قال عمر بن عبد العزيز لسليمان بن سعد: بلغني أن أبا عاملنا بمكان كذا وكذا زنديق، قال: وما يضره ذلك يا أمير المؤمنين، قد كان أبو النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم كافرًا فما ضره، فغضب عمر غضبا شديدا وقال: وما وجدت له مثلا غير النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم! فعزله عن الدواوين"
How do you even say Muhammad and move on without sending salawat? How do you do that while claiming to be a public intellectual and scholar? Mind boggling.
Alayhi salaatu wassalam.
This is one of the most unusual sentences in any religious text. In my opinion, the most unusual in any book.
It makes a logical appeal: if it was from other than a divine source, their would have been a lot of inconsistency within the Quran.
The better translation is: much inconsistency. Not inconsistencies.
The root word here is khlf- it means change, not contradictions.
This is remarkable when you consider that the Quran was revealed over 23 years, in organic response to live events. It addresses theology, laws, household affairs, trade, divorce, marriage etc…
Yet there’s little difference tonal drift, or style change. All throughout, it’s very distinguishably Quranic.
If you read any author who has written extensively, over long periods of time, Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Marx, Virginia Woolf etc.. you’ll find that their style evolves, it changes, early Shakespeare is very different to late Shakespeare and so on.
Scholars call it register consistency and idiolect stability. Across human authors, especially under duress, these tend to fracture. Dostoevsky wrote very differently before and after his mock execution and Siberian exile. Tolstoy's late work is almost a repudiation of his early work. The psychological pressure shows.
Yet, besides the Meccan and Medinian shift, which was intentional and purposeful, there is almost no tonal drift.
Over 23 years, of which more than 15 were years of stress, persecution, defending against military attacks, the Prophet, peace be upon him, losing his first wife, his children, the period of the fatra, the sieges, etc.. yet, the style is consistent. A human would sway and change, develop with the time, etc.. find better styles. The theology is also very stable from the beginning to the end: One God, judgement day, heaven and hell, human nature, human is redeemable, God is forgiving.
It’s also incredibly unusual as a statement, because whoever made it, was aware of human psychology of authorship. That humans drift in authorship over a long time, which isn’t a very easy assessment to make in the desert, with so few books.
The argument is structurally interesting because it's self-referential and falsifiable in principle, it invites scrutiny rather than demanding blind acceptance. That's unusual for any text, religious or otherwise.
The verse also doesn't say "no inconsistency" or even "little inconsistency." It says "katheeran", much or many. The threshold being set is deliberately calibrated.
So the argument is actually more modest and therefore more defensible than critics often engage with.
It's claiming the absence of the level of inconsistency you would naturally expect from a human source operating under those conditions over that duration.
This matters because it immunises the argument against weak counterexamples. When a critic points to the Meccan/Medinan shift, the text has already pre-empted that by not claiming impossible perfection. The bar is set honestly.
Which is itself another unusual feature of the argument, it doesn't overclaim. Most apologetic arguments across religions tend to assert too much, which makes them brittle. This one is almost forensically careful about what it is and isn't saying.
والله أعلم
What the Quran Says About Adding Words to Itself
Were the Sahaba really allowed make up Quranic Words like Yasir Qadhi claims?
The Quran states clearly: “We sent down the Remembrance and We will preserve it.” That preservation means the text is protected from addition, subtraction, and alteration. God further states that any human attempt to add to His words is met with severe punishment: “Had he invented against Us some of the words, We would have seized him with the right hand, then cut his aorta.” ...
The scholars of tafsīr from the earliest generations of Islam read this verse and others as a categorical prohibition on attributing to divine revelation any word that did not originate in divine revelation. ...
In a chapter published in the edited volume The History of the Qur’an: Approaches and Explorations, Yasir Qadhi argues that a portion of the words now found in the canonical recitations ... originated not with God’s dictation to the Prophet but with the Companions themselves ... and that these human-origin words entered the canonical text...
Daniel has the strategic vision of a banana, the opposite of Al Sharaa.
He received the watch as a gift from a Sheikh. He needs to signal to the world that he’s interested in capitalism, trade, getting rich etc.. or they’ll suffocate his country to smithereens if they sense a world-shunning Islamist.
93% believe that an alternative Creator is a major disagreement.
7% of you consider the first pillar of Islam to be a minor issue.
The 7% clearly don't know why the Prophet (peace be upon him) was sent to his people.
Please pick up a Quran.
@Peace_Bruv@mm36996 Oh lol. Yes he mentioned he saw the first well and it was dry, then the second and it was dry too and the third one had water oozing out of it. He interprets it as the 3rd night of the last ashra to be the night of Qadr. InshAllah.
President Trump says Iran is behind the strike that killed at least 168 girls at an elementary school. CNN's investigation of images and video suggests the U.S. might be to blame.
@Peace_Bruv The ayah is in a very specific collective context and not in the individualistic worship sense. If the respected shaykh were to give the actual intended sharh of the ayah his talk would be cut short. Wallahul must’aan. Allahy yahfaduhu wa yahfadhna.