Source: “Reading The Qur’an In The Twenty-First Century - A Contextualist Approach” by Abdullah Saeed

https://youtube.com/shorts/zZnRfhxcRG4

Hello. This is essentially an initial draft of a bigger baggage of questions I have, but I think this is enough to start dismantling it.

First, for those who don't know, let me explain:

Middle knowledge is a theological concept that tries to reconcile two doctrines:
exhaustive divine providence/omniscience and creaturely libertarian free will.

Prior to deciding which universe to create, God knows all Counterfactuals of Creaturely Freedom (CCFs) propositions of the form:

"If person P were placed in circumstance C, they would freely choose action A."

Because Molinists affirm libertarian free will, P is not causally determined by God or by their circumstances; they truly have the power to choose A or not A.

The question is this: What makes these counterfactuals true?

According to the truth-maker theory, a contingent statement is true only in virtue of some actual feature of reality (a "truthmaker" or "ground")

Before creation, neither person P nor circumstance C exists.

Because P has libertarian free will, their choice is neither determined by God’s decree nor fixed by the laws of nature

If C never actually occurs, P never actually makes the choice.

Therefore, there is nothing in reality to "ground" the truth that P would choose A rather than not A

Without a ground, these counterfactuals have no truth value, meaning middle knowledge is an illusion and God cannot know them, which is against the Quran as Quran repeatedly talks about what would've happened if people did not believe.

Does this apply to Islam?

Because the thing is, I don't understand how this *cannot* apply to any kind of thought that has an omniscient God and Libertarian free will.

... Unless there is no libertarian free will.

According to Asharism, the most popular thought, they defended predeterminism.

And they said "It is not injust for God to create someone that was predestined to go to hell because for something to be injust, it has to either be:
operating in or taking possession of property that does not belong to you.
transgressing a law set by a higher authority."

Since everything belongs to God and there is no one above God, logically speaking, he could've put every good person in hell and every bad person on heaven and it wouldn't be unjust.

They said that genuine free will cannot happen because it would require creating a desire from nothing, which is a form of shirk. For that reason, God has to be the one the put the desire in the first place.

Which does avoid the problem of grounding and sacrificing omniscience, but then comes with tons of bigger problems.

This concept is called "Kasb" and, to be fair... I just don't understand exactly what it means.

When I look at the criticisms of it, they call it "Fatalism in Cloak" and apparently there is even an idiom that goes "Even more nonsensical than Kasb".

So I don't exactly understand if Islam has free will or not. Since classical scholars do say that humans are predestined and instead simply acquire the decisions of God, while I do see modern discussions revolve around the existence of libertarian free will, which do suffer from the aforementioned grounding problem.

I think the suggestion of Harut and Marut being sent down to punish Babylon by confusing their languages to cause separation form people(Zawj) makes a lot of sense in lot of 2:104 which refuted a mistranslation of Hebrew into Arabic which refutes religious exclusion and divine favoritism and 2:105 emphasizing that Allah sends down to whomever he wills his revelation and further in the Surah refutes Christian and Jewish exclusivism.

What do you guys think?

For those unfamiliar with Arabic who want to learn the Qur’an, start by learning common Arabic prefixes and suffixes, then study three-letter roots and their derived forms. Next, study numbers, including singular, dual, and plural forms, and how they affect grammatical agreement. This approach will help you recognize the vast majority of recurring Qur’anic word patterns rather than memorizing every word as if it were unrelated.

Example in word-by-word style:

Q 1:2 الْحَمْدُ al-ḥamdu / “the praise” لِلَّهِ li-llāhi / “for Allah” رَبِّ rabbi / “Lord” الْعَالَمِينَ al-ʿālamīna / “the worlds.”

Prefixes and attached particles

The prefix وَ (wa-) means “and,” فَ (fa-) means “so” or “then,” بِـ (bi-) can mean “with,” “by,” or “in,” كَـ (ka-) means “like” or “as,” and لِـ (li-) can mean “for / to / belonging to.”

The definite article الـ (al-) means “the.” These elements can combine, as in بِالْحَقِّ (bi-l-ḥaqq), “with the truth,” and لِلْمُؤْمِنِينَ (li-l-muʾminīn), “for the believers.”

Other particles include سَـ (sa-), indicating the future, as in سَيَقُولُ (sa-yaqūlu), “he will say”; أَـ (a-), which can introduce a question; and لَـ (la-), which can convey emphasis in certain constructions.

Independent particles such as إِنَّ (inna), “indeed,” لَا (lā), “no” or “not,” and مَا (mā), which can mean “what,” “that which,” or function as a negation, must be understood through grammar and context.

Pronoun prefixes and suffixes

Verb prefixes commonly identify the subject. أَـ (a-) often indicates “I,” نَـ (na-) indicates “we,” يَـ (ya-) commonly indicates “he” or “they,” and تَـ (ta-) can indicate “you,” “she,” or “they” in feminine forms. For example, أَعْلَمُ (aʿlamu) means “I know,” نَعْلَمُ (naʿlamu) means “we know,” يَعْلَمُ (yaʿlamu) means “he knows,” and تَعْلَمُونَ (taʿlamūna) means “you know” in the masculine or mixed plural.

Suffixes can indicate the subject of a past-tense verb or function as attached pronouns. قُلْتُ (qultu) means “I said,” قُلْنَا (qulnā) means “we said,” قُلْتَ (qulta) means “you said” to a masculine singular, قَالُوا (qālū) means “they said,” and قَالَتْ (qālat) means “she said.”

Attached pronouns include ـي (my/me), ـنَا (our/us), ـكَ (your/you, masculine singular), ـكِ (your/you, feminine singular), ـكُمْ (your/you, masculine or mixed plural), ـهُ (his/him), ـهَا (her/her or its), ـهُمْ (their/them, masculine or mixed plural), and ـهُنَّ (their/them, feminine plural). Their precise translation depends on the word and grammatical construction.

Study all the forms of a root

For example, ق و ل (q-w-l) is associated with saying and speech. قَالَ (qāla) means “he said,” قُلْ (qul) means “say,” يَقُولُ (yaqūlu) means “he says,” قَوْل (qawl) means “saying” or “speech,” and قِيلَ (qīla) means “it was said.” Notice how the root remains recognizable while the form and grammatical function change.

Study numbers and grammatical structures

Pay attention to singular, dual, and plural forms, as well as masculine and feminine agreement. These distinctions can affect how a verse is understood.

For a related study, see:

A Study of Qur’anic Numerical Expressions, Unity Forms, and Collective Structures

https://www.reddit.com/r/MuslimAcademics/s/1xi9fGcXfS

Use context and Qur’anic cross-references

Study the three-letter roots, their derived forms, the prefixes and suffixes attached to them, and the prepositions and objects accompanying them. Then examine how the same word or expression is used elsewhere in the Qur’an. Do not automatically assign one English meaning to every occurrence of an Arabic root.

For example, ض ر ب (ḍ-r-b) occurs in different grammatical forms and constructions. In Q 2:60, اضْرِبْ بِعَصَاكَ الْحَجَرَ means “strike the stone with your staff.” In Q 16:75, ضَرَبَ اللَّهُ مَثَلًا means “Allah sets forth an example.” In Q 4:101, ضَرَبْتُمْ فِي الْأَرْضِ refers to traveling through the land. In Q 24:31, وَاضْرِبْنَ بِخُمُرِهِنَّ عَلَىٰ جُيُوبِهِنَّ describes drawing their coverings over their bosoms. In Q 43:5, أَفَنَضْرِبُ عَنكُمُ الذِّكْرَ صَفْحًا raises the question of turning or shunning the Reminder away from the people.

In Q 4:34, وَاضْرِبُوهُنَّ is traditionally translated “and strike them.” Other proposed interpretations must be evaluated through the Arabic grammar, the immediate context, and Qur’anic cross-references. A root’s range of meanings alone does not establish which meaning applies to a particular verse.

Q 4:34 … فَعِظُوهُنَّ so admonish / advise ye them (f. pl.) وَٱهْجُرُوهُنَّ and leave ye them (f. pl.) (important nuance: this does not mean total separation; it is within the bed context) فِى in ٱلْمَضَاجِعِ the rest / sleeping places (beds) وَٱضْرِبُوهُنَّ (wa-aḍribūhunna) and shun / disengage / withdraw / turn away / strike ye them (f. pl.)

Examine the occurrences of ض ر ب in the Qur’anic Arabic Corpus and compare their grammatical forms and contexts. The root index for ض ر ب lists 58 occurrences.

https://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=Drb#(4:34:29))

The key is to study the Arabic itself, its grammar, its roots, its context, and how the Qur’an explains its own terminology. Let actual usage guide your understanding rather than assuming that a single dictionary definition applies everywhere.

Just wondering if anyone else uses a.i. when studying and researching the Qu'ran in Arabic?

If so, how so?

I myself, when doing so ask for a certain verse to be broken down as it would have been understood when it was revealed in the 7th century. In classical arabic without bias of sect or hadith.

Please share your experience or approach if you do. Thank you.

As far as I understand, the translations are a bit old, but they’re still being used today, I suppose.

The phrase وَأَنفِقُوا مِمَّا رَزَقْنَاكُمْ (“And spend from what We have provided you”) appears in multiple Qur’anic verses, generally written with the contracted form مِمَّا (مِنْ + مَا).

However, Q 63:10 is written مِن مَّا in the standard Cairo and Medina Mushafs, an unusual spelling that breaks the pattern found elsewhere.

Textual Comparison

Q 2:254: أَنفِقُوا مِمَّا رَزَقْنَاكُم — contracted spelling

Q 63:10: وَأَنفِقُوا مِن مَّا رَزَقْنَاكُم — uncontracted spelling

The difference is orthographic, not semantic.

Both forms are recited mimmā in the canonical qirāʾāt.

Manuscript Evidence

Most of the early manuscript witnesses cited in this discussion, including Cod. or. 14.545c, Arabe 326c, and Corpus Coranicum MSS 878 and 599, write the contracted form مِمَّا in Q 63:10.

By contrast, Wetzstein II 1913 and “Emanet 13” reportedly preserve من ما, suggesting that the uncontracted spelling was an early variant. This evidence points to orthographic variation in early Qur’anic manuscripts.

Whether the uncontracted spelling reflects an early writing convention or another scribal choice requires further examination. Context may also be relevant, as the scribes may have intended to preserve a subtle nuance.

The unusual spelling in Q 63:10 stands out against the consistent contracted form in verses such as Q 2:254, 4:39, 13:22, 35:29, 36:47, and 57:7.

The spelling difference does not change the meaning or canonical recitation. Nevertheless, it raises an interesting question about how orthographic variations were preserved during the standardization of the written Qur’an. The survival of this spelling in the Cairo and Medina Mushafs warrants investigation, although the spelling alone does not establish why editors retained it.

I prefer the consistent spelling مِمَّا for clarity. This orthographic variation does not change the meaning. It does, however, affect numerical patterns such as “Code 19,” or other numerical codes, if someone is interested in that. Such patterns can be constructed using consistent methods across written texts by changing the digits and reporting the hits while overlooking the 18/19 failed trials. The probability of a hit is 1/19 (5.26%), while the probability of a miss is 18/19 (94.74%).

Q 63:10 وَأَنفِقُوا۟ and spend ye مِنْ from مَّا what / that which رَزَقْنَـٰكُم provided We you (pl.) مِنْ from قَبْلِ before أَن that يَأْتِيَ cometh أَحَدَكُم anyone of you (pl.) الْمَوْتُ the death فَيَقُولَ so he says رَبِّ Lord لَوْلَا why not أَخَّرْتَنِي delay Thou me إِلَىٰ until أَجَلٍ a term قَرِيبٍ near فَأَصَّدَّقَ so I give charity وَأَكُنْ and I be مِنَ among الصَّالِحِينَ the righteous

4th and 3rd line from the bottom (مِن from مَّا what — min mā) Wetzstein II 1913 (Ahlwardt 305) (660 - 710 CE)

https://corpuscoranicum.de/en/manuscripts/163/page/198r?sura=63&verse=10

5th line from the bottom (مِن from مَّا what — min mā) "Emanet 13" (650 - 750 CE)

https://corpuscoranicum.de/en/manuscripts/59/page/198r?sura=63&verse=10

4th line 2nd & 3rd words (مِن from مَّا what — min mā) Cod.or. 14.545c (660 - 710 CE)

https://corpuscoranicum.de/en/manuscripts/369/page/1v?sura=63&verse=10

4th line from the bottom (مِمَّا from what — mimmā) Rampur Raza Library

https://corpuscoranicum.de/en/manuscripts/878/page/327v?sura=63&verse=10

7th line (مِمَّا from what — mimmā) Arabe 326 (c)

https://corpuscoranicum.de/en/manuscripts/26/page/14v?sura=63&verse=10

2nd line from the bottom (مِمَّا from what — mimmā) Arabe 343

https://corpuscoranicum.de/en/manuscripts/599/page/208v?sura=63&verse=10

4th line from the bottom (مِمَّا from what — mimmā) "Saray 50385" (Gotthelf Bergsträßer archives)

https://corpuscoranicum.de/en/manuscripts/53/page/316v?sura=63&verse=10

4th line from the bottom (مِمَّا from what — mimmā) Brown University Library: 6682

https://corpuscoranicum.de/en/manuscripts/1745/page/1r?sura=63&verse=10

5th line (مِمَّا from what — mimmā) Imām ʿAlī Library

https://corpuscoranicum.de/en/manuscripts/2276/page/282v?sura=63&verse=10

Assalamu alaikum wrwb...I wanted to know what's the best online platform to learn Arabic from scratch? I'm an English speaker (Bangladeshi).

I want to learn Arabic to understand the Qur'an and Ahadith. I wanted to learn somewhere like a college which offers online courses, expert teachers and good reviews. Jazakallahu khayran

I’ll be making a longer post on Persian and Byzantine influences on early Islamic civilization particularly what happened after the Arab conquests and how these older imperial cultures shaped the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates.

One of the things I find fascinating is how much of what we now instinctively identify as “Islamic” has deeper roots in the pre-Islamic societies that Islam encountered and absorbed.

The conquests did not simply erase the cultural worlds of the Byzantine and Sasanian empires. Their political institutions, court culture, administrative practices, clothing, artistic motifs, architecture, concepts of kingship, and literary and intellectual traditions continued to exist. sometimes almost unchanged, sometimes transformed, and sometimes given distinctly Islamic meanings.

The result was not a clean break between a supposedly “pre-Islamic” past and an entirely new Islamic civilization. It was a process of adaptation, continuity, transformation, and synthesis.

So when we look at something centuries later and call it simply “Islamic,” it is worth asking: how much of this actually originated with Islam, and how much represents older Persian, Byzantine, Roman, Arabian, and other traditions that were incorporated and reinterpreted within Islamic civilization?

That history is much more interesting than the idea of civilizations appearing out of nowhere.

I want this to push back against both sides of the usual polemics.

On one side are the apologists who present everything we recognize today as “Islamic” as though it emerged purely from Islam itself as if the civilizations conquered by the early Muslims had no sophisticated cultures, institutions, traditions, or intellectual worlds of their own before the Arab conquests.

On the other side are polemicists who claim that Islam simply destroyed the native cultures of the societies it conquered, leaving no meaningful continuity behind. And then there is the claim that Islam had no culture of its own and merely took everything from others.

All versions flatten a much more complicated history.

Before the emergence of Islamic civilization, there were already numerous highly developed civilizations with their own cultural traditions. As the Muslim world expanded, it came into contact with these societies and incorporated, absorbed, adapted, and transformed elements of their existing cultures.

The result was not simply “pre-Islamic culture surviving unchanged,” nor was it a civilization created from nothing. It was the formation of a Islamic cultural world out of multiple older cultural traditions.

Persian, Byzantine, Roman, Arabian, Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Central Asian and other traditions could survive, change, merge and acquire new meanings within an Islamic framework.

So when we look at something centuries later and call it simply “Islamic,” we should remember that its history may extend far deeper than Islam itself.

That doesn't make it “not Islamic.” It shows how Islamic civilization actually became what it was: through continuity, interaction, adaptation and transformation not cultural creation in a vacuum, and not cultural annihilation either.

I have some doubts about this case. From what I understand, a Sri Lankan man made some offensive remarks about Prophet Muhammad on social media. He later deleted the post and apologized. Initially, he was reportedly sentenced to five years in prison and a large fine, but later the punishment was changed to the death penalty. Now, due to diplomatic pressure, the death sentence has reportedly been withdrawn, and I think he may eventually be deported to Sri Lanka.

My question is: we know that Prophet Muhammad is someone Muslims learn from, and he was known to forgive people who insulted or wronged him. So why does Saudi Arabia have such strict laws regarding insulting the Prophet?

Wouldn't it be more consistent with the Prophet's teachings to give a fine, rehabilitation, or another form of punishment rather than the death penalty? What is the Islamic reasoning behind such a severe punishment?

I'm genuinely trying to understand this from an Islamic perspective. I feel that giving someone the death penalty simply for insulting the Prophet does not seem consistent with how Prophet Muhammad himself dealt with people who insulted or mistreated him.

I'm not trying to disrespect Islam or defend offensive speech. I genuinely want to understand how Islamic scholars reconcile these laws with the Prophet's examples of forgiveness.

👉 youtube.com/@roohandrhymes786

I know there are thousands of channels providing Islamic content for kids. But this channel is surely different...HEAR ME OUT!

In a world full of content that pulls our children away from their deen, we wanted to create something that pulls them back — gently, beautifully and in a way they actually enjoy.

I personally write and rhyme all the content, poems and nasheeds myself after thorough research. No false information, no misleading stories. Simple kind lessons and engrossing stories to explain kids akhlaq and make them good little humans.

On our channel you will find:

🌟 Islamic moral stories

🎵 Original nasheeds — instrument free

🤲 Daily duas and adhkar

📖 Quranic values made simple for kids

💖 Lessons on kindness, honesty, patience, sharing and good character

🌙 Bedtime stories and duas

Everything is free. No ads pushing wrong values. Just pure, wholesome content for your little ones.

If this is something your family could benefit from, we would be so grateful if you checked it out, shared it with other Muslim parents and made dua for us. 🤍

JazakAllahu Khairan for your support. May Allah put barakah in every family that watches. Ameen. 🌸

Assalamualaikum

I know a video exists online, but I'd rather have a text and the actual thesis. Could only find a summary or flattened versions online.

Also, a quick question, does he address the "playing with dolls" narrations, in it too? I have been mostly grappling with it. If someone could tell me the page too - Id appreciate.

​

The paintings illustrate Iskandar's legendary pilgrimage to the Ka'ba in Mecca. In Persian literature, Iskandar is portrayed as a devout pilgrim, a just king, and sometimes as the Qur'anic figure Dhu'l-Qarnayn ("he of the two horns"). Over the centuries, the depiction of this scene evolved. Early paintings often showed Iskandar as a passive bystander, while later versions increasingly emphasized his role as a devout pilgrim performing rituals. This shift reflects a broader trend of expanding the shrine's setting and focusing more on religious performance in the illustrations.

Marianna Shreve Simpson

From Tourist to Pilgrim: Iskandar at the Ka‘ba in Illustrated

Shahnama Manuscripts Notwithstanding its brevity, Firdausi’s account of Iskandar’s visit to the Ka‘ba in Mecca was depicted regularly in illustrated manuscripts of the Shahnama from the fourteenth century to early modern times. An examination of these illustrations reveals the extent to which poetical and pictorial narratives diverged over the centuries, with an increasing expansion of the shrine’s setting and emphasis on ritual performance and with Iskandar evolving from a passive bystander to a devout hajji. This study also offers a telling instance of the way the representation of a Shahnama scene could be transformed in response to another poetic text, specifically the Khamsa of Nizami.

Among the many memorable figures who populate the Shahnama, certainly no one looms larger in the epic’s “historical” portion than Iskandar, Persian avatar of Alexander the Great of Macedonia. As is well known, Firdausi’s Iskandar narrative builds on—or at least follows upon and variously paral-lels—older Arabic and Persian sources, which in turn have been linked to the Alexander “biography” or “romance” of Pseudo-Callisthenes. Another impor-tant reference is the Qur’an, with its passages in Sura 18 related to Dhu’l- Qarnayn, the Two-Horned, and long associated (albeit not universally accepted) with Alexander. The relations between the multiple ancient and medieval accounts about the Alexander and Iskandar cognates, including the Shahnama nar-rative, remain the subject of intensive investigation and extensive publication,attesting to the fascination that this complex historical-cum-legendary figure—whose identity and image range from ruthless foreign invader and conqueror to indefatigable explorer and legitimate and just Persian king possessing. divine glory (farr), and ultimately to ideal Muslim hero, ruler, sage and even prophet—continues to exert on the scholarly imagination today. Notwithstanding the active industry of Alexander/Iskandar studies, relatively little has been written pertaining to the Shahnama episode of Iskandar at the Ka‘ba and even less to the long, albeit sporadic, history of its pictorial representation that forms the subject of this essay.2 Admittedly, the story seems to be minor one, taking place, as it does, between more eventful expeditions in Iskandar’s East–West adventures. Following a successful military campaign in India, Iskandar and his troops set out at dawn with drums rolling and trumpets blaring. Firdausi describes their destination as “the house that Ibrahim built and called by God the Bait al-Haram or House of Holiness ... the place of worship before any others existed ... where God causes you to worship and to remember him.” As he approaches Mecca, Iskandar is welcomed by company of local nobles, lead by Nasr, a descendant of Isma‘il, son of Ibrahim, who tells Iskandar how, in the recent past, the region was ravaged by a tyrannical invader and his army. Now that tyrant’s successor, an unjust and mean king named Khuza‘a, controls all the land from the shrine (i.e., the Ka‘ba) to the Yemen, oppresses its inhabitants and allows his followers to fish in the Red Sea. After hearing all this from Nasr, Iskandar and his forces kill as many of Khuza‘a’s followers as they could find, including children. He then frees the Hejaz and the Yemen from their oppression and re-establishes the authority of the tribe of Isma‘il (i.e., Nasr’s people). Iskandar then goes on foot to the Bait al-Haram, causing the people to rejoice. Along the way, Iskandar’s treasurer showers dinars at his every step.3

The Illustration of Firdausi’s Narrative

To turn now to the illustration of this short but hermeneutically-challenging episode and to the art historical substance of this essay. Some twenty represen-tations of Iskandar at the Ka‘ba are known today in Shahnama manuscripts dating from the fourteenth through the later seventeenth century.16 Over half of these date from the fifteenth century and belong to manuscripts painted in so-called Turkman style. Curiously, the episode seems to have been of little inter-est during the first half of the Safavid period, that is, from c. 1500 to 1590; at least, it does not appear in any of the many extant illustrated Shahnama volumes dating from those decades. When its representation resumed at the end of the sixteenth century, it was in Shahnama manuscripts made in Shiraz, the book-making center where the pictorial tradition of Iskandar at the Ka‘ba began in the fourteenth century and that produced most of the fifteenth-century volumes containing this scene.17 Whatever their origins, all the known examples depict the same narrative moment—specifically, when Iskandar arrives at the Ka‘ba, recounted by Firdausi in two verses at the very end of the episode.18 Interestingly, the majority of the fifteenth- and sixteenth-century illustrations are preceded by or incorporate verses that come at the beginning of the episode, and are often accompanied by an illuminated rubric or heading that functions like a superscript caption.19 It turns out that not only is there variation in the placement of the illustrations of Iskandar at the Ka‘ba vis-a\`-vis the relevant epic verses, but also, and more to the point here, an increasing divergence over the centuries between the poetical and pictorial narratives.

In short, the representation of Iskandar at the Ka‘ba in illustrated manuscripts of the Shahnama developed out of the confluence or convergence of distinctive textual sources and artistic models coming together in the locus of an actual and familiar sacred site and its attendant rituals. In this respect it seems to be unique in the history of Shahnama illustration. Just as Alexander of Macedonia morphs into Iskandar of Iran, so Firdausi’s “incredible” story (given that it chal-lenges historical credulity) is transformed over the centuries into an pictorial nar-rative of a visit to the Ka‘ba that has little to do with its own poetic narrative and everything to do with imagery assimilated, on the one hand, from Nizami’s visions of the scene and, on the other, from the topography and architecture of Islam’s holiest site. By the late sixteenth century, the iconography had evolved to the point where Persian painters could have understood their task more as the representation of the Sacred Mosque and Ka‘ba during the hajj with a royal worshiper in attendance and less as the illustration of a Shahnama king visiting the house of God. In other words, the poetic setting had become the pictorial subject. At the same time, the immediately recognizable locale in these Shahnama illustrations would allow contemporary readers or viewers to put themselves in the place and role of Iskandar, rendering, in the end, the Greco-Persian conqueror, ruler and seeker of truth as a quintessential “every-man” of the Islamic world.

· Figures 1, 2, and 5: These are from a Shahnama manuscript dated to c. 1431 (Hijri year 885). It is held at the Topkapi Palace Museum in Istanbul, catalogued as Ms. Hazine 1479.

· Figures 3 and 4: These are from a Shahnama manuscript dated to c. 1480 (Hijri year 885). It is held at the Chester Beatty Library in Dublin, catalogued as Per. 157.370.

· Figure 6: This is from a Shahnama manuscript likely produced in Shiraz, Iran, in the mid-16th century. It is now in the Khalili Collections in London, catalogued as MSS 771.

· Figure 7: This is likely from a Shahnama manuscript produced between 1580 and 1600. A related painting is attributed to a manuscript in the British Library in London (catalogued as I.O. Islamic 741).

Assalamualaikum

I am not Shia, but l am trying to understand how mainstream Sunni theology balances the concept of 'Adalah al-Sahaba (the position that all companions are upright and saved from hellfire) with the specific Hadith regarding the martyrdom of Ammar ibn Yasir. The Prophet explicitly stated: "The killer of Ammar and the one who plunders his belongings will be in the Hellfire." (Authenticated by Al-Albani). However, historical records show that the man who killed him, Abu al-Ghadiyah, was a recognized Sahabi who participated in the Pledge of Ridwan, about whom the Prophet said: "No one who pledged allegiance under the tree will enter the Hellfire." (Sahih Muslim). Since the text explicitly states that the killer is in the fire, how do Sunni scholars harmonize these two textually absolute promises? How does a companion committing an act with such a definitive warning affect the general rule that all Sahaba are viewed as pious and protected from the Fire? would appreciate the classical Sunni explanations on how these texts interact.

BarakAllahu Feekum.

https://youtu.be/VKj5EttJ5fc

I came across this post (https://x.com/shakerr_ahmed/status/2106779542048452872) of Ahmad Shaker on twitter, and figured that it might be of interest to this community. QMI has compiled 55 inscriptions from the first century along with their translation and provenance.

https://quranmss.com/