How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App
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-…
https://twitter.com/JordanAcademia0/status/1980466929606488487
Sources to be used in comparison (all wars in Late Antiquity):https://twitter.com/julienries13/status/1981351160905658705The most notable responses include:
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.
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.
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.
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.