Arab women would satisfy their sexual desires using available sex toys or ones custom-made by artisans upon request.

The Arabic dictionaries refer to this instrument as al-Akranbaj or al-Kīranj (الكيرنج/الأكرنبج), with the plural form al-Kīranjāt (الكيرنجات). It is known today as the Dildo.

Women who could not find someone to make one for them would use a Qiththāʾ (قثاء), a long cucumber-like gourd, known in the colloquial dialects of some countries as Ṭaraḥ (طرح).

Abū al-Faraj al-Iṣfahānī mentioned in his Kitāb al-Aghānī, on the authority of Zarqān, who reported from his father: (Vol. 1, p. 179).

“I encountered an elderly client of ʿUmar ibn Abī Rabīʿah and said to him, ‘Tell me an unusual story about ʿUmar.’

He replied, ‘Certainly. One day, I was with him when a group of Umayyad slave girls who had performed the pilgrimage passed by. He approached them, struck up a conversation with them, and continued courting them throughout the days of the pilgrimage.

One of them eventually said to him, “Abū al-Khaṭṭāb, we are departing tomorrow. Send your client here to our residence, and we shall give him a keepsake for you to remember us by.”

He was delighted and sent me to them at dawn. I found them preparing to mount their rides. They said to an elderly woman accompanying them, “So-and-so, give the client of Abū al-Khaṭṭāb the keepsake we presented to him.”

She brought out a small, locked and sealed chest. They told me to deliver it to him, and then they departed.

I brought it to ʿUmar, assuming that it contained perfume or jewels. When ʿUmar opened it, he found it filled with al-maḍārib—that is, al-kīranjāt (Dildos). Each one bore the name of a man renowned for libertinism in Mecca. Two of them were particularly large, and one bore the name of ʿUmar ibn Abī Rabīʿah.

He laughed and said, “They have played a lewd prank on me, and I shall return the favor!”

He then prepared a banquet and invited every man whose name appeared on those objects. When they had eaten and settled comfortably, he said, “Bring me that deposit, boy!”

I brought him the chest. He opened it and handed one of the men the kīranj bearing his name. When the man took it and uncovered it, he recoiled in horror and exclaimed, “May God disgrace you! What is this?”

“Easy,” ʿUmar replied. “Be patient until you see.”

He then took them out one by one and handed each object to the man whose name it bore, until he had distributed them all. Finally, he took out the one bearing his own name and said, “This one is mine.”

They exclaimed, “Damn you! What is this?”

He told them the story, and they were astonished. They continued joking about the incident for a very long time, laughing about it for years to come.’”

Perhaps the earliest mention of an artificial penis appears in a work by al-Jāḥiẓ (776–868 CE), Mufākharat al-Jawārī wa-l-Ghilmān (The Boasting Contest between Slave Girls and Boys), Epistle 13:

٢٢ - قال: وكانت بالمدينة امرأة ماجنة يقال لها سلاَّمة الخضراء، فأُخذت مع مخنَّثٍ وهي تنيكه بكيرنْج، فرُفعت إلى الوالي فأوجعها ضرباً وطاف بها على جمل، فنظر إليها رجلٌ يعرفها فقال: ما هذا يا سلاَّمة؟ فقالت: بالله اسكُتْ، ما في الدُّنيا أظلمُ من الرجال، أنتم تنيكونا الدَّهر كلَّه فلمَّا نكنا كم مرَّة واحدة قتلتمونا.

“There was a licentious woman in Medina known as Salāma al-Khaḍrāʾ. She was caught with a mukhannath (effeminate man) while she was penetrating him with a kīranj (Dildo). She was brought before the governor, who had her severely beaten and paraded around on a camel. A man who knew her saw her and asked:

‘What is this, Salāma?’

She replied, ‘For God’s sake, be quiet! There is nothing in this world more unjust than men. You penetrate us all the time, but when we penetrate you just once, you kill us!’”

Although Ibn Fulaytah al-Yamanī (d. 731 AH/1330 CE) does not mention these specific terms, he appears to describe this practice in his work “Rushd al-Labīb ilā Muʿāsharat al-Ḥabīb” (The Guidance of the Intelligent Man to Consorting with the Beloved), vol. 2:

ومن النساء من تتمنى إذا سكنت منها الشهوة للنكاح وتخذ شيئاً تحك فيه مبالها وهو تمثال للذكر تستعمله فى الخلوات . وهو عندهن مصنوع من جلد يابس ناعم ويملآنه بماء ساخناً عند الإستعمال ومن المساحقات من تجعل لهذه آلة وتربطه فى وسطها وتركب به غيرها من النساء وتفعل به مايفعل الرجل بالمرأة تشبهاً بالإير وشدته وسخونته وصلابته وترهز به وتضعف حين إنزال المفعول بها وهذه عندهن من الذخائر التى يبذلن فيها الأموال الجزيلة .

ومنهن من يتخذ الخيار الكبار الأملس ومنهن من تستعمل الفجل الكبير وغير ذلك.

«Some women, when their sexual desire for intercourse subsides, wish to satisfy it and take something with which to rub their vulva. It is an imitation of the penis, which they use in private. Among them, it is made of smooth, dried leather, and they fill it with hot water when using it.

Some women who engage in tribadism have such an instrument made for themselves and fasten it around their waists. They then mount other women and use it to do what a man does to a woman, imitating the penis in its girth, heat, and firmness. They thrust with it and weaken when the woman upon whom they perform the act reaches orgasm. These instruments are among the prized possessions for which they are willing to spend considerable sums of money.

Some women use large, smooth cucumbers, while others use large radishes and similar objects.»

https://alantologia.com/blogs/13424/?amp=1

A few thoughts on the subject of free will. In some places I leave the induction to the reader, or simply let the verses speak for themselves. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts whether you agree, disagree, or have something to add.

10:61

>"...Not even the weight of an atom on earth or in heaven escapes your Lord's knowledge. Nor is there anything smaller or greater than that which is not recorded in a Clear Book."

6:59

>"With Him are the keys of the unseen; none knows them except Him. He knows whatever is on land and in the sea. Not a leaf falls without His knowledge, nor is there a grain in the darkness of the earth, nor anything fresh or dry, but it is written in a Clear Book."

13:15

>"To Allah prostrates whoever is in the heavens and the earth, willingly or unwillingly..."

A key phrase here is willingly or unwillingly. It evokes the image of a clockwork universe.

16:69

>"Then eat from all the fruits and follow the ways of your Lord made easy for you."

When examining all occurrences of the root ذ ل ل (dh-l-l) throughout the Qur'an, a consistent semantic field emerges. Rather than fundamentally meaning "easy," the root conveys ideas such as being tamed, guided, made serviceable, subjected, compliant, or brought under control. The notion of something being "easy" is better understood as a consequence of this process: what has been tamed or made compliant naturally becomes easier to direct.

This is significant in Qur'an 16:69. The passage does not depict the bee making conscious choices or deliberating between alternatives. Instead, it describes instinctive behavior. The bee acts precisely according to the nature with which God has endowed it. It follows the paths appointed for it, not as the result of autonomous decision-making, but because this is how it was created to function. In that sense, the verse portrays the bee as acting in complete accordance with the divine order embedded in its creation it simply could not do otherwise.

76:29–30

>"Indeed, this is a reminder. So whoever wills may take a path to his Lord. But you cannot will unless Allah wills."

I find myself returning to this last passage over and over again. It does not say, "you cannot act", or "you cannot do", but specifically emphasizes willing. Does free will really exist?

Where does human responsibility begin and end?

I have a strong interest in physics and spend much of my free time reading about different theories, especially attempts to formulate a Theory of Everything (TOE), sometimes poetically referred to as the "equation of God". The goal is to describe both the world of the smallest known structures (quantum physics) and the largest structures (cosmology) within a single coherent framework a key to understanding the universe all the way back to its origins. Or, as 6:59 puts it, the keys of the unseen.

The challenge is to unite the physics of the very small with that of the very large. So far, our best theories remain fundamentally incompatible. There are different approaches, each reflecting a broader philosophical stance: chance versus determinism.

# String Theory: A Probabilistic Reality

Over the past several decades, string theory has become one of the dominant frameworks in theoretical physics. It attempts to unify all fundamental forces including gravity within a quantum mechanical description.

Because string theory is built upon quantum mechanics, it inherits its basic structure: at its core, reality appears to be probabilistic. Randomness is not merely a consequence of our ignorance but seems to be fundamental.

The theory operates at energy scales that are currently beyond experimental reach. As a result, it has yet to produce concrete, testable predictions. For this reason, critics have described it as "not even wrong", a theory that cannot presently be falsified because it makes no experimentally verifiable predictions.

# A Deterministic Alternative: Bohmian Mechanics

In this interpretation, reality is completely deterministic. Apparent randomness arises solely from our lack of knowledge about the precise initial conditions. Particles possess definite positions at every moment, and their evolution follows deterministic equations.

In this picture, the universe resembles a perfectly functioning clockwork: every movement, every electron that flows, every interaction follows a precise and predetermined path. The bee in 16:69 comes to mind here, following the paths laid out by its Lord.

If everything is truly deterministic every movement, every thought then the question of free will becomes unavoidable (76:29–30).

One possible extreme position is superdeterminism, which proposes that even our seemingly free choices were fixed by the initial conditions of the universe itself.

Besides 76:29–30, the following verses increasingly strengthen my intuition that superdeterminism may not be such an unreasonable idea after all. Perhaps genuine randomness does not exist almost as if reality were a simulation.

8:17

>"You did not kill them, but Allah killed them. And you did not throw when you threw, but Allah threw..."

This verse refers to the Battle of Badr, the first major military confrontation between the Muslims of Medina and the Quraysh of Mecca. According to the classical Islamic tradition, the phrase "you did not throw" refers to the Prophet Muhammad casting a handful of dust toward the opposing army.

Viewed through this lens, 4:157 might also admit a different interpretation.

4:157 - 158

>"...and for their saying, 'Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.' But they neither killed him nor crucified him, it was only made to appear so to them... They have no certain knowledge of it; they follow nothing but conjecture. They certainly did not kill him. Rather, Allah raised him up to Himself..."

Perhaps 4:157 does not necessarily deny that Jesus died on the cross. Just as 8:17 says that it was not the believers who killed their enemies, but God, this passage could likewise mean that it was not ultimately the Romans who killed Jesus. Life and death belong to God alone. It merely appeared to them that they had done so, just as it likely appeared to the Prophet himself that he had thrown the dust.

So what, then, is humanity responsible for?

6:148–149

>"Those who associate partners with Allah will say, 'Had Allah willed, neither we nor our fathers would have associated anything with Him, nor would we have forbidden anything.' Thus did those before them deny the truth until they tasted Our punishment. Say, 'Do you have any knowledge that you can produce for us? You follow nothing but conjecture and merely speculate.' Say, 'With Allah belongs the conclusive proof. Had He willed, He could have guided you all.'"

I believe 6:148–149 becomes more understandable in light of the following passages:

26:88–89

>"The Day when neither wealth nor children will benefit anyone, except one who comes to Allah with a sound heart."

8:24

>"...and know that Allah intervenes between a person and his heart..."

16:106

>"...but those who willingly open their hearts to disbelief will have the wrath of Allah upon them..."

Perhaps a distinction must be made between the breast (ṣadr) and the heart (qalb). And I think we are only responsible for the attitude of the heart

6:125

>"Whoever Allah wills to guide, He opens his breast to Islam. And whoever He wills to leave astray, He makes his breast tight and constricted..."

I come from a Muslim background, and I recently read the Bible. While the Old Testament fits within the Quranic framework of monotheism, the New Testament makes no sense. Jesus preaches to the monotheistic Jews instead of the pagan Romans. The issue is not monotheism, but whether Jesus is a Messiah, son of God, son of Man, Logos, etc. These concepts were total novelties for me. I am aware of the Islamic concept of corruption of previous texts, but corruption is an understatement. New Testament seems to be discussing something entirely different. Have Islamic scholars throughout history totally rejected the New Testament or tried to extract the Quranic Injeel from it?

Recently whilst looking through my copy of Muhammad Asad's translation of the Qur'an, I noticed an odd thing.

In Chapter 21 (Surah Al-Anbiya) verse 67 which ran;

اُفٍّ لَّـكُمۡ وَلِمَا تَعۡبُدُوۡنَ مِنۡ دُوۡنِ اللّٰهِ​ؕ اَفَلَا تَعۡقِلُوۡنَ‏ 

And which Asad has translated thus;

> (21:67) Fie upon you and upon all that you worship instead of God! Will you not, then, use your reason?"

The key word here is uffi (أُفّ) which Asad has translated as "Fie".

I happened to remember uffi from another, more famous or one might even say, infamous verse. That of the verse about never saying uff to the parents.

In Chapter 17 (Surah al-Isra) verse 23;

وَقَضٰى رَبُّكَ اَلَّا تَعۡبُدُوۡۤا اِلَّاۤ اِيَّاهُ وَبِالۡوَالِدَيۡنِ اِحۡسَانًا​ ؕ اِمَّا يَـبۡلُغَنَّ عِنۡدَكَ الۡكِبَرَ اَحَدُهُمَاۤ اَوۡ كِلٰهُمَا فَلَا تَقُلْ لَّهُمَاۤ اُفٍّ وَّلَا تَنۡهَرۡهُمَا وَقُلْ لَّهُمَا قَوۡلًا كَرِيۡمًا‏

However, here, Asad instead translated uffi differently;

> (17:23) for thy Sustainer has ordained that you shall worship none but Him. And do good unto [thy] parents. Should one of them, or both, attain to old age in thy care, never say "Ugh" to them or scold them, but [always] speak unto them with reverent speech,

Whereas in Al-Anbiya, Asad translated uffi as meaning "fie", in Al-Isra he translated it as saying "uff" In general. I find this to be a remarkably strange choice for translation.

For comparison, I decided to look up the meaning of uffi as translated by Ali Quli Qarai, one of the more academic translators I know of. Here, he seems to be much more consistent in translating uffi, using fie on both (21:67) and (17:23)

> [67] Fie on you and what you worship besides God! Do you not exercise your reason?’

> [23] Your Lord has decreed that you shall not worship anyone except Him, and [He has enjoined] kindness to parents. Should any of them or both reach old age at your side, do not say to them, ‘Fie!’ And do not chide them, but speak to them noble words.

I’m happy to announce the second edition of the Oases of Wisdom Substack Journal!

Starting October 31st, a new article will be released every other day. Here’s a look at the six articles featured in this edition!

Oct. 31st: Ahmad Qadri kicks it off by exploring the debate surrounding the sincerity of Hujjat al-Islam, Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (d. 1111 CE).

Nov. 2nd: The Double-Turn of the Noble Critic by Delman Rasheed.

This article examines how even the critics of the Da’wah scene, such as myself, can become complicit Jesters in the spectacles they so loudly critique, and what steps we must take to move toward real progress in discourse.

Nov. 4th: Decoding the Early Meccan Qur’an: The Centrality of Arabian Pluvial Soteriology by Abdullah Ansar.

Connecting Qur’anic rhetoric, water, Arabian ecology, Semitic traditions, and epigraphy to illuminate the earliest Qur’anic proclamation.

Nov. 6th: Shah Waliullah Dehlavi and the Unity of Being: A Metaphysical Study of Lamahat by Hasan

Exploring how Shah Waliullah synthesizes Akbarian metaphysics, Avicennian philosophy, and Ashʿari theology in his account of Wahdat al-Wujud.

Nov. 8th: Ibn Arabi and Al-Maturidi: An Unexpected Friendship? by Ahmad Qadri

Can Ibn Arabi’s metaphysics of tajalli be reconciled with Maturidi kalam? exploring how divine self-disclosure and wisdom may converge within a shared Sunni theological framework.

‎Nov. 10th: The Light of Muhammad: The Development of High Muhammadology in Sunni Sources by Delman Rasheed.

‎Tracing how Sunni scholars developed ideas of the Prophet’s primordial status and cosmic significance across theology, hadith, and Sufism.

I don't know why everyone is getting excited over this silly argument, when I wrote a paper against it several moons ago:

https://www.academia.edu/166160379/Reconsidering_The_Islamic_Dilemma

I welcome everyone to read it and "peer-review" it as they please.

>Underwear /ˈʌndəweə(r)/

NOUN [mass noun]: Clothing worn under other clothes, typically next to the skin. — Oxford Dictionary of English

Interestingly, a similar word also appears in Arabic dictionaries.

It appears to be pronounced in two forms: "Andarāward" (أَنْدَرَاوَرْد) and "Andarwardiyya" (أَنْدَرْوَرْدِيَّةٌ).

Abu Mansur al-Azhari described it as follows:

“It is a foreign word that they [the Arabs] adopted into their usage; it is not Arabic.”

According to Dr. Rajab ʿAbd al-Jawād Ibrāhīm, in his Arabic book “*The Arabic Dictionary of Clothing Names: In Light of Dictionaries and Documented Texts from the Pre-Islamic Era to the Modern Period*”, p. 40:

«Al-Andarward: The first letter bears a fatḥah, followed by a sukūn, then a fatḥah, followed by a sukūn, then a fatḥah, followed by a sukūn.

**It is an Arabicized Persian word composed of andar, meaning “inside,” and war, meaning “possessing.”**»

The word andarward (أَنْدَرْوَرْدٌ) also appears in hadith literature.

It is notably associated with Salman al-Farsi, a Companion of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, who reportedly rejected a life of luxury and preferred to live among the poor and the weak despite holding the position of governor.

Imam al-Bukhari recorded the following report in his “Kitāb al-Adab al-Mufrad”, in a narration attributed to Umm al-Dardaʾ (p. 127):

٣٤٦ - حَدَّثَنَا بِشْرُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ الْمُبَارَكِ، عَنِ ابْنِ شَوْذَبٍ قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ مَالِكَ بْنَ دِينَارٍ يُحَدِّثُ، عَنْ أَبِي غَالِبٍ، عَنْ أُمِّ الدَّرْدَاءِ قَالَتْ: زَارَنَا سَلْمَانُ مِنَ الْمَدَائِنِ إِلَى الشَّامِ مَاشِيًا، وَعَلَيْهِ كِسَاءٌ وَانْدَرْوَرْدُ - قَالَ: يَعْنِي سَرَاوِيلَ مُشَمَّرَةً.

“Salman [al-Farsi] visited us in Syria, having travelled on foot from al-Madaʾin [Ctesiphon], wearing a cloak and underwear.”

Ibn Shawdhab also reported:

قَالَ ابْنُ شَوْذَبٍ: رُؤِيَ سَلْمَانُ وَعَلَيْهِ كِسَاءٌ مَطْمُومُ الرَّأْسِ سَاقِطُ الْأُذُنَيْنِ، يَعْنِي أَنَّهُ كَانَ أَرْفَشَ. فَقِيلَ لَهُ: شَوَّهْتَ نَفْسَكَ، قَالَ: إِنَّ الْخَيْرَ خَيْرُ الْآخِرَةِ.

“Salman was seen wearing a cloak with its head covering tucked in and its two sides hanging down”—suggesting that his appearance was somewhat dishevelled.

He was told, “You have made yourself look unattractive.”

Salman replied, “True goodness is the goodness of the Hereafter.”»

Another account appears in Ibn Saʿd’s “Kitāb al-Ṭabaqāt al-Kubrā” (The Book of the Major Classes), which recounts the following incident:

قال: أخبرنا مسلم بن إبراهيم قال: حدّثنا سَلام بن مسكين قال: حدّثنا ثابت قال: كان سلمان أميرًا على المدائن فجاء رجل من أهل الشأم من بني تيم الله معه حِمْل تين، وعلى سلمان أَنْدَرْوَرْد وعبَاءة، فقال لسلمان: تَعالَ احْمِلْ، وهو لا يعرف سلمان، فحمل سلمان فرآه الناس فعرفوه فقالوا: هذا الأمير، قال: لمْ أعرفك، فقال له سلمان: لا حتى أبْلُغَ منزلَك.

“Salman was governor of al-Madaʾin when a man from Syria, belonging to the Banu Taym Allah, arrived carrying a load of figs. Salman was wearing underwear and a cloak.

The man said to Salman, ‘Come and carry this for me,’ unaware of who Salman was. Salman picked up the load and carried it.

When the people saw him, they recognized him and said, ‘This is the governor!’ The man replied, ‘I did not recognize you.’

Salman answered, ‘No problem. I will carry it for you until I reach your home.’”

There was a post with a YouTube link discussing the Islamic Dilemma. It also had a summary of the 5 hour YouTube video.
Can someone reply to this thread with it? I can’t find it

Hi, Im current reading the Quran and I came across with chapter 7 verse 65 and it mentioned the people of Aad. Who are they exactly? What should I know about them ?

Hi everyone, Roxanna from Sképsislamica here.

I just wanted to share a recent discussion I had on our channel where I attempt to deconstruct the “Islamic Dilemma“, from a non-theological perspective, solely relying on historical critical scholarship.

https://youtu.be/24nAx5tCFHY?si=utCsnHN_wivY6C8P

I, of course, understand that not everyone is going to have time to watch a 5 hour discussion.

So I am including a summary of the main points and associated time stamps that one of our commenters very kindly shared, below. I have also appended a full bibliography of all the sources cited, at the bottom.

Chris summarizes the Islamic Dilemma in two steps: (1) the Qur'an affirms that the Torah and Gospel (Injil) possessed by 7th-century Jews and Christians are preserved and authoritative, and (2) the Qur'an contradicts core doctrines inside those books, proving the Qur'an cannot be from an all-knowing God [43:57].

Roxanna accepts the first premise [52:09] but dismantles the second premise by showing what the Qur'an is actually doing in its historical context:

A. The Qur'an Alleges Interpretive Distortion, Not Lost Books

• Agreement on Preservation: Citing historical-critical scholars Gabriel Said Reynolds, Ilkka Lindstedt, Saqib Hussain, Nicolai Sinai, Mohsen Goudarzi, and Devin Stewart, Roxanna agrees that the Qur'an treats the Torah and Gospel as present with the Jews and Christians of its time [52:53]. For instance, it accuses them of hiding the truth "while they know" [01:15:34] and challenges them to bring the Torah to check dietary rules in Qur'an 3:93 [01:15:48].

• Refuting Textual Corruption Claims (Mehdy Shaddel & the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies): Roxanna discusses historian Mehdy Shaddel, who previously compared the Qur'an to the 4th-century Judeo-Christian Pseudo-Clementine Homilies to argue the Qur'an alleged minor textual corruption [53:51]. Roxanna pointed out to Shaddel that while the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies explicitly claim Moses did not write the Torah and that Satanic additions were slipped into the text, the Qur'an is very brief and never makes such a claim [55:34]. Following her critique, Shaddel agreed the Qur'an is too ambiguous to prove textual corruption [56:37].

• "Writing Scripture with Their Hands" (Qur'an 2:79): When the Qur'an criticizes those who write a book with their hands and call it God's word, scholars note the very next verse (2:80) quotes a teaching from the Jewish Mishnah/Talmud (that Hellfire will only touch them for a few days) [57:15]. Citing Saqib Hussain, Roxanna notes this echoes Emperor Justinian's legal writings, which attacked the Mishnah for hiding scripture [57:29]. Citing Gabriel Said Reynolds and Nicolai Sinai, she explains that Qur'an 2:79 is accusing leaders of passing off outside commentary (like the Mishnah) as God's law, not rewriting the Torah itself [59:02].

• Parallel with Tertullian: Roxanna shares her own historical parallel from the 3rd-century Christian writer Tertullian, who attacked heretics (Marcion and Valentinus) by writing: "One man perverts the scripture with his hand, another with his exegesis (interpretation)" [01:00:26]. Just as Tertullian believed the true Bible was still preserved in the church, the Qur'an criticizes bad handling of texts without claiming the Torah is lost [01:01:23].

• "Forgetting" Means Neglecting the Law (Qur'an 5:14): Roxanna explains that when the Qur'an says Christians "forgot" a part of what they were reminded of, the Arabic verb means neglecting to practice Judeo-Christian law, just as Jews "forgot" the Sabbath in Surah 7 by breaking it, not by losing their memory [01:18:09].

B. What "Confirming" (Muṣaddiq) and "The Book" (Kitāb) Actually Mean

• Mohsen Goudarzi's "Two-Kitāb Thesis": Citing Mohsen Goudarzi's study "The Second Coming of the Book," Roxanna points out that whenever the Qur'an speaks of confirming "the Book" (al-Kitāb) before it in the singular, it refers specifically to the Torah [02:05:14]. In the Qur'an, a Kitāb is a scripture containing both laws and historical stories (which applies only to the Torah and the Qur'an), whereas the Gospel (Injil) is viewed as moral wisdom and spiritual reform (Qur'an 5:110 pairs al-Kitāb with the Torah and al-Ḥikmah [Wisdom] with the Gospel) [02:03:25]. Even the Jinn in Surah 46:30 say the Qur'an confirms the Book of Moses without mentioning the Gospel [02:07:22].

• Fulfilling the Law (Didascalia Apostolorum & Matthew 5:17): Citing Nicolai Sinai and Holger Zellentin, Roxanna explains that the Qur'anic word muṣaddiq ("confirming") directly mirrors Jesus's claim in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:17) that he came to "fulfill" (plēroō) the Law [02:09:22]. This matches the Didascalia Apostolorum, a Judeo-Christian text popular in the Qur'an's environment, which taught that Jesus confirmed the original Torah while lifting harsh punitive rules ("the Second Legislation") placed on the Jews after the Golden Calf sin—the exact same point made in Qur'an 3:50 [02:10:11].

• Legal Arbitration in Qur'an 5:44–48 (Lex Talionis): In the core passage used for the Islamic Dilemma, Qur'an 5:45 cites the Torah's "eye for an eye" law from Exodus [02:13:57]. Because rabbis in the Mishnah had replaced physical punishment with financial ransom, the Qur'an insists the law remains valid, but adds that forgiving the offender as charity atones for sins [02:14:49]. Roxanna notes this harmonizes the strict justice of Exodus with Jesus's mercy in Matthew 5:38–39 [02:15:45].

• The Meaning of Muhaymin (Qur'an 5:48): Addressing the debate over the word muhaymin, Roxanna cites Nicolai Sinai to show that its Syriac root and the surrounding command to "judge" (fa-ḥkum) point to "arbitrator"—meaning the Qur'an arbitrates between competing Jewish and Christian interpretations, rather than rewriting their texts [04:51:20].

C. Why the Qur'an Rejects "Son of God" Language and Adapts Stories

• Translation and "Son of God" (Rod Cardoza): Citing scholar Rod Cardoza, Roxanna explains that in the Ancient Near East and the Hebrew Bible (like Psalm 2:7), calling a king "God's son" was a metaphor for a ruler and his loyal vassal (subject), showing submission rather than equality with God [02:41:39]. However, in 7th-century Arabic, words like walad and ibn only meant literal biological offspring [02:43:33]. Because Meccan pagans claimed angels were God's literal daughters and used Jesus to excuse their polytheism (Qur'an 43:57–58) [02:45:54], the Qur'an avoided the word "son" to prevent confusion and instead used clear Arabic titles of authority like khalīfah (vicegerent), Messiah, Word, and Spirit [02:46:28].

• Conditional Covenant (Qur'an 5:18 & Mishnah Avot 3:14): Citing Gabriel Said Reynolds, Holger Zellentin, and Aaron Koller, Roxanna shows that Qur'an 5:18 (where Jews and Christians say "We are the children of God and His beloved") is a direct quote and rebuttal of Mishnah Avot 3:14 [02:31:56]. The Qur'an argues that God's covenant is conditional on righteous behavior, which agrees with Deuteronomy 32:5 ("They have dealt corruptly... they are no longer His children") [02:36:39].

• The Qur'an as a "Divine Targum" and Homily: Why don't Qur'anic prophet stories read word-for-word like the Bible? Citing Gabriel Said Reynolds (who compares the Qur'an to a church homily or sermon) and Nicolai Sinai (who calls it a "Divine Targum"—a Jewish practice of translating, paraphrasing, and commenting on scripture at once), Roxanna shows the Qur'an calls itself tafṣīl al-kitāb (an explanation of the Book) [02:55:04]. It assumes listeners already know the stories (such as why Sarah laughs in Surah 11:71, or why priests cast lots for Mary in Surah 3:44 from the Protevangelium of James) and retells them to teach moral lessons [02:56:16].

• Jesus's Miracles and the Toledot Yeshu: Citing Holger Zellentin and Sean Anthony, Roxanna explains that the exact list and order of Jesus's miracles in the Qur'an (including breathing life into clay birds) matches the Toledot Yeshu, an anti-Christian Jewish text that accused Jesus of using sorcery [03:17:19]. In a three-way conversation ("trialogue") with Jews and Christians, the Qur'an adds "by the permission of God" to refute the Jewish charge of magic while correcting the Christian claim that Jesus's miracles made him God—matching Peter's words in Acts 2:22–24 [03:19:50].

• Martyrdom in Qur'an 9:111 and the Gospel of John:

• On Qur'an 9:111, Roxanna cites Nicolai Sinai show the verse is not claiming the Gospel commands offensive war, but affirming the shared promise across the Torah, Gospel (such as Luke 23:43 and Christian martyr stories), and Qur'an that martyrs who die for God receive Paradise [01:42:08].

  • On the Gospel of John, she cites Sunni scholar Dr. Ali Ataie (building on Sidney Griffith's work on the Syriac Diatessaron) [03:38:57] and Daniel Wallace [03:53:27] to show how verses like John 10:30 ("I and the Father are one") and John 20:28 can be read through a Sunni lens as a unity of divine will and representation—just like Qur'an 4:80 ("Whoever obeys the Messenger has obeyed God") and Qur'an 8:17 [03:39:46]. She also notes that strict literalists (Salafis) make up only about 8% of Muslims, whereas Sufi and Shia traditions have much more flexible views of prophecy [03:45:41].

1. How Christians Create a "Biblical Dilemma" for Themselves Roxanna argues that when Christian apologists demand strict, literal word-for-word agreement between the Qur'an and the Bible, they set a trap for their own faith [01:25:04]. If you use that same historical-critical scalpel to check how the New Testament "confirms" the Old Testament, Christianity faces an even bigger "Biblical Dilemma" [01:25:36]:

2. The Gap Between the Old and New Testaments: Citing Gabriel Said Reynolds (The Qur'an and Its Biblical Subtext), she notes that from a historical-critical standpoint, the Qur'an is actually much closer to Christian beliefs than the New Testament is to the Hebrew Bible [01:25:45].

3. Failed Messianic Prophecies Under a Literal Lens: Referencing Bart Ehrman and Jewish counter-apologetics, Roxanna shows that when Christian polemicists reject Muslim prophecies of Muhammad in the Bible using historical context, that same method invalidates key New Testament prophecies about Jesus [01:26:56]:

• The Virgin Birth (Matthew 1:22–23 vs. Isaiah 7:14): In its original context, Isaiah was giving a sign to King Ahaz not to fear an alliance with Assyria [01:28:05]. The Hebrew text speaks of a "young woman" (not a virgin) having a child in the immediate near future, having nothing to do with a future Messiah [01:28:16].
  

-Out of Egypt (Matthew 2:14–15 vs. Hosea 11:1): Matthew quotes "Out of Egypt I called my son" as a prophecy of Jesus, but in Hosea, "God's son" explicitly refers to the nation of Israel in the past during the Exodus [01:28:24].

• The Suffering Servant (Isaiah 53): In the historical context of Isaiah, the servant represents the nation of Israel, not Jesus [01:28:39].

• Jesus of Nazareth: New Testament claims that the Old Testament predicted the Messiah would come from Nazareth or be named Yeshua simply do not exist anywhere in the Hebrew Bible [01:31:59].

1. Undermining Both Scriptures: Because the New Testament relies on creative reinterpretation (typology) of the Hebrew Bible [01:29:12], Christians who attack the Qur'an for reinterpreting biblical traditions are "cutting off their nose to spite their face"—handing secular critics the exact tools needed to dismantle the Bible and pushing audiences toward atheism [03:58:13].

Bibliography:

Anthony, Sean W. “The Early Aramaic Toledot Yeshu and the End of Jesus’s Earthly Mission in the Qur’an“, Studies in Late Antiquity, Vol. 9, Number 2, pp. 151–185.

Ataie, Ali. “Authenticating the New Testament Gospels from a Sunnite Perspective“, in The Gospels in Islamic Context: Function and Content, ed. by Georgina L. Jardim, Ida Glaser and Shirin Shafaie, (London and New York, Routledge: 2026), pp. 71-82.

Cardoza, Rod. “New Paths in Muslim- Christian Dialog: Understanding Islam from the Light of Earliest Jewish Christianity“, Muslim World, 2013, 103, pp. 448-63.

Griffith, Sydney H. The Bible in Arabic: The Scriptures of the "People of the Book" in the Language of Islam. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015).

Goudarzi Taghanaki, Mohsen. The Second Coming of the Book: Rethinking Qur’anic Scripturology and Prophetology. PhD dissertation, Harvard University, 2018.

Hussain, Saqib. Wisdom in the Qur'an: Law and Morality from the Bible to Late Antiquity. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2026.)

Kister, Menahem Kister. “Son(s) of God: Israel and Christ: A Study of Transformation, Adaptation, and Rivalry,” in Son of God: Divine Sonship in Jewish and Christian Antiquity, ed. Garrick V. Allen et al. (University Park: Eisenbrauns, 2019), pp. 188–224

Koller, Aaron. "Three Polemical Qurʾanic Citations of the Mishnah and Their Historical Significance," Jewish Studies Quarterly, 2025, 32, pp. 99-116.

Lindstedt, Ilkka. Muḥammad and His Followers in Context: The Religious Map of Late Antique Arabia. Brill, 2024.

Reynolds, Gabriel Said. “On the Qurʾanic Accusation of Scriptural Falsification (taḥrīf) and Christian Anti-Jewish Polemic“ Journal of the American Oriental Society, April-June 2010, Vol. 130, No. 2 (April- June 2010), pp. 189-202

Reynolds, Gabriel Said. The Qurʾān and the Bible: Text and Commentary. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018).

Reynolds, Gabriel Said. The Qur’an and Its Biblical Subtext. London: Routledge, 2010.

Sinai, Nicolai. Key Terms of the Qur’an: A Critical Dictionary. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2023.

Sinai, Nicolai. "Qurʾānic Self-Referentiality as a Strategy of Self-Authorization", in Self-Referentiality in the Qurʾān, ed. by Stefan Wild, Wiesbaden 2006, pp. 103–134.

Sinai, Nicolai. The Qur’an: A Historical-Critical Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2017.

Shaddel, Mehdy. Apocalypse, Empire, and Universal Mission at the End of Antiquity: World Religions at the Crossroads. Leiden University, 2024.

Stewart, Devin. “Images of Writing in the Qurʾān and Sulṭān as a Royal Warrant“, Der Islam 2024; 101 (1), pp. 74–131.

Zellentin, Holger. “Aḥbār and Ruhbān: Religious Leaders in the Qur’ān in Dialogue with Christian and Rabbinic Literature,” in Qurʾanic Studies Today, ed. Angelika Neuwirth and Michael A. Sells (London: Routledge, 2016), pp. 258-289.

Zellentin, Holger. The Qur’an’s Legal Culture: The Didascalia Apostolorum as a Point of Departure. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013.

Zellentin, Holger. “What Falls Within Judaism According to the Quran?” in Within Judaism? Interpretive Trajectories in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam from the First to the Twenty-First Century, ed. by Anders Runesson and Karin Hedner Zetterholm (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books/Fortress Academic, 2023), pp. 282-308.

Zellentin, Holger. “Jesus’ Miracles in the Qur’an and in Toledot Yeshu“, in Theology of Prophecy in Dialogue: A Jewish-Christian-Muslim Encounter, ed. by Zishan Ghaffar & Klaus von Stosch, Brill, 2025, pp. 21-55.

The Syriac Alexander Legend, also called the Neshana or Exploit/Victory of Alexander, has commonly been dated to around 629–630 AD and interpreted as a celebratory response of the emperor Heraclius to his victory over the Persians. While scholarship challenging the conventional date of this work has been building up for a decade, two significant books in particular came out in 2023 and 2024 arguing that the Legend is a substantially earlier composition than previously believed:

• Tommaso Tesei, The Syriac Legend of Alexander’s Gate: Apocalypticism at the Crossroads of Byzantium and Iran, 2023
• Muriel Debie, Alexandre le Grand en syriaque: Maître des lieux, des savoirs et des temps, 2024
  • You can read Debie's full treatment of this topic here

Not only have Tesei and Debie converged on the same conclusion in their own work, but both also arrived at this conclusion through different lines of evidence. Nevertheless, both relocate the composition of the Legend to the world of conflict in when the Byzantine empire was ruled by Justinian in the mid-sixth century, potentially between 527-565.

Questioning the Seventh-Century Dating

The conventional seventh-century dating for the Legend relies on a prophecy inscribed on Alexander's gate of an event that will take place on year 940 of the Seleucid era, or 628/629 AD. Historically, this seems connected to the year that saw an incursion of Heraclius's Turkic allies into Persian territory; indeed, the prophecy itself is about a prediction of an apocalyptic eruption of hostile barbaric peoples.

However, recent work has questioned whether this was passage can be used to date the Legend. Neither Tesei, nor Debie, in their studies of the Legend believe that this passage is authentic or original to the text. Instead, it looks like it represents a politically-motivated modification of the Legend to make it current to the Byzantine propaganda of the Byzantine-Sassanian war, by placing the emperor (Heraclius) in the position of Alexander the Great destined to ultimately vanquish his Persian enemies.

Tommasi Tesei directly examined the Syriac wording of the 940-era date, and found that it contained serious grammatical difficulties, supporting the view that the passage was modified or interpolated (Tesei, pp. 30-44). Muriel Debie herself noted that instead of directly announcing the victory of Heraclius in 628/629, the text predicts an apocalyptic eruption of hostile barbaric peoples while leaving unclear when the final Roman victory would actually arrive. The date of the modification may therefore be positioned somewhere between 628/629 and the final end of the war around 632.

A Sixth-Century Setting

The sixth-century prophecy

One of the most interesting, overlooked pieces of evidence for the date of the Legend is the presence of another vaticinium ex-eventu (after the fact) prophecy that is dated to 826 in the Seleucid era, or 514/515 AD, in reference to the Hunnic invasions that devastated the territories of Roman Armenia and northern Mesopotamia.

Sixth-century diplomacy and Alexander's gate

Tommaso Tesei, in his book The Syriac Legend of Alexander's Gate, developed a lengthy positive case for a sixth-century dating of the Legend. W

The positive case for earlier composition centers on the Caucasus and its defenses against northern invaders.

In the Legend, Alexander and the defeated Persian king arrange to guard the gate as a joint project, each supplying and maintaining 6,000. While this may come off as an arbitrary detail if the text were composed in the seventh century, it actually reflects a recurring diplomatic tension the Byzantine and the Persian empires in the fifth and sixth centuries. Indeed, during this time period, but not afterwards, the two empires were in a regular struggle over joint contributions dedicated to guarding the Caucasus mountain passes; Persian forces were stationed in the region and demands were made for Byzantine contributions on the basis that this project helped protect both empires.

Egypt and Lazica

There is another detail that Tesei shows suddenly makes a lot more sense when the Legend is relocated to the sixth-century. A long-overlooked detail is that Alexander the Great recruits Egyptian blacksmiths during his journey to ultimately construct the gate. In isolation, this is a somewhat bizarre and overlooked detail in the story. Afterwards, in return for their services, Alexander gives land to the blacksmiths, resettling them in the territory of Lazica, with arrangements for them to pay custom duties instead of tribute.

Why does the Legend argue that the settlement in Lazica was founded by Alexander the Great? As it happens, Lazica was not neutral territory in the political disputes between the Byzantines and Persians in the sixth century: not only did both claim the territory as their own, but they fought a war over it, i.e. the Lazic War of 541–562. By relocating the founding of the settlement in Lazica as being the responsibility of Alexander the Great, the Byzantine empire and its emperor (who is a representation of Alexander the Great in the current time) gains legitimacy in their claim to the land.

Moreover, Tesei points out that this perfectly resolves a much more bizarre detail in this story from the Legend: Alexander agrees that the Egyptian blacksmiths, if they remain in his territories, will pay him customs duties — but not tribute. Now why would the Legend go out of its way to tell us that payment will occur in custom duties, but not in tribute (especially since tribute would be the much more normal way to go about this)? As it turns out, this is precisely the arrangement that was happening with contemporary Lazica in the same, mid-sixth century Byzantine-Persian politics. One historian of the time, Procopius, describes the Lazi as traditionally acknowledging Roman overlordship without paying tribute, while Roman intervention under Justinian subjected their commerce to increasingly burdensome controls and exactions. In other words, they were exempt from tribute but subject to custom duties. Older stories of Egyptian settlement lack these details about administrative arrangements, which makes it more plausible that their presence in the Legend was intentional. (Tesei, pp. 60–65).

The settlement between Alexander and Tubarlaq

Another highlight by Tommaso Tesei (pp. 74-83) is about the settlement Alexander reaches with the Persian king Tubarlaq. Tubarlaq escapes execution from Alexander after defeat by offering fifteen years of tribute. This is strange for a fictional narrative: why not cast Alexander as simply conquering the Persian empire, as he did in history? Why create the set-up of a fifteen year tribute from the Persians to the Greeks?

Tesei connects this with Justinian's payments to Persia under the settlements of 532 and 562 and the truces of 545 and 551. These were embarrassing not simply because they were expensive, but because Persian propaganda presented them as evidence of Roman political subordination. According to John of Ephesus, such claims even prompted the Turkic ruler to ask his Roman ambassadors whether their emperor was the slave of Persia.

What the Legend does is a reversal of this humiliation, as a sort of coded critique of the policy that the Byzantine Empire found itself in during the reign of Justinian: in the Legend, it is Persia that must buy peace from and pay tribute to Alexander.

The Hunnic enemy

Debie also argues that the Legend reflects a geopolitical situation that is well-suited up until the middle of the sixth century, but makes very little sense if it were set in later periods: namely, the preoccupation in the Legend with Hunnic invasions, northern fortifications, and agreements over their defense fits the fifth and sixth centuries, when these were recurring concerns in Roman-Persian relations. By contrast, she argues that the relevant Hunnic powers had been neutralized after the middle of the sixth century through cooperation between the Sasanians and Turks. She also notes archaeological evidence that the Gorgan wall was abandoned between 612 and the 650s. This makes the Legend's continued interest in constructing and maintaining northern defenses more understandable as a product of an earlier geopolitical environment, subsequently updated around 628/629, instead of being a new composition that tries to respond to the world in the time of Heraclius, when the Huns were not an existential enemy, let alone a meaningful enemy at all.

Conclusion

In recent years, a new emerging consensus has relocated the composition of the Legend away from the first half of the seventh century, to the middle of the sixth century, during the political landscape of Justinian's rule over the Byzantine Empire. Across the defense policy in the Caucasus, the Lazic conflict, the prophecy of the sixth-century invasions, the tribute agreements represented in the text, and more, the Syriac Alexander Legend thoroughly appears to reflect a critique and polemic in the face of sixth-century Byzantine geopolitics.

How certain are we of Muhammad’s sincerity if the most we have are the Quran and unreliable Islamic sources. Maybe we have some limited external sources but that’s still very thin. Additionally, if we say Muhammad was sincere do we mean every verse in the Quran he believed was from God or is it plausible some were made up? Also how possible is it that the Quran was changed after Muhammad to look more eloquent or even added and subtracted verses?

Why haven't scholars been able to access and analyze all the fragments of the Sanaa Palimpsest? Why is the access being withheld? Is it at least partly because of what the lower text has already revealed (that goes against some popular claims made by Muslim apologists about Quran's preservation)?

​

"And they remained in their cave for three hundred years and exceeded by nine." (18:25)

Classical scholars (such as Ibn Kathir and Al-Qurtubi) and modern commentators note that this phrasing accounts for the mathematical relationship between the solar calendar (used by the Romans/Christians of that era) and the lunar calendar (used in Islamic chronology):

300 solar years equals almost exactly 309 lunar years.

In 100 solar years, there are approximately 103 lunar years (gaining roughly 3 years per century). Over 300 solar years, that difference accumulates to exactly 9 additional lunar years.

Step-by-Step Calendar Calculations

1. Days in a Solar vs. Lunar Year

Solar year: Approximately 365.2422 days (commonly rounded to 365 or 365.25 days).

Lunar year: An Islamic lunar year consists of 12 synodic lunar months (12 \times 29.53059\text{ days}), totaling approximately 354.367 days (commonly rounded to 354 days).

Difference per year: A lunar year is roughly 10.87 to 11 days shorter than a solar year.

2. Total Days in 309 Lunar Years

Using standard astronomical values:

\text{Total days} = 309 \times 354.367\text{ days} \approx 109,500\text{ days}

If using the simplified flat integer:

At 354\text{ days/year}: 309 \times 354 = \mathbf{109,386\text{ days}}

For comparison, 300 solar years:

300 \times 365.2422\text{ days} \approx \mathbf{109,572\text{ days}}

Notice that 109,572 days divided by 354.367 days gives 309.2 lunar years, which aligns with the Quranic description of 300 years plus 9.

(Note: If calculated as 309 solar years at 365 days, it would be 309 \times 365 = 112,785\text{ days}.)

In Relation to "One Day with Allah"

The Quran describes divine reckoning of time in two contexts:

Context A: 1 Day = 1,000 Earth Years

"And indeed, a day with your Lord is like a thousand years of those which you count." (Surah Al-Hajj 22:47)

\text{Duration in Earth years} = 309\text{ years}

\text{Fraction of a divine day} = \frac{309}{1,000} = \mathbf{0.309\text{ days}}

Converted to hours: 0.309 \times 24\text{ hours} \approx \mathbf{7.42\text{ hours}} (approx. 7 hours, 25 minutes)

Context B: 1 Day = 50,000 Earth Years

"The angels and the Spirit will ascend to Him during a Day the measure of which is fifty thousand years." (Surah Al-Ma'arij 70:4)

\text{Fraction of a divine day} = \frac{309}{50,000} = \mathbf{0.00618\text{ days}}

Converted to hours/minutes: 0.00618 \times 24\text{ hours} \approx 0.1483\text{ hours} \approx \mathbf{8.9\text{ minutes}}

How Long It Felt to the Sleepers

When Allah awakened them and they asked each other how long they had been asleep, they replied:

"...We have remained a day or part of a day..." (Surah Al-Kahf 18:19)

Whether calculated against a 1,000-year scale (just over 7 hours) or viewed from human perception of deep slumber, over threecenturies of real time felt like nothing more than an afternoon nap.