This paper argues that the Quran must be read as an integral discourse in which ḥukm (law) and hidāyah (guidance) are inseparable dimensions of a single divine address. Modern and pre-modern interpretive tendencies that isolate legal verses from their spiritual and ontological contexts, or treat ethical guidance apart from jurisprudential form, constitute a hermeneutical bidʿah: an innovation of fragmentation that distorts revelation’s unity. Drawing upon classical and contemporary sources, the study reconstructs the Quran’s own epistemic architecture through the principle of rabṭ al-āyāt, the internal correspondence of verses, and the conceptual pairings that sustain it: ontology and law, perception and submission, the seen and the unseen. By tracing how the Quran embeds its legal, moral, and cosmological teachings within a single vision of reality, the paper proposes an integral tafsīr methodology grounded in mafāhīm kulliyyah (comprehensive concepts). The argument culminates in a call to restore the unity of meaning that the early community embodied, where every command was embedded by guidance and every truth governed by law. In an age when interpretation risks reducing revelation to rhetoric or data, the task is not to propose a new interpretive paradigm, but to retrieve the integrative logic already embedded within the Quranic discourse: to return to the Quran’s own wholeness so that, in the words of Sūrah al-Mursalāt, “in what discourse after this will they believe?”

This paper examines why no Sūrah is explicitly named after Prophet Musa despite his frequent mention in the Quran. The study addresses questions raised by classical scholars regarding the origin and significance of Sūrah names. It establishes a technical and precise conceptualization of a Sūrah itself at the outset, laying out how it is distinguished from other similar literary units, and exploring the nature of Suwar as independent yet interconnected units with divine wisdom behind their organization. The analysis explores the origins of the primary names of Suwar, affirming that most are known through prophetic authority, alongside the phenomenon of some Suwar having multiple names transmitted in the scholarly tradition. Through investigation of classical sources, the study reveals that Sūrah Ṭā-Hā is also known as “Sūrah Musa” or “Sūrah al-Kalīm,” tracing the documentation of this alternative name by numerous early authorities. The study concludes that while the primary name “Ṭā-Hā” may serve particular purposes, the transmission of “Sūrah Musa” as a secondary name demonstrates the depth of scholarly engagement with the Quran, including its nomenclature, and the principle that absence in common usage does not imply absence in scholarly sources.

This paper examines the identity of Dhūl-Kifl as presented in the Quran and classical Islamic scholarship, focusing on the tension between scriptural ambiguity and exegetical expansion. While the Quran mentions Dhūl-Kifl twice without providing explicit genealogical or historical detail, later exegetical and narrative traditions attempt to identify him through various claims, including associations with Ayyūb and al-Yasaʿ. Through a critical analysis of the broader exegetical tradition alongside narrative literature, this study demonstrates that many commonly cited identifications lack firm textual grounding in early authoritative sources. The paper highlights how later narrative traditions, often influenced by Isrāʾīliyyāt, contributed to the circulation and gradual solidification of speculative claims, including familial links and lines of succession. By distinguishing between verifiable exegetical statements and later interpretive developments, the study argues for a more restrained and textually grounded understanding of Dhūl-Kifl’s identity, emphasizing the Quran’s deliberate non-specificity as methodologically significant.

This paper examines the creed (ʿaqīdah) of Imam al-Ālūsī, and whether he was Salafi in creed or not. It begins by defining and presenting a framework of Islamic creed, distinguishing between primary Islamic doctrines (Uṣūl al-Dīn), secondary doctrines that define the Ahl al-Sunnah wa-l-Jamāʿah, and tertiary theological inquiries. It then describes Salafism with some of its most salient characteristics and defining features, including its theological positions, polemical stances, and intellectual authorities. Through analysis of al-Ālūsī’s educational background, scholarly lineage, and extensive writings, particularly his magnum opus Rūḥ al-Maʿānī, the study demonstrates his theological and methodological views, and his relationship with the Sunni-Sufi-Kalām tradition. The paper also addresses Salafi claims regarding them, showing they stem from eisegesis and fail to account for al-Ālūsī’s explicit statements and for the differences between him and his descendants. The study contributes to the broader discourse on theological classification by highlighting the importance of textual evidence over biographical associations and demonstrates how Imam al-Ālūsī represents the classical Sunni tradition’s balanced approach to theology, spirituality, and exegesis.

This article examines the Quranic expression of 309 years in Sūrah al-Kahf (18:25), which states “three hundred years, and add nine” rather than simply “three hundred and nine years.” The analysis explores the two primary interpretations among classical Quranic exegetes (mufassirūn): the dominant view, which posits that this expression reflects both solar (300 years) and lunar (309 years) calendar calculations, which each related to certain audiences of the Quranic passage, and the alternative view, which suggests that the expression relates the People of the Book’s conjecture and disagreement regarding this duration, serving as a rebuke for delving into matters beyond their knowledge. The paper lays out the classical debate regarding the alternate view, examines the re-engagement of this debate by contemporary Muslim writers, and traces the connection of that engagement with Western academics in the field of history, in dialogue with Muslim historical scholarship.

This paper examines the two explicit Quranic uses of the term ṭūfān (deluge): the great flood at the time of Prophet Nūḥ (al-ʿAnkābūt 29:14) and the ṭūfān sent upon Firʿawn and his people (al-Aʿrāf 7:133). Drawing on classical lexicographers and exegetes—including Ibn Fāris, al-Zajjāj, al-Rāzī, al-Ṭabarī, and al-Māturīdī—the paper traces the lexical range of ṭūfān and its derivatives, distinguishing between verbal noun and plural usages, and situates both events within the broader Quranic framework of divine punishment. The paper demonstrates that while both events share the term ṭūfān, the deluge of Nūḥ was a comprehensive, earth-encompassing flood of unprecedented scale, whereas the ṭūfān of Firʿawn’s people was one element among a series of signs sent as warnings.

This inquiry examines whether the Hāmān of Sūrat al-Qaṣaṣ corresponds to the Hāmān of the Book of Esther and assesses the relationship between Hāmān’s edifice and Nimrod’s Tower of Babel. The paper first outlines the nature of divine revelation, distinguishing takwīnī (cosmological) from tashrīʿī (revelatory) knowledge, and traces the progressive relationship between successive scriptures — culminating in the Qur’ān as their Muhaymin (authoritative guardian). It then examines the preservation of earlier scriptures, contrasting their human custodianship with Allāh’s direct preservation of the Qur’ān, demonstrating how verbal corruption and interpretive distortion account for discrepancies with extant Biblical texts. The paper lays out an epistemic framework grounded in thubūt (establishment of transmission) and dalālah (indicative meaning), applying it to evaluate reports concerning Hāmān, Nimrod, and the Tower of Babel. Drawing on al-Ṭabarī, Shāh Walī Allāh, and al-Ālūsī, among others, it argues that the Qur’ānic Hāmān is known with certainty, while the Persian Hāmān of Esther remains historically possible given the ambiguity surrounding that text’s authorship, canonicity, and transmission. Nimrod’s Tower, though not named explicitly in the Qur’ān, is strongly indicated in several āyāt and corroborated by Companion narrations. The paper concludes by distinguishing the Qur’ānic terms ṣarḥ (grand edifice) and bunyān (tower) as internal evidence that these are separate events, recommending the Qur’ānic account be privileged wherever sources conflict.

This paper investigates the Qur’ānic statement at the end of Sūrah al-Fatḥ (48:29) that the Holy Prophet and his Companions are mentioned in the Tawrāh and Injīl, and examines how these references appear in their present forms, the Torah and the Bible. It begins by outlining the nature and function of divine revelation, distinguishing between takwīnī (cosmic) and tashrīʿī (legislative) knowledge, and clarifying the progressive relationship between successive scriptures — from the Tawrāh and Injīl to the Qur’ān, which serves as their muhaymin (authoritative guardian). The paper then analyzes the preservation of earlier scriptures, contrasting their human custodianship with the divinely assured preservation of the Qur’ān. It demonstrates that textual corruption and interpretive distortion in the Torah and Bible explain why certain Qur’ānic references to earlier revelation may not now appear verbatim in those texts. Within this framework, the study identifies two plausible biblical parallels to the Qur’ānic verse: Deuteronomy 33:2–3, describing divine revelation from Sinai, Seir, and Paran—interpreted as allusions to Prophets Mūsā, ʿĪsā, and Muhammad respectively—and Mark 4:26–29, which presents the parable of the growing seed, mirroring the Qur’ānic simile of the Prophet’s Companions as a flourishing crop. The paper concludes that while these verses in the extant Torah and Bible may reflect the Qur’ānic allusions in Sūrah al-Fatḥ, certainty about their precise textual identity is precluded by the imperfect preservation of earlier scriptures. What remains certain, however, is the Qur’ān’s self-affirmed authority as the final and incorruptible measure of all revelation.

This paper critically assesses the naẓm (coherence) thesis as developed by Ḥamīd al-Dīn al-Farāhī (d. 1348/1930) and Amīn Aḥsan Iṣlāḥī (d. 1418/1997), situating their contributions within a broader taxonomy of Quranic thematic and semantic units — āyah, intra-āyah, sūrah, intra-sūrah, inter-sūrah, and inter-nuṣūṣ themes. The paper begins by establishing this taxonomy through the lexical foundations of the terms āyah and sūrah themselves, before introducing the Prophetic distinction between ẓahr (manifest meaning) and baṭn (hidden meaning) as the governing epistemic framework for coherence inquiry. It then surveys the classical tradition of Quranic coherence studies — from al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī and al-Biqāʾī to Shāh Walī Allāh and Mawlānā Thanwī — demonstrating that a sophisticated, multi-layered approach to naẓm predates al-Farāhī and Iṣlāḥī by centuries and is grounded in both Prophetic practice and Companion scholarship. Against this backdrop, the paper critically examines the Farāhī-Iṣlāḥī theory and finds it epistemically overdetermined and methodologically inconsistent. Key criticisms include their treatment of naẓm as qaṭʿī (decisive) — a claim undermined by their own internal disagreements — their arbitrarily restrictive rules on sūrah pairing and single-theme sūrahs, their selective and unsystematic deployment of asbāb al-nuzūl and prophetic material, and a striking neglect of āyāt with legal import. The paper proposes a more nuanced, layered approach to coherence that preserves the independent intelligibility of Quranic units at every level, respects classical tools of tafsīr, and establishes clearer epistemic criteria for identifying themes and deeper meanings. 

This paper investigates why the Hanafi school recognizes only one prostration (sajdah) in Sūrah al-Ḥajj, rather than two. The analysis situates the Hanafi methodology within its historical lineage, tracing legal thought from ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd through Ibrāhīm al-Nakha‘ī to Imām Abū Ḥanīfah. Key to this framework are the foundational principles of thubūt (authenticity), dalālah (indication), and the divine wilāyah (authority) involved in designating ritual acts of worship. The study examines the rigorous epistemic standards necessary to classify an āyah al-sajdah—a Qur’ānic verse mandating prostration. The Hanafi position mandates that such verses must be firmly established through sound transmission from the Prophet ﷺ and the early generations (salaf). Based on these criteria, only the first verse in Sūrah al-Ḥajj qualifies. While the later verse (22:77) contains a command to prostrate, it lacks authenticated prophetic precedent for an independent act and aligns textually with instructions for formal prayer (ṣalāh). Ultimately, the Hanafi stance reflects a commitment to epistemic discipline, ensuring only firmly established reports dictate independent acts of worship. Reports suggesting two prostrations are either weak or refer to prostrations within prayer. As Ibn ‘Abbās explained, “The first is a command (‘azīmah), while the second is instruction (for prayer).”

This paper addresses whether the term ṣalāh in Sūrah al-Isrāʾ (17:110) refers to ritual prayer, supplication (duʿāʾ), or both. The question arises from the verse’s immediate context, in which the surrounding āyāt use the term duʿāʾ and address the legitimacy of divine names and modes of calling upon Allah. The analysis draws on classical tafsīr sources — including Mawlānā Ashraf ʿAlī Thanwī, Mullā Jīwan, Rāghib al-Aṣfahānī, Ibn ʿĀshūr, and al-Qurṭubī — and situates the verse within the Sūrah’s broader conclusion on tawḥīd and tanzīh. The paper finds that while the verse was revealed regarding the manner of recitation in prayer, many mufassirūn affirm that it accommodates both the technical and lexical meanings of ṣalāh, encompassing prayer, supplication, and personal invocation alike.