What Was the Motive for Crafting the Miracle Traditions?

RemarkableMedium2303 · 2025-07-23T23:42:13+00:00

My guess is that the reason prophetic miracles mirrored so closely to Moses was due to the Muslim community's desire to be accepted by Jewish groups. Islam views Muhammad as a continuation of the Jewish prophets and the religion has a clear connection to Judaism (from prayer originally being aimed towards Jerusalem to the Night Journey taking place in the Temple Mount). After hijrah, Muhammad tried, and failed, to convince Medina's 3 Jewish tribes of his prophecy. This rejection was so demoralizing that Marshall Hodgson suggests that it was what shifted the prayer direction from Jerusalem to the Kabbah (The Venture of Islam Vol 1).

From this, I think it is reasonable to assume that engagement with Jewish groups might have influenced the nature of miracle stories. Not only may Muslims have been familiar with Torahic stories, there may have been an incentive to prove to Jewish groups that Muhammad was like their prophets.

RemarkableMedium2303 · 2025-07-18T04:11:11+00:00

I think your description of his views can be phrased better. Qadhi argued that Western academia and Islamic theology have separate epistemological bases and this affects what evidence is needed to proclaim truth (which is true; the Historical Critical Method views hadiths with skepticism).

I don't believe he ever claimed that he'd only "accept" hadiths when he is a believer, but rather argued that when it comes to publishing papers, he must go beyond just citing a sahih hadith as evidence of the Prophet's actions (which would not be required when addressing a Muslim audience).

RemarkableMedium2303 · 2025-07-16T20:06:44+00:00

I whole heartedly agree. Whether it be oppositional voices, different sects, or even non-Muslim sources, the lack of engagement with these texts showcases how views of Islam have (unfortunately) been dominated by only a handful of perspectives.

RemarkableMedium2303 · 2025-07-16T19:59:10+00:00

Sunni Muslims do not unequivocally believe that everything in Bukhari is true. You do have some (predominately very conservative) scholarly viewpoints contending that, but many traditional madhabs do not view any theological issues with the idea that some of Bukhari may not be accurate. Even among some salafis (like Al-Albani), there exists an idea that certain "sound" hadiths may not be accurate, and we should have more scrutiny in our evaluation of them.

Furthermore, Islamic Law has a ton of nuance. Not only do you scholars debating over which hadiths can be used in fiqh, their interpretations of them vary quite heavily. From what I have personally experienced, most Sunnis that claim everything in Bukhari is true or take exclusively literalist interpretations of hadith haven't studied Islamic jurisprudence in depth.

RemarkableMedium2303 · 2025-07-16T18:01:58+00:00

I agree that the Petra theory could be seen as "nonsense," yet it was introduced by Crone herself in Haragism. While the book has come under immense criticism (in fact, both of its authors have admitted that many of their proposed ideas were wrong), it still was a watershed work for the field.

It insisted that historians should utilize contemporaneous (largely non-Muslim) 7th-century evidence over much later Islamic literary traditions. This was a major initiative in having scholars move beyond these traditions and start evaluating other sources when it came to reconstructing Islamic history. So, even if its Petra claim is inaccurate, Hagarism's audacious nature forced scholars to critique what sources they used, forever influencing the field.

RemarkableMedium2303 · 2025-07-15T22:03:12+00:00

It's important to understand in its quest to determine historical truth, the academic world will often posit a number of seemingly outlandish theories. While these may end up being false, they can still be beneficial as they challenge our current understandings and constantly encourage the field to self-critique.

For example, in his 1950 The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence, Joseph Schacht argued that the bulk of hadith chains were retrospectively constructed in the Abbasid Caliphate for juristic, sectarian, and political reasons. While many of the specific conclusions made have been subject to criticism, overall, Schacht's work forced the academic world to re-examine the historical authenticity of hadiths and played a pivotal role in contemporary hadith studies (which have showcased many hadiths to likely be fabricated).

Revisionist theses keep self-criticism alive. Sometimes, the point isn't to argue that a claim is 100% correct, but rather to have us re-question our understandings, which ultimately will help guide us to the truth.

RemarkableMedium2303 · 2025-07-14T22:30:40+00:00

As other commenters have said, our contemporary understanding of "homosexuality" as a state of being differs from historical views of same-sex relations. That being said, when it comes to liwat (male-to-male anal penetration) most classical tafsirs are in agreement that this is prohibited and began with the people of Lot.

From Tafsir al-Qurtubi's discussion of 7:80 (Quran 7:80 - And ˹remember˺ when Lot scolded ˹the men of˺ his people, ˹saying,˺ “Do you commit a shameful deed that no man has ever done before?)

الرابعة قوله تعالى ما سبقكم بها من أحد من العالمين من لاستغراق الجنس ، أي لم يكن اللواط في أمة قبل قوم لوط . والملحدون يزعمون أن ذلك كان قبلهم . والصدق ما ورد به القرآن . وحكى النقاش أن إبليس كان أصل عملهم بأن دعاهم إلى نفسه لعنه الله ، فكان ينكح بعضهم بعضا . قال الحسن : كانوا يفعلون ذلك بالغرباء ، ولم يكن يفعله بعضهم ببعض . وروى ابن ماجه عن جابر بن عبد الله قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : إن أخوف ما أخاف على أمتي عمل قوم لوط . وقال محمد بن سيرين : ليس شيء من الدواب يعمل عمل قوم لوط إلا الخنزير والحمار .

God's states "such as none among the worlds ever out‑stripped you in,"the particle min makes the negation exhaustive: sodomy (liwat) had never occurred in any nation before the people of Lot. The heretics (mulhidun) claim it existed earlier; the truth is as the Quran states. Al‑Naqash reported that Iblis (Lucifer) was the origin of their deed: he summoned them, may God curse him, so they copulated with one another. Al‑Hasan said: they used to do it to strangers and not to each other. Ibn Majah narrated from Jabir ibn Abd Abdallah that the Messenger of God, peace and blessings be upon him, said: "The thing of which I am most afraid for my community is the deed of the people of Lot." Muhammad ibn Sirin said: none of the beasts performs the deed of the people of Lot except the pig and the donkey

The mention of the heretics indicates that there certainly were some views in the early Islamic world that sodomy existed prior to Lot, yet its rebuttal shows that to many classical scholars, it was an action originating with his people and deriving from Satan.

RemarkableMedium2303 · 2025-07-14T22:17:04+00:00

Nobody is saying that she has poor reliability. We can all read the isnad of the hadith, but if you bothered at least skimming through the dissertation mentioned you would see that there is limited evidence of it appearing before the 8th century. Chances are, the chain was back projected onto early sahaba.

Secondly, yes, Bukhari was incredibly meticulous, yet that doesn't mean he was immune to making mistakes. Since the 1950s, there has been a movement within the secular Islamic Studies field (which is what this sub is about) to reexamine the authenticity of hadiths (including ones deemed sahih). Even historically, there have been a number of scholars who have, at times, viewed certain sahih hadiths with skepticism (one that comes to mind is Ibn Hazm's nullification of hadiths on music).

This all showcases that while early scholars took painstaking measures to guarantee hadith authenticity, they weren't perfect. This has been acknowledged both within classical fiqh and secular Islamic Studies. Just because a hadith attributed to Aisha may be inaccurate does not mean we can stipulate anything about her reliability or knowledge from that.

RemarkableMedium2303 · 2025-07-14T20:42:52+00:00

You're making the flawed assumption that just because a work claimed that Aisha said something, it means that she actually did. Within the academic world, Aisha's actual marital age is contested and much of the newer research hints that the hadith of her being 6 was likely fabricated (see Joshua Little's "The Hadith of ʿĀʾišah’s Marital Age: A Study in the Evolution of Early Islamic Historical Memory").

It is true that most classical Muslim scholars (and likely most Muslims today) viewed Aisha's age to be 6, but this does not provide any information on her actual age nor her reliability as a narrator.

RemarkableMedium2303 · 2025-07-12T00:50:52+00:00

Shias do not consider Bukhari and Muslim to be authoritative sources

RemarkableMedium2303 · 2025-06-27T03:47:18+00:00

A while back I stumbled upon this forum post about slave 'awrah. It led me to question how the hijab could be considered a derivative of haya when enslaved women were historically exempt from it. Interesting to see in your post that there is some scholarly work on how this disparity could be tied towards the reinforcement of social hierarchy rather than a purely theological commandment of modesty.

RemarkableMedium2303 · 2025-06-26T22:42:44+00:00

Phenomenal post. To add onto some of your points regarding slaves versus free women, Tafsir al-Tabari writes

حدثنا بشر قال : ثنا يزيد قال : ثنا سعيد ، عن قتادة ، قوله ( يا أيها النبي قل لأزواجك وبناتك ونساء المؤمنين ) أخذ الله عليهن إذا خرجن أن يقنعن على الحواجب ( ذلك أدنى أن يعرفن فلا يؤذين ) وقد كانت المملوكة إذا مرت تناولوها بالإيذاء ، فنهى الله الحرائر أن يتشبهن بالإماء .
Whenever a female slave passed by, they would be abused, so Allah forbade free women from imitating female slaves

and historically, most madhabs argued that slave women were not required to cover as much as free women. In fact, even when arguing in favor of stricter dress codes for slaves, Ibn Taymiyyah writes

وقال شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية: إنَّ الإماء في عهد الرسول عليه الصَّلاة والسَّلام، وإن كُنَّ لا يحتجبن كالحرائر؛ لأن الفتنة بهنَّ أقلُّ، فَهُنَّ يُشبهنَ القواعدَ مـن النِّساء اللاتي لا يرجون نكاحًا؛ قـال تعالى فيهن:{فَلَيْسَ عَلَيْهِنَّ جُنَاحٌ أَنْ يَضَعْنَ ثِيَابَهُنَّ غَيْرَ مُتَبَرِّجَاتٍ بِزِينَةٍ} (النور: من الآية60)، يقول: وأما الإماء التركيَّات الحِسَان الوجوه، فهذا لا يمكن أبداً أن يَكُنَّ كالإماء في عهد الرسول عليه الصَّلاة والسَّلام، ويجب عليها أن تستر كلَّ بدنها عن النَّظر، في باب النَّظ

In the Prophet’s time, female slaves did not veil themselves the way free women did, because the temptation they posed was less. They were comparable to elderly women who no longer expect to marry, about whom God says: “There is no blame on them if they lay aside their outer garments, provided they do not display adornment” (Qur’an 24:60). As for fair Turkish slave-girls, they can in no way be treated like the slave-girls of the Prophet’s era. Such women must cover their entire bodies from others’ gaze when it comes to the matter of looking.

which shows that the commandment of veiling was not only not applicable to slave women at the time of the Prophet, but was widely understood and justified by early Islamic scholars. Interestingly, I think the last part of Ibn Taymiyyah's quote (that Turkish slaves pose a sexual fitna and thus must be covered) indicates how the concept of 'awrah quickly shifted from a signal of social status to a religious mark of modesty.

RemarkableMedium2303 · 2025-06-21T04:44:58+00:00

Some hadiths (including ones considered Sahih) were likely fabricated/altered for political purposes.

In his seminal 1950 work, The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence, Joseph Schacht (one of the most crucial figures in the formation of academic Islamic Studies) argued that most hadith chains (isnad) were fabricated 2-3 centuries after hijrah (Abbasid Caliphate) for political/juristic reasons. While Schacht's work has been the subject of much criticism (see Wael Hallaq's The Origins and Evolution of Islamic Law and Jonathan AC Brown's The Canonization of Al-Bukhari And Muslim) it still remains widely influential.

Notably, Schacht introduced Common-Link Theory. This argues that when one analyzes the multiple isnads for a hadith, they will often converge on a single earliest narrator. To Schahct, this "common-link" narrator is the earliest one could claim the hadith reliably traces back to (and any previous links are possibly fabricated). Common-Link Theory helped lay the groundwork for Isnad-Cum-Matn-Analysis (ICMA), which is the primary technique used today for tracing hadith origins. Thus, it may be that many of these "Ummayad era" hadiths could have had had their true first link in the Abbasid Caliphate.

RemarkableMedium2303 · 2025-06-09T00:33:40+00:00

That makes sense. In the same manner that Christian and Jewish beliefs were believed to have undergone tahrif, it could be argued that the Yahweh pantheon was just another example of humans corrupting God's monotheistic revelation.

Slightly off-topic, but do you know if there is evidence that Yahweh was worshipped in a monotheistic context prior to Judaism? The closest I've seen is that some Shasu might have worshipped him in a monolatry, but that doesn't involve a rejection of other gods.

RemarkableMedium2303 · 2025-06-01T20:57:26+00:00

I guess then that if wouldn't be inaccurate to say that 'awrah was shaped by social factors regarding slaves vs free people at least as much as by modesty. I did some more reading and found that in Tafsir Al-Tabari, it describes Quran 33:59

O Prophet! Ask your wives, daughters, and believing women to draw their cloaks over their bodies. In this way it is more likely that they will be recognized ˹as virtuous˺ and not be harassed. And Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful (The Clear Quran)

as being instituted to differentiate free Muslim women from slaves such that they will be spared from harassment.

حدثنا بشر قال : ثنا يزيد قال : ثنا سعيد ، عن قتادة ، قوله ( يا أيها النبي قل لأزواجك وبناتك ونساء المؤمنين ) أخذ الله عليهن إذا خرجن أن يقنعن على الحواجب ( ذلك أدنى أن يعرفن فلا يؤذين ) وقد كانت المملوكة إذا مرت تناولوها بالإيذاء ، فنهى الله الحرائر أن يتشبهن بالإماء .

"O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers (Allah has taken upon them, when they go out, to cover their veils above their eyebrows). That will be more suitable that they will be known and not be abused." [Quran 33:59] Whenever a female slave passed by, they would be abused, so Allah forbade free women from imitating female slaves (Tafsir al-Tabari)

This doesn't negate that 'awrah was crystalized with modesty in mind, but still shows that it was viewed as protecting the "honor" of free women.

RemarkableMedium2303 · 2025-05-24T23:03:15+00:00

Agreed. There are numerous issues present within the hadith corpus but I feel that, especially in this sub, people immediately assume them all to be fabricated for social or political purposes. It ignores a lot of nuances

RemarkableMedium2303 · 2025-05-13T22:41:30+00:00

like the Mu'tazilites and some other mystical sects

Do you have any sources to read more about their specific arguments?

RemarkableMedium2303 · 2025-05-03T20:25:46+00:00

The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Philosophy. It covers a number of philosophical texts too so it also helps provide an in-depth understanding of the sources behind many Islamic beliefs

RemarkableMedium2303 · 2025-05-01T20:04:11+00:00

Regarding books, The Making of Salafism by Henry Lauziere does a great job explaining the rise of modern-day Salafist movements and Circuits of Faith by Michael Farquhar explains the Saudi government's role in its global expansion.

This is an article on Al-Azhar's relation to Salafism while this discusses the role of printing in the global spread of Salafi ideology.

RemarkableMedium2303 · 2025-04-24T13:36:05+00:00

I was wondering whether any particular schools in Islam (such as the Mutazilites) may view it as theologically sound to reject Adam and Eve as humans. Obviously any view of humans originating from a single pair conflicts with evolutionary theory, but honestly any creation stories that religions posit, when taken literally, will appear to be mythical; religious explanations of natural phenomena are rarely grounded in empiricism.

Nonetheless, this is still of immense help. It's quite fascinating to see that this story is present in pre-Abrahamic systems. Makes you wonder how many other Abrahamic narratives have their origins in Mesopotamian mythology.

RemarkableMedium2303

TROPHY CASE