Sabitlenmiş Tweet
Kerr
5.9K posts
@dmontetheno1 Very strange to omit Ibn Jurayj comments in Tabari and all the other reports lol
English
🧵What does the Qur’an mean in Q 5:48 when it describes itself as confirming the previous scriptures while also calling itself muhaymin (مُهَيْمِن) over them? Looking across 1,400 years of Tafsir, Muslim scholars explained this word through a range of meanings. (1/17)
English
@juiceman_marty As an aside, most secular western academics do not seem to accept the story as historical. But their arguments seem to not care about isnad issues (unlike Muslim critics). They mainly discuss what they see as issues with the matn
x.com/JordanAcademia…
jordan academia@JordanAcademia0
Historicity of the Satanic Verses: The Origin📚 #islam #history #arabhistory #quran #arabhistory
English
@juiceman_marty In secular terms, the common link for this connected version is bin Mattuwayh al-Iṣbahānī (d. 302AH !!!)
Also riwayah 42 has ‘Uthmān b. al-Aswad al-Makkī narrating from Sa'id disconnected (further problematizing the authenticity of this chain Shahab Ahmad describes as sahih)
Română
Theirony is that Shuba ibn hajjaj transmitted the gharnaqid.
Tafsirs that seem to have the story:
Mujahid b. Jabr, al-Ḍaḥḥāk b. Muzāḥim, Qatāda b. Diʿāma, al-Zuhrī, al-Suddī, al-Sāʾib al-Kalbī, Muqātil b. Sulaymān, Maʿmar b. Rāshid, Mo b. Thawr, Yaḥyā b. Sallām, al-Ṣanʿānī
Kerr@KerrDepression
There are loads of weak/mursal reports transmitted with no explicit pre-200AH comment on their reliability (or lack thereof). Does this mean everyone thought them to be historical? It was the mid 100s when formalized/rigorous hadith criticism really began (Shu'ba ibn al-Hajjaj)
Català
The majority of secular Western academics reject the historicity of the “Satanic Verses” story (see thread).
Classical Muslim scholars overwhelmingly rejected it as inauthentic.
Yet some Christians cite it as a fact. “Hadith are fake, except the ones I can use in my arguments.”
jordan academia@JordanAcademia0
Historicity of the Satanic Verses: The Origin📚 #islam #history #arabhistory #quran #arabhistory
English
@juiceman_marty Many other blunders/odd passages like this in the book.
English
@juiceman_marty The point Bazzar is making is nothing to do with Ahad vs non-Ahad. He is implying ʿilal in the hadith by pointing out this is the only transmitter from Shu'ba who connected the isnad. This type of defect is called raf', so Shu'ba did not transmit this connected, but mursal
English
There are loads of weak/mursal reports transmitted with no explicit pre-200AH comment on their reliability (or lack thereof). Does this mean everyone thought them to be historical?
It was the mid 100s when formalized/rigorous hadith criticism really began (Shu'ba ibn al-Hajjaj)
English
Are these people trolling? Pre 200AH there not large lists of “this is sahih/weak”. You will find only a handful of people “accepting” the story (Muqatil, himself controversial, mentioning it in exegesis). Most transmit sans comment. But this is the case for thousands of hadiths?
neo one@NeophyteOne
Shahab Ahmed notes that for the first 200 years of Islam, the Satanic Verse incident had near universal acceptance by Muslims as being historical (!) The rise of the Ahl Hadith movement in the 3rd century Hijri and their need for Prophetic impeccability would change this
English
@CopStalker_ @Aboubarchos Putting aside whatever one thinks of him, you cannot refer to him as “wahhab” dude
Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab
Ibn meaning “son of”
Abd is slave/servant
al-Wahhab by itself...is Allah, one of Allah's 99 names. Just like how you can't drop the “ ʻAbd” in the name ʻAbd Allāh
English
