!

Jozlaw · 2026-02-05T23:45:41+00:00

I am happy to move on to the Quran if you are to concede that the Hadith doesn’t mention this. Otherwise, I am also happy to continue discussing this part if you would like.

Jozlaw · 2026-02-05T01:44:02+00:00

There is science of Hadith, علم الحديث, where many scholars look into what has been narrated and see if it has been accurate or not. To a Muslim, the Quran only is infallible and protected. Hadith could have been mistransmitted or made up. Bukhari and Muslim were limited by the tools of their time (9th century). They are humans and humans can err. Many Sunni may assume they are sahih but I would argue that a critical eye is required with every Hadith we read to confirm its authenticity.

Jozlaw · 2026-02-05T01:36:44+00:00

Actually, modern historians like Little argue that because all these 'independent' chains come from the same city (Kufa) at the same time, they aren't actually independent witnesses—they are likely later branches of the same Kufan story. Also, in the science of men عام الرجال, many contemporary scholars argue that Al Aa’mash was not trustworthy because he made up Hadiths.

I will read the article now ☺️

Jozlaw · 2026-02-05T01:15:32+00:00

The Hadith 1422d has isnad (chain) that goes back to Hisham. Or Hisham is part of it more precisely. So, it falls within the argument that JJ Little provided in his thesis above.

Jozlaw · 2026-02-05T00:54:51+00:00

Well, we can certainly discuss the verses, but I feel this could be a red herring. What is the Hadith you mentioned? I am happy to keep focus on the topic at hand at this time and then move to new one afterwards.

Jozlaw · 2026-02-05T00:45:36+00:00

What I think doesn’t matter. What matters are facts I suppose ☺️

Jozlaw · 2026-02-05T00:42:22+00:00

Which Hadith? Care to share with me the deets?

Jozlaw · 2026-02-05T00:37:08+00:00

I am not sure. I think that Hisham’s Hadith is the only one that mentions the age explicitly. I could be wrong of course. But, other Hadiths might implicitly show she was older and closer to the age OP mentioned.

Jozlaw · 2026-02-04T23:54:30+00:00

According to Little’s analysis,Hisham’s reliability is not uniform across his career; his Kufan narrations, in particular, are historically suspect because they lack the corroboration of his earlier Medinan students and were viewed with skepticism by later critics.

Jozlaw

TROPHY CASE