Hashmi argues that in this context, fitnah refers to religious persecution and is functionally equivalent to ikrāh (religious compulsion) "and the dīn is for God" should be understood as "your worship (dīnukum) may be directed exclusively (khāliṣan) to God" (Sinai, Key Terms, 299).

In other words, al-dīnu kulluhu li-llāhi is equivalent to ikhlāṣ al-dīn (purity of worship), which, according to Goudarzi, “signifies monotheistic worship" (Goudarzi, “Worship,” 10).

https://x.com/JordanAcademia0/status/2049529944301277507

“Permission [to fight] is granted to those who are fought, because they have been wronged” (udhina li-lladhīna yuqātalūna bi-annahum ẓulimū) (Q 22:39). The invocation of a wrong falls squarely under just war language; as military historian Doyne Dawson writes, the pre-modern just war tradition emerged from the longstanding cross-cultural. As another historian, Andrew Preston, observes, “Despite its familiarity to the modern [West ern] sensibility, just war theory is by no means a recent development. Nor is it necessarily Western or Christian … Attempts to codify the rules of war were hallmarks of ancient Chinese and Greek philosophy and Hindu spirituality” (Sword of the Spirit, 32).

To this list one should also add Islamic civilization, which was at least indirectly influenced by—as well as an influence upon—the Western just war tradition. conviction that “it was always necessary to have a just cause for war, which meant simply that one had to be able to claim to be the victim of wrongs”; Augustine of Hippo (d. 430), for instance, “defined a just war simply as a war to avenge injuries (Questions on the Heptateuch 4.44) (Dawson, Origins of Western Warfare, 3, 173). Among such wrongs, enemy aggression was universally accepted as a valid just cause; this sentiment is expressed in the opening verse of one of the fitnah-fighting passages: “Fight in God’s way against those who fight against you, but do not commit aggression, for God does not love the aggres sors” (wa-qātilū fī sabīli llāhi lladhīna yuqātilūnakum wa-lā taʿtadū inna llāha lā yuḥibbu l-muʿtadīna) (Q Baqarah 2:190).

An interesting consensus among those in biblical studies is that there ironically, is no concept of strict 'monotheism' in the Hebrew Bible.

What really happened is that originally it became polytheistic, and then transitioned into a monolatry, then into monotheism. 🧵

#biblicalstudies #bible #ancientisrael #religion Mark S. Smith argues here that the transition towards monotheism started in 8th century BC as it appears that other texts from surrounding cultures from this period also appear to exhibit monothenizing trends:

Why the Islamic Golden Age is Not A Myth (Part Two), A Thread🧵 #Islamichistory #islam #arabhistory #science #History

The Influence on European Thought, Ottoman Science, and more. While 19th-century thinkers like Ernest Renan claimed Islam was hostile to rationalism, this view is one-sided and is disproved by the actual history of scientific thought in early Islam (hava lazarus-yafeh, taqlīd in the Writings of al-ghazzali, in: IOS 1, 1971, pp. 249–256). Far from stunting growth, the study of the Qur’an actually served as a stimulus for early Islamic sciences (cf. the summary of peters, Allah’s Commonwealth, p. 219), such as philology and lexicography, which later facilitated the assimilation of Greek scientific thought.

for example zoo logical and botanical literature, which later became more and more based on translations of greek texts, is based on lexicographical col lections: in the 3rd/9th century al-djāḥiẓ cites zoological texts of iyās ibn muʿāwiya (died 122/740) (ullman, Natur-und Geheimwissenschaften, pp. 5ff.; 6ff.; GAS iV, pp. 330f) and mentions as authorities of zoology ash-sharqī al-Quṭāmī, who died around 150/767 and hishām ibn muḥammad ibn al-kalbī, who died in 204/819 or 206/821. in lexi cographical collections of this time, descriptions of animals and plants in old arabic poetry have been used; lexicographical interest prevails over botanical and zoological interests (ullmann, Natur- und Geheimwissenschaften, pp. 6ff.; 62) on the other side, animals are sometimes described for the sake of presenting a cosmological proof of god’s existence and his wisdom; an example is al-djāḥiẓ’ book on animals: it rarely mentions experiments with animals.

Why the Islamic Golden Age is Not A Myth (Part One), A Thread🧵

#Islamichistory #islam #arabhistory #science #history Arab intellectuals preserved Greek philosophy and science (such as the works of Aristotle and Galen) during periods when learning had collapsed in Europe. These works were translated into Arabic, interpreted, and eventually put into Latin, allowing this knowledge to flow back into Northern Spain and the rest of Europe.

Champier writes: “When the great flourishing of learning collapsed in Athens, and Gothic barbarity invaded the Roman empire, some Greek books of both the philosophers and the physicians migrated to the Arabs, including the Moors and the Spanish ... especially the books of Aristotle and Galen ... Then it happened that the Arabs translated many volumes of both authors from Greek into their own language. For it is known that the Arabs were most zealous in the study of the humanities, with the result that Averroes, Alfarabi, Avicenna and innumerable others of the same period philosophized on the basis of these books ... and they wholly concentrated on this effort and poured all the force of their intellect into writing interpretations and explanations of both authors. But when Spain was ruled by Alfonso, who had a great thirst for texts, especially in mathematics, since the Moors still held Andalusia, it was easy ... for the books of Averroes and others ... to be brought to Northern Spain where they were put into Latin” (fol. A3v, transl. C. Burnett).

Origin of Jinns📚

Where do they originate from? What's the earliest mention? A Thread 🧵

#islamichistory #arabhistory #islam #arabia #Jinn Context📚 (1/2)

The Qur'an mentions jinn many times (Q2:102, Q6:100, Q6:112, Q6:128, Q6:130, Q7:38, Q7:179, Q15:27, Q17:88, Q18:50, Q27:17, Q27:39, Q32:13, Q34:12, Q34:41, Q37:158, Q41:25, Q41:29, Q46:18, Q46:29, Q46:30, Q46:31, Q46:32, Q51:56, Q55:15, Q55:33, Q55:39, Q72:1, Q72:5, Q72:6, Q72:8, Q72:13, Q72:14, Q72:15, Q114:6).

They are created from smokeless fire - Q55:15

They are created before humans - Q15:27

Possess free will (some righteous, some wicked) -Q72:11, Q72:14–15

Can believe after hearing revelation - Q72:1, Q46:29–32

Created to worship God - Q51:56

Some possess great strength or speed - Q27:39

Worked for Solomon doing construction and tasks -Q34:12, Q27:17

Some mislead humans - Q6:112

Some humans sought refuge in them - Q72:6

Attempted to access the heavens to listen - Q72:8

A New Text Has Been Found On Early Islam: Here's What It Says 📚

The Maronite Chronicle of the year 693, A Thread🧵 How Was It Discovered?📚

"I first discovered the text in January 2024 while examining Arabic saints’ calendars and synaxaria in the Sinai collection. I presented the discovery on three occasions: at the conference »The Other Narratives of Early Islam. Contemporary Sources and Critical Readings« (University of Frankfurt, 22-23 March, 2024, organized by Hagit Nol); in the framework of the Tübingen Byzantine and Near Eastern Seminar (TBNES), University of Tübingen (10 July, 2025, organized by Federico Montinaro), and as part of the Gotha Manuscript Talks series (Gotha Research Library, 26 November, 2025, organized by Feras Krimsti and Konrad Hirschler). I would like to thank the organizers for the opportunity to present this discovery. I also wish to thank all the colleagues who were present on these occasions and with whom I discussed several aspects of the chronicle."

medievalworlds.net/?arp=0x004102d6

Is Galatians 1:8 really about Islam or Mormonism like Christians claim it to be, or is it about something else? 📚

Here I delve into the historical context on Galatians 1:8, and why it's ironically about Peter & James, not referencing any future religion, a thread🧵

#bible #christianity #jesus #gospels #biblicalstudies Context (1/2)📚

For context, many Christians claim that Galatians 1:8 is Paul somehow referring to a future religion.

I would like to say this is fairly irrelevant because (1) Mormons, and other Christian denominations whether it be Seven-Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc; all believe that their arguments are continuous with Paul. They don't believe that they are preaching a gospel contrary to Paul, they believe that they are preaching the same exact thing. For (2) in mainstream Islam, Muslims generally don't believe Paul is divinely inspired, so their beliefs being different than Paul's is unnecessary.

The passage is here:
- "But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed!"

The problem is that only someone who has never read Galatians would believe that it is about some foreign religion. If you were to actually read Galatians, you would ironically realize that it is talking about one of Christianity's venerated figures: Peter & James.

Did Jesus Historically Claim To Be God? 📚 A Thread 🧵

#christianity #bible #biblicalstudies #jesus Context (1/2)📚

To be clear, I am not arguing for or against anyone's beliefs and this thread is not to be taken with bad intentions. I wanted to expand on Prof. Dale Allison's interview, where he explains how Jesus never claimed to be God.

Now, he is a Christian. So people often wonder, "how can he be a Christian and still believe Jesus didn't claim to be God?" I will also answer that.

I will also explain why the consensus of modern scholars today is that Jesus did not historically claim to be God in any sense. It should be noted that in the comments of this twitter post, by @JohnathanBi, people kept citing irrelevant evidence trying to dispute what Dale Allison was saying.

x.com/JohnathanBi/st…

Historicity of the Satanic Verses: The Origin📚

#islam #history #arabhistory #quran #arabhistory In this thread, I will argue how while it is an early tradition, it shouldn't be seen as historical. I will also explain why it became a thing in a first place and why criterion of embarrassment doesn't work. 🧵

Is the story of Muhammad and Zaynab historical?

In this article, Prof. Andreas Görke argues how the criterion of embarrassment (in this case) doesn't work out so well. A Thread 🧵

#islam #history #arabhistory #quran #arabhistory Over here, Gorke will argue with the Patricia Crone interpretation that it is possible some stories were incorporated into this life but are based on exegetical speculation.

Muḥammad’s marriage Muḥammad’s marriage with Zaynab seems to be particularly suitable for such an analysis, as the story not only features in a number of reports in different genres, but is also alluded to in the Qurʾān, in sura 33, 37 with Zaynab seems to be particularly suitable for such an analysis, as the story not only features in a number of reports in different genres, but is also alluded to in the Qurʾān, in sura 33, 37.

2 Peter 📚
- Authenticity (Authorship)📜
- Dating 📜
- Content 📜

A Thread🧵 What's the consensus on 2 Peter's authenticity (was it authored by Peter?)? 📚

Virtually all modern scholars do not think the apostle Peter was the author of 2 Peter with exception of a few. (Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 2nd ed (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 421. Examples of the scholars who reject Petrine authorship are Mayerhoff, Credner, Hilgenfeld, Von Soden, Hausrath, Mangold, Davidson, Volkmar, Holtzmann, Julicher, Harnack, Chase, and Strachan. Scholars who support Petrine authorship are in the fringe minority and are outdated, they include Luthardt, Wiesinger, Guericke, Windischmann, Bruckner, Hofmann, Salmon, Alford, Zahn, Spitta, and Warfield. some scholars could not reach a conclusion, they include Huther, Weiss, and Kuhl. See Louis Berkhof, New Testament Introduction (Eerdmans-Sevensma Co., 1915), 310; James Hastings, et al., eds., A Dictionary of the Bible: Dealing with Its Language, Literature, and Contents Including the Biblical Theology, Volumes I–V (New York; Edinburgh: Charles Scribner’s Sons; T. & T. Clark, 1911) V3, p816).

What's interesting is that there made me coins that portray the Prophet Muhammad. Robert Hoyland makes interesting arguments as to why the coins in the Abbasid-era portray the Prophet 🧵

https://x.com/JordanAcademia0/status/1997277291790082109

First of all, the Qurʾān lacks a clearly articulated prohibition against images. On the Qurʾān and early Muslim attitudes towards images see: Lammens, “Arts figurés,” 241; Arnold, Painting, 4‒6; Georges Marçais, “La question des images dans l’art musulman,” Byzantion 7 (1932): 161‒183; Creswell, “Lawfulness”; Aḥmad Muḥammad ʿĪsā, with Harold W. Glidden, tr., “Muslims and Taswīr,” The Muslim World 45 (1955): 250‒268; Bishr Farès, “Philosophie et jurisprudence illustrées par les arabes: la querelle des images en Islam,” Mélanges Louis Massignon, 3 vols., Damascus: Institut français de Damas, 1956‒1958[?], ii, 77‒109; Grabar, Formation, 78 ff; G.R. Hawting, The Idea of Idolatry and the Emergence of Islam: From Polemic to History, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, 45‒66.

The main reason for the prohibition of images would be popularized by the reign of the Umayyad caliph Yazīd II (101‒105/720‒724). He is generally regarded as short and unremarkable, especially in contrast to those of his distinguished predecessors such as Muʿāwiya or ʿAbd al-Malik. He accomplished one thing, however, that set him apart from every caliph before him and practically every caliph after: according to an array of written sources, Yazīd promulgated an edict commanding the destruction of images (see Henri Lammens/Khalid Yahya Blankinship, “Yazīd (II) b. ʿAbd al-Malik,” in The Encyclopaedia of Islam. Second Edition, 13 vols., H.A.R. Gibb, et al., eds., Leiden: Brill, 1954‒2009 [hereafter, EI²], xi, 311).

Is Zoroastrianism Monotheistic? 🤔

A Deep Dive Into the Theology of Zoroastrianism, A Thread 🧵| #zoroastrianism #history #persia #middleeast #religion First, how do we define Monotheism? 📜

This is important, because different societies defined 'monotheism' differently.

In my opinion, Prof. Sommer does the BEST explanation to how historians define monotheism: "A narrow, common-sense definition of monotheism is the belief that one God exists and that no deities exist other than this one God. If we adopt this definition, we must conclude that the Hebrew Bible is not a monotheistic work, because it acknowledges the existence of many heavenly creatures in addition to Yhwh. Biblical texts refer to these creatures variously as “angels” (!ykalm – a few randomly chosen examples of the term include Numbers 20.16, 2 Samuel 24.16, 1 Kings 13.18, Zechariah 1.11–12, Psalm 78.49, Job 33.23), “gods” (!yhla – e.g., Psalm 82.6, 86.8; !yhla ynb / !yla ynb – Genesis 6.2; Psalm 29.1, 89.7; Job 1.6), and (collectively) “the council of holy ones” (!yvwdq dws / !ycwdq lhq – Psalm 89.6,8). Several biblical texts portray Yhwh as surrounded by heavenly beings who attend Him or await His orders (e.g., 1 Kings 22.19–22, Isaiah 6, Ezekiel 1, Zechariah 3, Job 1.6; a similar picture is assumed in Psalm 29 and Isaiah 40.1–2). The term !yhla ynb / !yla ynb can mean “sons of God,” “sons of the gods,” “sons of [the high god] El,” or “members of the class generally known as gods.”"

In short, the narrow definition of monotheism is too narrow: If we use it, then the religion of the Hebrew Bible is not monotheistic; but then neither are Judaism, Christianity with the exception of a few highly philosophical forms of these religions that are historically late and have attracted few adherents. Propp, “Monotheism,” 454–5 n.42: “For the ancient world, functional definitions of ‘monotheism’ and “polytheism” are more useful than philosophical definitions: ‘monotheism’ is monotheistic behavior. Apparently, apart from the minds of philosophers and mystics, there is no such thing as monotheism; compare William James’s obiter dictum, ‘[polytheism] has always been the real religion of common people, and is so still today’ (The Varieties of Religious Experience [New York: New American Library, 1958,396).”

When was the Qur'an canonized? Was it during Abdul al-Malik or Uthman? A Thread 🧵 | #quran #islam #islamicstudies #history (Part 2)

https://twitter.com/JordanAcademia0/status/1974514421377679382

@IslamicOrigins released a paper which goes over the arguments for & against both Uthmanic canonization, and Abd al-Malik canonization. I would like to go over them, and also add a bit of thoughts. Let's start off with the criticisms of Ḥajjājian Hypothesis ⬇doi.org/10.1515/jiqsa-…

What about the hadith that claims to expel all Jews & Christians from the Arabian Peninsula? Or Banu Qurayza?

https://twitter.com/JordanAcademia0/status/1983037700329385990

The hadith in context is Sahih Muslim 1767a, other ones included: Mishkat al-Masabih 4053, Musnad Ahmad 215, Sahih al-Bukhari 2338, Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1606, Sunan Abi Dawud 3030. Sahih al-Bukhari 3152 has clarification that the Jewish people remained in Khaibar until Umar.

The Arab Conquests are often described as some of the violent wars of their era, but how do they actually compare to other major conflicts of the same period in scale, casualties, and impact? Let’s compare (Part 2/3) 🧵| #islam #history #arabhistory #romanempire #quran #persia

https://twitter.com/JordanAcademia0/status/1980466929606488487

Sources to be used in comparison (all wars in Late Antiquity):
- (1) Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628
- (2) Aksumite invasion of Himyar in 525
- (3) Byzantine–Sasanian War of 572–591

Other wars I would point to as well are the Gothic War (535–554) & the Lombard conquest of Italy of 568.

All Criticisms of this Book (Short Thread / Source-thread)🧵| #bible #christianity #biblicalcriticism

https://twitter.com/julienries13/status/1981351160905658705

The most notable responses include:
- Samuel Byrskog, 'The Eyewitnesses as Interpreters of the Past: Reflections on Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses,' JSHJ 6 (2008), pp. 157-168; David Catchpole, 'On Proving Too Much: Critical Hesitations about Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses,' JSHJ 6 (2008), pp. 169-181; James D. G. Dunn, 'Eyewitnesses and the Oral Jesus Tradition,' JSHJ 6 (2008), pp. 85-105 (96-105); Craig A. Evans, 'The Implications of Eyewitness Tradition,' JSNT 31 (2008), pp. 211-219; Stephen J. Patterson, 'Can You Trust a Gospel? A Review of Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses,' JSHJ 6 (2008), pp. 194-210; Jens Schröter, 'The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony? A Critical Examination of Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses,' JSNT 31 (2008), pp. 195-209; Theodore J. Weeden Sr, 'Polemics as a Case for Dissent: A Response to Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses,' JSHJ 6 (2008), pp. 211-224; John N. Collins, 'Re-Thinking ‘Eyewitnesses' in the Light of 'Servants of the Word' (Luke 1: 2),' The Expository Times 121 (2010), pp. 447-452; James G. Crossley, 'Can John's Gospel Really Be Used to Reconstruct a Life of Jesus? An Assessment of Recent Trends and a Defence of a Traditional View,' in Thomas L. Thompson and Thomas S. Verenna (eds.), Is This Not the Carpenter? The Question of the Historicity of the Figure of Jesus (London: Routledge, 2012), pp. 163-184; James G. Crossley, Jesus in an Age of Neoliberalism: Quests, Scholarship and Ideology (London: Routledge, 2012), pp. 144-148; Paul Foster, 'Memory, Orality, and the Fourth Gospel: Three Dead-Ends in Historical Jesus Research,' JSHJ 10 (2012), pp. 191-227 (194-202); Michael J. Thate, Remembrance of Things Past? (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), pp. 219-225; Ruth B. Edwards, Discovering John: Content, Interpretation, Reception (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2014), pp. 179-184; Alan Kirk, 'Ehrman, Bauckham and Bird on Memory and the Jesus Tradition,' JSHJ 15 (2017), pp. 88-114 (101-111); Alan Kirk, Memory and the Jesus Tradition (London: T. & T. Clark, 2018), pp. 52-54; Jeffrey M. Tripp, 'The Eyewitnesses in Their Own Words: Testing Richard Bauckham's Model Using Verifiable Quotations,' JSNT 44 (2022), pp. 411-434. Bart Ehrman, "Jesus Before the Gospels" (2016) also. doi.org/10.1163/174551…

Were the early Arab conquests completely violent, or have centuries of “spread by the sword” narratives distorted history? A Thread 🧵(Part 1/3) | #islam #history #arabhistory #quran #arabhistory Now of course, conquests/war is objectively violent. To summarize about the Arab conqests, the conquests were rather bloody, but not bloodier than any other conquest at the time, and, indeed, the archaeological record shows that the early Muslims did not embark on any large scale destruction of places. It is also hard to say that it is religiously motivated, for reasons I will show in this thread.

The idea that there was widespread genocide is a false myth, as well as large scales of systematic forced conversion.

The next two threads will be talking about other specific claims.

When was the Qur'an canonized? Was it during Abdul al-Malik or Uthman? A Thread 🧵 | #quran #islam (Part 1) There are many debates over the period of time in which the Qur'an was canonized/standardized in. There will likely be multiple parts. I'll be arguing that the Qur'an was canonized during the time of Uthman, in the next part, I will talk about the arguments for the Qur'an being canonized later (during Abd al-Malik) as well as carbon-dating and whether or not they hold up, and the last part I will likely talk about arguments for the Qur'an being canonized even earlier than Uthman.

Does the Qur'an Mistake 'Mary' for 'Miriam'? Why does the Qur'an call 'Mary' the 'Sister of Aaron'? A Thread 🧵| #quran #islam #mary In this thread, I'll explain whether or not the Qur'an mistakes 'Mary' for 'Miriam', the daughter of Amram and Jochebed, and the older sister of Moses and Aaron. I'll also explain why the Qur'an calls 'Mary' the 'Sister of Aaron', which appears in Q19:28.

Does the Qur'an misrepresent the Trinity? Was there a group who believed Mary was God? A Thread 🧵 | #quran #islam There's a few verses that have been interpreted as misrepresentations of Christianity (Q 5:17, 72, 73, 75). Today, I'll explain why they're not misrepresentations but rather a criticism of imperial Byzantine propaganda and evolving Marian veneration.