Salam Alaykum,
I want to study the Quran and the meanings behind its verses. I am not sure what tafsir to read. What is known to be the best tafsir that we shia have? What tafsir would be closest to the tafsir of the ahlulbayt? If you mention some recommendations, please explain why you did not recommend the others. May Allah bless you all

Yes. ISIS does exactly what Muhammad did in the 7th century. And it also adopts a lot of what the subsequent “rightly guided” caliphs did. Because after all, ISIS is a Salafi organization (Salaf- as in “Al-Salaf Al-Saleh” = the rightly guided predecessors - referring to the four “rightly guided” caliphs following Muhammad).
Long answer:
Let’s take a look first what ISIS is doing. If we can agree what these “atrocities” are, then we can look further and dig deeper whether we can find something similar in Islamic scripture and history.
So, here’s what ISIS does:
BEHEADING OF PRISONERS
Scriptural base:
Qur’an 8:12- “I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off.”
Qur’an 47:4- “Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), strike off their heads; at length; then when you have made wide Slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives”: thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens.”
What Muhammad did:
Then the Messenger of Allah commanded that ditches should be dug, so they were dug in the earth, and they were brought tied by their shoulders, and were beheaded. There were between seven hundred and eight hundred of them. The children who had not yet reached adolescence and the women were taken prisoner, and their wealth was seized.
Tafsir Ibn Kathir - The Campaign against Banu Qurayzah
Narrated Aisha . . . No woman of Banu [tribe] Qurayzah was killed except one. She was with me, talking and laughing on her back and belly (extremely), while the Apostle of Allah . . . was killing her people with the swords. Suddenly a man called her name: Where is so-and-so? . . . I asked: What is the matter with you? She said: I did a new act. [Aisha] said: The man took her and beheaded her. [Aisha] said: I will not forget that she was laughing extremely although she knew that she would be killed. (Abu Dawud)
TAKING FEMALE SEX-SLAVES
Scriptural base:
Qur’an - 4:24 - "And all married women are forbidden unto you save those captives whom your right hand possess. It is a decree of Allah for you.
What Muhammad did:
Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol. 2, # 2150:
Abu Said al-Khudri said: "The apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Quranic verse, "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess". That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period." (See Qur’an 4:24 above)
Sahih Bukhari Vol.3 #432
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri that while he was sitting with Allah's messenger we said, "Oh Allah's messenger, we got female captives as our booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?" The prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence."
Sahih Muslim, Vol.2, #3371
Abu Sirma said to Abu Said al Khudri: "O Abu Said, did you hear Allah's messenger mentioning about al-azl (coitus interruptus)?" He said, "Yes", and added: "We went out with Allah's messenger on the expedition to the Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing azl" (withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: "We are doing an act whereas Allah's messenger is amongst us; why not ask him?" So we asked Allah's messenger and he said: "It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born".
Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, page 151
"He [the Lord of Alexandria] presented to the prophet Mariyah, her sister Sirin, a donkey and a mule which was white....The apostle of Allah liked Mariyah who was of white complexion and curly hair and pretty.... Then he cohabited with Mariyah as a handmaid and sent her to his property which he had acquired from Banu al-Nadir."
Tabari's History, volume 39, page 194
"He (Muhammad) used to visit her (Mariyam) there and ordered her to veil herself, [but] he had intercourse with her by virtue of her being his property."
THROWING DOWN HOMOSEXUALS FROM ROOFS AND STONING THEM AFTERWARDS
Scriptural base:
Qur'an 4:16 If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone; for Allah is Oft-returning, Most Merciful.
Sunan Abu Dawud 38:4447 Narated By Abdullah ibn Abbas : The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.
What Muhammad and companions did:
Mishkat, vol. 1, p. 765, Prescribed Punishments
Ibn Abbas and Abu Huraira reported God's messenger as saying, 'Accursed is he who does what Lot's people did.' In a version...on the authority of Ibn Abbas it says that Ali [Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law] had two people “burned” and that Abu Bakr [Muhammad's chief companion] had a wall thrown down on them.
Modern Exegesis:
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid, Islam Q&A, Fatwa No. 5177
Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq judged in accordance with this, and he wrote instructions to this effect to Khaalid, after consulting with the Sahaabah. ‘Ali was the strictest of them with regard to that. Ibn al-Qasaar and our shaykh said: the Sahaabah agreed that [the person who does homosexual acts] should be killed, but they differed as to how he should be killed. Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq said that he should be thrown down from a cliff. ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) said that a wall should be made to collapse on him. Ibn ‘Abbaas said, they should be killed by stoning. This shows that there was consensus among them that [the person who does homosexual acts] should be killed, but they differed as to how he should be executed. This is similar to the ruling of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) concerning the person who has intercourse with a woman who is his mahram [incest], because in both cases intercourse is not permitted under any circumstances. Hence the connection was made in the hadeeth of Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) who reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, “Whoever you find doing the deed of the people of Loot, kill them.” And it was also reported that he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever has intercourse with a woman who is his mahram, kill him.” And according to another hadeeth with the same isnaad, “Whoever has intercourse with an animal, kill him and kill the animal with him.” (Narrated by Ahmad, 2420; Abu Dawood, 4464; al-Tirmidhi, 1454; al-Haakim, 4/355).
Imam Sirajudeen Bakrin, Nigerian Tribune, December 30, 2011
However, there is a divergence of opinions on the methodology to be used in executing the punishment. While some scholars such as Abu bakr [the first Rightly-Guided Caliph] and Ali [Muhammad's son-in-law and the fourth Rightly-Guided Caliph ] were of the view that such a person should be beheaded and set on fire thereafter, Umar [the second Rightly-Guided Caliph] and Uthman [the third Rightly-Guided Caliph] thought the wall should be fell on him. To Ibn Abbas [Muhammad's cousin], he should be taken to the tallest building in the town, thrown upside down while some men stand on the ground waiting to meet him with stone in replication of the destruction done to the people of Lut (Lot) by Allah.
STONING OF ADULTERERS
Scriptural base & what Muhammad did:
Sahih Bukhari (6:60:79) - Two people guilty of illegal intercourse are brought to Muhammad, who orders them both stoned to death.
Sahih Muslim (17:4192) - "in case of married (persons) there is (a punishment) of one hundred lashes and then stoning (to death). And in case of unmarried persons, (the punishment) is one hundred lashes and exile for one year"
Sahih Muslim (17:4196) - A married man confesses to adultery. Muhammad orders him planted in the ground and pelted with stones. According to the passage, the first several stones caused such pain that he tried to escape and had to be dragged back.
Sahih Muslim (17:4206) - A woman who became pregnant confesses to Muhammad that she is guilty of adultery. Muhammad allows her to have the child, then has her stoned.
The description is graphic: "Khalid b Walid came forward with a stone which he flung at her head and there spurted blood on the face of Khalid and so he abused her."
Ibn Ishaq (970)

• "The adulterer must be stoned." These words were a part of Muhammad's farewell address to his people on the occasion of his final pilgrimage to Mecca.

ASSASSINATION OF POLITICAL OPPONENTS & “SLANDERERS OF ISLAM”
What Muhammad did:
Bukhari vol.3 book 45 ch.3 no.687 p.415.
(687) Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: Allah's Apostle said, 'Who would kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf as he has harmed Allah and His Apostle? Muhammad bin Maslama (got up and) said, 'I will kill him.' So, Muhammad bin Maslama went to Ka'b and said, 'I want a loan of one or two Wasqs of foodgrains.'" After dickering over what to hold as mortgage, they agreed that Muhammad bin Maslama would mortgage his weapons. So he promised him that he would come with his weapons next time."
Source: Ibn Ishaq, pp. 675-76 / 995-96.
Asma was a poetess who belonged to a tribe of Medinan pagans, and whose husband was named Yazid b. Zayd. She composed a poem blaming the Medinan pagans for obeying a stranger (Muhammad) and for not taking the initiative to attack him by surprise. When the Allah-inspired prophet heard what she had said, he asked, "Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?" A member of her husband’s tribe volunteered and crept into her house that night. She had five children, and the youngest was sleeping at her breast. The assassin gently removed the child, drew his sword, and plunged it into her, killing her in her sleep.
The following morning, the assassin defied anyone to take revenge. No one took him up on his challenge, not even her husband. In fact, Islam became powerful among his tribe. Previously, some members who had kept their conversion secret now became Muslims openly, "because they saw the power of Islam," conjectures Ibn Ishaq.
Al-Tabari vol.9 p.167:
Al-Aswad was assassinated because he claimed that he was a prophet, after coming out of the Khubban cave. He was killed a day or two before Mohammed's death.
Al-Tabari vol.9 p.121
"The Messenger of God called me and said, 'It has reached me that Khalid b. Sufyan b. Nubayh al-Hudhali is gathering a force to attack me. He is either in Nakhlah or 'Uranah, so go to him and kill him.'"
Abu Dawud vol.1 no.1244 p.328
"He (the prophet) said, :Go and kill him. I saw him when the time of the afternoon prayer had come. I said : I am afraid if a fight takes place between me and him (Khalid b. Sufyan), that might delay the prayer. I proceeded walking towards him while I was praying by making a sign. When I reached near him, he said to me : Who are you? I replied : A man from the Arabs ; it came to me that you were gathering (any[sp] army) for this man (i.e. the Prophet). Hence I came to you in connection with this matter. ... I then walked along with him for a while; when it became convenient for me, I dominated him with my sword until he became cold (dead)."
Al-Tabari vol.8 p.122
According to Ibn Ishaq: Kinanah b. al-Rabi' b. Abi al-Huqayq who had the treasure of the Banu al-Nadir, was brought to the Messenger of God, who questioned him, but he denied knowing where it [the treasure] was. Then the Messenger of God was brought a Jew who said to him, "I have seen Kinanah walk around this ruin every morning." The Messenger of God said to Kinanah: "What do you say? If we find it in your possession, I will kill you. "All right he answered. The Messenger of God commanded that the ruin should be dug up, and some of the treasure was extracted from it. Then he asked him for the rest of it. Kinanah refused to surrender it, so the Messenger of God gave orders concerning him to al-Zubayr b. al-'Awwam, saying, "Torture him until you root out what he has." Al-Zubayr kept twirling his firestick in his breast until Kinanah almost expired [died]; then the Messenger of God gave him to Muhammad b. Maslamah, who beheaded him to avenge his brother Mahmud b. Maslamah."
The list goes on.
CONCLUSIONS:
All the included sources are Muslim sources. A lot of scholars are using this material to come up with Fatwas and also material for their sermons.
If you have read through my brief write-up, you can see that what ISIS is doing today is almost an exact carbon copy of what Muhammad and his warband were doing back then.
Therefore I urge you all to study all the facts about Muhammad and Islam first, before defending the narrative that ISIS is not Islamic.

Bismillah Rahmaan IrRaheem,
Assalamu alaikum,
You guys need to know the truth about entertainment:
Quran 9:69 (At-Tawbah) As in the case of those before you: they were mightier than you in power, and more flourishing in wealth and children. They had their enjoyment of their portion: and ye have of yours, as did those before you; and ye indulge in idle talk as they did. They!- their work are fruitless in this world and in the Hereafter, and they will lose (all spiritual good).
First few verses of Sūrah Al-Muminun (23rd Sūrah):
Successful indeed are the believers; Those who humble themselves in prayers, Those who avoid vain talk
Quran 25:72-75 (Al-Furqan) Those who witness no falsehood, and, if they pass by futility, they pass by it with honourable (avoidance); Those who, when they are admonished with the Signs of their Lord, droop not down at them as if they were deaf or blind; And those who pray, "Our Lord! Grant unto us wives and offspring who will be the comfort of our eyes, and give us (the grace) to lead the righteous." Those are the ones who will be rewarded with the highest place in heaven, because of their patient constancy: therein shall they be met with salutations and peace,
Quran 28:56 (Al-Qasas) And when they hear vain talk, they turn away therefrom and say: "To us our deeds, and to you yours; peace be to you: we seek not the ignorant."
Vain talk is counted as anything that is useless - no benefit to the dunya or akhirah. This also counts actions. You can live without it.
This will probably be my last thread here - I just want to make people aware. Too many turn a blind eye because this is an uncomfortable truth for them.
No, it does not prohibit EVERYTHING, for example doing stuff that can keep you in shape is fine. Archery is great because it trains you for war.
And, yes, there are Hadiths saying the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) about entertainment and leisure however they contradict the Qur’an so they aren’t authentic.
There’s also this authentic hadith: “Part of the perfection of one’s Islam is to leave which that does not concern him**. Its reliability is debatable but given what the Quran says I believe it’s authentic. And I think it was narrated by Sahih al-Bukhari, May Allah be pleased with him.
The tafsirs back up what I’m saying here. Every translation says this too.
Now just curious: For anyone who knows this and doesn’t turn a blind eye, what do you do for fun?? Because I’m sure everyone here has at least one hobby falling under this term. Been contemplating over this for weeks but I’ve given up now. Submit to the teachings of Islam. It depends, do you prefer the dunya or the akhirah??
I’m gutted that I have to give up most of my top entertainment, but whoever leaves something for the sake of Allah, Allah will replace it with something better. Now I can spend a lot more time on the Quran and watching Islamic content.
I’m open to hearing your opinions on this although 99% of you will disagree. However it’ll be nearly impossible to change my opinion unless a CLEAR Quran verse that contradicts this. There’s a TINY chance the actual meaning is about just cursing/slanderous talk itself.
And Allah (swt) knows best.

Hello
I'm researching various Abrahamic religions, and I want to understand the methodologies behind Jewish sources and the conclusions derived from them.
Although I'm not Muslim (I'm Catholic), I'll use an example from Islam to illustrate what I'm looking for, as it seems externally similar to Judaism and I have some knowledge on the subject.
In Islam, there is the Quran, which Muslims believe is the revelation from God to the Prophet (p) through the angel Gabriel. Apart from this document, there are compilations of books called Hadiths, which are stories from the Prophet (p). These books contain a variety of content since they are not of a single nature; they are usually divided into sections but often consist of paragraphs that can say several things.
In a Hadith, you might find a story of the Prophet (p) or previous stories, exegesis of the Quran, predictions, commandments of the Prophet (p), etc. The sections do not affect the numbering; some books go from 1 to +7000 Hadiths. As I mentioned, you can find a wide range of topics without a very strict order, and usually, Hadiths don't depend on the surrounding narrations. For example, Hadith 5 doesn't depend on 6, and 6 doesn't depend on 7, etc. Typically, all the context is contained within each narration. In some cases, they combine Hadiths that are just variations of the same narrative with some details by adding a letter to them; for example, if Hadith 7a mentions drums, Hadith 7b might mention flutes, but the rest is exactly the same.
These Hadiths are verified for authenticity by a chain of transmitters. For example, a friend of the Prophet (p) tells a story to another person, who tells it to another, and so on until a Hadith compiler writes it down in his book. To verify the authenticity of a Hadith, the biographies of the transmitters and the continuity of the transmissions are carefully checked.
Beyond the Hadiths, there are other early Islamic books, such as biographies of the prophet (p) and/or his companions with a different structure from the Hadiths, exegesis of the Quran (tafsir), and so on. Modern authors also write books about these topics, like contemporary tafsirs, compilations of different hadiths, laws compilation, etc.
There are consensus systems among scholars, universities, and influential figures like Al-Albani. Regarding divisions, I don't know much. As far as I understand, the divisions were not made for purely theological reasons but also for pelitikal ones, with Shi'ites having their own chains of transmission, and so on, similar to the Ibadis; and their hadiths doesn't apply to one division to another. Hadith libraries can become immense but usually only a few books (such as Muslim and Bukhari for Sunnis and Kafi for Shiites) are counted, the rest are used little to nothing
Also there are Quranists who doesn't believe in all of this and only have their Quran with their own intepretation.

Introduction
Muslims believe the Quran, the holy book of Islam itself is not just a religious book for guidance but also the literal word of god i.e. Allah itself. In everyday conversations, you will hear Muslims call it Kalamullah (Word of God), not in the Christian sense where the Word is Jesus and God but actual sayings, sentences, and words uttered by god himself and compiled into a single book by human hands. While Muslims are proud of their holy book being the literal words of god sent down to all of mankind, there are a few problems with that mainly concerning Islam's doctrinal theology and its core beliefs.
Disclaimer and Notes
Now, before I start, a disclaimer. The issue of the Quran being god's word or not has been one of the most pretentious and divided issues in the Muslim community. Because of this issue, multiple sects (considered deviant and heretical today) popped up in the early years of Islam's history leading to multiple debates, condemnations, and even inquisitions for those that were against the majority-held view in history. So to make it easy considering Islam has tons of historical sects, all of whom held widely different views than modern-day Islam when it comes to the Quran's states as the word of god (or not), this post is aimed at Ashari, Maturidi and Ahlul Hadith/Athari aqeedah sects who make up the majority of Muslims today, collectively considered to be under the umbrella of Ahlul Sunnah Wal Jema'ah (Literally meaning "The People of the Prophet's Tradition and Consensus" or to make it easier to understand "The Followers of the Prophet's Teachings and the Righteous Community"). This term is commonly understood in Islam as those who follow the true and righteous path in Islam which according to the hadiths, out of 73 deviant sects, only 1 (the above I already mention) will be on the correct spiritual path.
Why do I say this problem is akin to the Trinity problem in Christianity? Both are key problems that form the basis of the entire religion, not just for an individual believer but also for the scholars who dabble in religious sciences. Both the Quran and Trinity make up the core fundamental teachings upon which other teachings are established and expanded further. Without these key concepts, the entire premise of both religions (Islam and Christianity) would fall apart within a matter of seconds. Both issues are also hotly debated even to this day. As I mentioned before, the issue of the Quran's creation or non-creation was an important issue that occupied the minds of early-century Muslim scholars and thinkers, to the point schisms and breakaways from the main branch started to emerge. The same thing happened in Christianity with the Trinity which led to excommunication, the Arian controversy, and multiple individual distinct sects, all of whom have a different understanding of what the Trinity is.
Last, I would also like to mention that considering the Trinity has been severely criticized by non-Christians alike as proof of Christianity's falsehood and internal contradictions, then the same should be said with Islam's problem of the Quran's status. However, unlike in Islam, Christianity continued to debate up to the present day and even adopted Greek philosophical concepts to better explain away the Trinity and the relationship between each Divine Person of the Trinity. In Islam, the opposite occurred. Those who used Greek philosophy and rhetoric were condemned as either falling into falsehood or corrupting the religion by introducing pagan concepts. Ironically, the most condemned bunch of the Muslim sects I'll talk about below, the Mutazilites were the ones who most used philosophy which led to their rejection of the Quran's non-createdness.
Due to the decline of the Mutazilite sect, the rise of more conservative movements, and the criticism of Aristotelian philosophical ideas by Al-Ghazali (Note, he wasn't against philosophy, he was against philosophical ideas that went against Islam like the eternity of the world and denying bodily resurrection in the afterlife), theological discussions and debates surrounding the question faded away. Even now, most Muslims consider the issue "solved" and simply adopt one of the three main positions. Unsurprisingly, while the West and Christianity continued adopting new ideas, this means the Muslim positions lacked much substance and arguments seen in Christianity with Greek and Neo-Platonist ideas which in turn, means there are tons of problems with their positions, (which is the whole point of the post)
Now, with that out of the way, let's begin.
How Have Muslims Historically Responded to this Problem?
There are two answers to the question of the Quran's status. One, to affirm that it is the literal word of god from Allah Himself which existed with him since eternity or to affirm it is a created being just like every other creature and human planet earth. The second view doesn't mean that the Quran is simply the work of man, quite the opposite. Rather, it posits that the Quran still holds religious significance as Islam's holy book and is still the Word of God but it was created at a later time by God, not existing eternally with god before the creation of everything. In the second view, the Quran still holds religious significance for praying, guidance, and the basis for Islam, only that it is of a lower status than god himself, being a creation of god that was created at a certain time.
The second view is considered invalid and rejected by all major sects of Islam in the modern era (Ashari, Maturidi, Athari) as a heretical belief that the Mutazilites (The Withdrawers) held. I'm not going to go into who they are, what is their history, or what are their beliefs (you can google it yourself). Just know these are the guys who believe the Quran was a creation of god and were condemned by pretty much every Islamic group and sect from their beginning all the way up to the present modern day. This is one the only issues where every Islamic sect agrees with each other in condemning this belief, be it Ashari, Maturidi, or Athari. Thus, the second option then is 100% of the table for most Muslims, unless they want to affirm holding beliefs of a heretical group that died out 1000 years ago. I don't think any Muslim will dare to affirm Mutazilite beliefs for fear of ridicule and committing major sins, so there's not much here to discuss. For the sake of brevity, I will address the second view since the one even Muslims will deny and reject. After that, I'll address the Second View.
The Second View
But for the sake of argument, I'll assume some rare brave Mutazilite Muslim wants to give it a try. Now, here are some of my questions for you. If the Quran is a creation of god and not the literal Word of God before time immemorial, what is the Quran's relationship with god? You believe these are still words from Allah that help mankind to arrive at the truth and Islam yet at the same you also believe that these were created at a time later than god. How can something that is both speech from god and also created by god himself exist simultaneously at the same time? Anything that is created at a later time means it's a creation, a contingent object that depends on an external creator. It can't be part of god because god is eternal, atemporal, necessary, and independent of everything and anything. If it were god or contained some part of god inside of it, then this is no different than Jesus and the Son of God in Christianity where it contains both a human and godly nature, so does that mean you now believe the Quran to be both god and creation? Just like the Christians who you condemn as a false corrupted religion? This is the First Problem you must face, that be affirming it is both from god and not god, you are throwing yourself into the same pit as Christianity with a dual nature which is already a false religion. I like to call people who affirm this stance "Dualists".
The Second Problem "dualists" face is that this nullifies the Quran's honorific status in Islam, which goes against what the majority of the Muslim world believes in. For Dualists, what is the Quran's honorific and spiritual status in Islam now? We've all seen Muslim riots and protests against the burning or stepping on the Quran by non-Muslims around the world. A man burns or rips up the Quran and the entire Muslim world goes into a frenzy. In Islam, simply placing the Quran on the floor is considered disrespectful and sinful. In the majority of sects today, the Quran must be honored and respected 24/7 partly due to the fact Muslims believe it to be the literal Word. But for Dualists, what is your stance and reason for continuing to respect the Quran? Considering you no longer believe the Quran to be the actual Word, can non-Muslims now vandalize, rip apart, step on, or place the Quran on the floor?? Would you have any problem with it? It's no longer the Word itself but a creation of god. Sure, you might ask others to "respect other religions and beliefs" but aside from this, what else do you have?? Is simply putting a religious book on the floor disrespecting other religions? What makes your holy book now any different from the Jewish and Christian perspectives on their religious books? They don't go into a frenzy every time Bibles are burned or disrespected. Will you do the same thing?
The Third Problem since it's a created thing, wouldn't this also mean that at some point in the future, the Quran no longer exists? That the Quran is finite and will at some point cease to exist? Wouldn't this mean at some point, Islam itself becomes useless because the number one source for everything, the Quran no longer exists? The Quran will cease to exist if it were created, when it happens, will the meaning of the verses and Muslim understanding built up over the centuries also cease to exist? Tafsirs, Fiqh, and Tajwid all suddenly become useless and void of any meaning because the backbone of Islam, the Quran no longer exists. What about the Muslim understanding of what Allah is? Isn't that detrimental should the Quran cease to exist? The best outcome is that Muslims still retain the knowledge but Islam becomes spineless without a religious book and the worst outcome is the complete disintegration of Islam as everything built upon the Quran, now becomes useless. It would mean the complete death of Islam as a major Abrahamic religion.
Next, what about during the Hour, when everything in the heavens and on the Earth will be destroyed and no longer exist? Muslims believe that when the Hour arrives, everything will be destroyed. Every human, child, animal, plant, planet, universe, devil, and angel will die inevitably. Only god remains. Due to this, according to Dualists, will the Quran experience the same fate? All of its verses and Surahs destroyed by god himself. Now I know Muslims, even those of other sects believe the Quran will disappear bit by bit before the Hour as a sign of the impending doom and apocalypse. However, other Muslims believe that yes, the Quran will disappear but the verses themselves remain preserved with god i.e. Allah since these are the literal words of god himself. In a sense, the verses suddenly don't exist, they return back to god.
TLDR, the Dualist Mutazilite view implies a contradiction where the Quran is both God and not God at the same time, it nullifies the Quran's holy status and the divine meaning of the verses, and last, it means the Quran is finite and will cease to exist at some point in the future.
Now, onto the Ashari, Maturidi and Athari sects,
The First View (The Majority)
These three are the most prominent and widely held doctrinal sects in the current Muslim population. I will be splitting the next sections into two sections, Ashari-Maturidi (since both are quite similar and considered a single unified school of thought by Muslim scholars) and the Athari school.
Ashari-Maturidi
The Asharis and Maturidis believe the Quran and its verses to be the literal Word of God itself, with Allah since eternity before time however they believe the book form of the Quran (mushaf), the one which every Muslim holds and reads is of man-made origin. In other words, the verses, sentences, letters, and meaning of the text are from god himself while the cover, paper, ink, writing, and publishing are from mankind. The Ash'ari creed makes a point of difference between the content of the Quran and the physical manifestation of it (in speech or as pages in a book).
The Main Problem with this argument as said by Atharis and Mutazilites is that this strips the Quran of its spiritual and holy essence in Islam. If the real divine aspect of the Quran that came from god itself are the verses and meaning of it only, then should we burn every last Quran in the world, it wouldn't be a problem. After all, the divine part still exists as it is from and with god himself, only the earthly worldly portions of it get destroyed. Why's that a problem? I mean what is the problem spiritually concerning Islam's doctrinal theology itself? What's the problem with destroying the cover or vandalizing the writing of it? It's not from god, it's man-made. The effect of this would be enormous.
This means now non-Muslims and Islamaphobes can now burn, rip, tear apart, step on, vandalize, and desecrate the Quran because they are only destroying the part that is not divine. Would Asharis or Maturidis agree to this? Is now destroying the Quran not a major sin but actually allowed? The true essence of the Quran i.e. the part that is truly divine remains preserved and exists since humans were created and will continue to exist long after everything has died and withered away. The vandalization and desecration of it does not affect the Quran because the true divine verses and meaning remain preserved. This problem is similar to the Second Problem with the Mutazilite belief, it nullifies and strips away the Quran's holy status and honorific place among the Muslim community. If it isn't truly god's divine word, what's the problem if it gets destroyed, wet, or burned?
Heck, I've heard this same argument from other sects, claiming and accusing the Ashari are just Mutazilites in disguise because their main stance of the Quran's identity revolves back to the Mutazilite position where the Quran is a creation of god. One of the main accusations against the Ashari sect is that it's just a rehash version of Mutazilite or Jahmiyyah theology (I don't have time to explain what this is right now, better if you look it up yourselves) due to similarities in doctrine and also because Imam Ashari, the founder was once a Mutazilite himself (not helping the Ashari case) but Asharis claim he renounced all Mutazilite theology and returned back to the true correct path. In this case, should the objection above against the Ashari-Maturidi position succeed, then it would help critics a lot against Asharism.
The Second Problem with holding the Ashari position is that this resembles the idolatry of Hinduism and Paganism or at least, is slipping into idolatry practice. If they claim the Speech of God is contained within the letters, pages, and ink of the Mushaf (the Quran's Uthmanic standardized codex), then how dare they believe the actions of humans can absorb and physicalize the Sacred Divine Speech of God, for Muslims believe god can never be limited by His creatures. This would also mean they believe the ink written on the Quran's pages is a physical intermediary, designed to encapsulate the Speech of God into a physical form, no different than the idols of Hindus and Pagans who believe their idols to be an intermediary or a worldly representation of the True Divine Nature.
Hindus don't claim they worship idols, rather they believe them to be ways to spiritually connect with the divine as a locus for prayer just like how Muslims consider the Kaaba as the direction for prayer, not an idol for worship or as a reminder for believers of the faith similar to how a photo of a spiritual leader is a sign of respect and a daily reminder every-day when you wake up. How is this different than believing the ink inside the Quran holds the truth or emulates the Divine Nature from the Ashari claim? Ashari Muslims affirm the Quran is still the Word of God just represented through a physical form, so how is this not idolatry? Believing that a physical human-made physical manifestation holds the Divine Speech so that followers of Islam can get closer to god?
This would be even worse than the Mutazilites, for committing idolatry whether intentionally or not is a major grave sin in Islam, to the point those that who commit it and do not repent back are considered as Kafir (infidels). If even they aren't committing idolatry and shirk (polytheism), another major sin in Islam, then at the very least, they believe that a divine part of God can be captured inside the ink and pen of writers as if they the Speech of God and the ink become one and the same, another reference to the Christian belief of God having both a Divine and Human Nature. Of course, Muslims and Ashari Muslims consider this to be heretical and blasphemous, but what's the difference between believing the Quran is both man-made and divine versus the Christological belief of Jesus being both God and Man?
The Third Problem with the Ashari answer that the Quran itself is created while the Speech of God isn't is where is the Speech of God then? Asharis can't answer that it is still in heaven for they also believe the Mushaf or Quran contains the Word and Speech of God. If they believe that it is still in heaven with god and not on earth, then what are they even reading every day? Clearly not the Speech of God if they claim it isn't with us now, perhaps an imperfect human copy of the divine Speech of God but that would mean the Quran is imperfect and the work of man, which would be affirming the Mutazilite position. So they can't claim it is both in the heavens and on the earth nor claim it is either in the heavens only or on the earth with mankind only.
I already explained they also can't say the Speech of God is contained inside the ink and letters of the Quran for that means the Divine Speech has become limited because of it. God in Islam can never be limited, nor can His creatures limit god. So if isn't option A, B, or C, where is the Holy Sacred Speech of God then? The Speech which is supposed to be the principle guiding force for all of mankind especially, Muslims. How can Asharis then claim they believe in the Quran as the revelation and Word of God sent down to Muhammad if they can't tell us where in their holy book, is the Speech of God itself? At worst, this means the Ashari belief entails the Quran isn't holy or divine thus eliminating Islam's entire main source and one of the 6 pillars of Iman (faith), and at best, reading the Quran isn't a holy act nor can be used as a book for guidance, for Muslims aren't reading the Word of God then. They are reading an imperfect fallible man-made copy of the Speech of God, not the true Divine Inspiration from Allah.
TLDR, the Ashari-Maturidi middle path that the Quran was uncreated and eternal, yet its ink and paper, individual letters and words were created strips the Quran has multiple problems, some may even go against what Islam stands for. It strips the Quran of its Divine Sacred Essence as the Word of God, at worse it may lead to shirk and idolatry akin to the Hindus and Pagans, and at best, Asharis can't point to us where the Word and Speech of God is in the Quran.
Athari/Ahlul Hadith
Now for the Atharis, they are strict literalists who believe the Quran and Allah's Speech both are uncreated unlike the Asharis/Maturidis who adopt a middle path, or the Mutazilite who outright claim the Quran was created, the extreme position.
The First Problem with the Athari position is pretty clear, if the Quran is the literal Word of God completely, then does that mean what Muslims are holding is a literal piece of God here on earth in the moral realm? Does that mean god is with us all the time? How can god, who Muslims consider as being transcendent be here on earth with mankind? If the Quran is the literal physical Speech of God and not just metaphorically or analogically, then does this mean the Speech of God exists on Earth? How can god be here on Earth? The Atharis believe literally that the Quran is the Speech of God, so unless they claim the Speech of God suddenly transformed into a physical object (which I'll address below), the Quran would be a god or at least have a piece of the divine essence of Allah.
This is no different than the Christian position where there exists a God in heaven and a God on Earth at the same time. As I already mentioned, Muslims consider the Christian position of a god on earth unacceptable yet when we look at their own views, we find (in the Athari case) a piece of god exists on earth. Allah still exists in the heavens, yet the Speech of God exists here in the Quran. Let's not even get into the issue of a transcendent god existing in the mortal physical realm, where the laws of physics govern meaning god would be limited in some capacity (which most Muslims would see as ridiculous)
The Second Problem is the relationship between the Quran (God's Speech) and God himself. Considering the Quran was revealed to Muhammad and sent down by Gabriel, how should we understand the Speech of God is here now? Do Atharis believe that the Speech of God suddenly separated from the main body when the Quran was revealed and sent down to earth? Or do Atharis believe the Quran is still the undivided Speech of God, in which case a part of god is literally on earth?
Or what about when the Quran was compiled in book form starting with Abu Bakr's reign and ending with Uthman's standardization? Should we take this to mean now not only does the Speech of God literally exist on earth but the Speech of God now has taken shape, molded into letters and words while compiled into a book equipped with paper pages and covers from front to back? If they want to deny these are from god i.e. the physical cover is man-made, then they would be subscribing to the Ashari-Maturidi doctrine of the middle path (which I already showed also has problems). If they want to take the other path and claim the Quran we have now is not the Word of God literally, then they would be subscribing to the heretical Mutazilite position which also, has tons of religious and doctrinal problems.
TLDR, the Athari literalist position invites more harm than good when it comes to answering the question of the Quran's uncreated nature. It would mean god is literally on earth, or a piece of god's divine essence is. Affirming that a piece of the Divine Essence exists here on earth with mankind would be something similar to the Christian belief that god exists both in the heavens and on earth (Father and Son). Other than that, it would also complicate the relationship between the Quran and God even more. If the Quran is the literal Word and Speech of God, how do Atharis explain the Quran's standardization into a single written book with ink, paper, and covers? Does it mean the Speech of God underwent a physical transformation?
Consequences
Islam posits the Quran to be the Word of God from Allah Himself, however how exactly does that work leads to massive problems within Islam's doctrinal framework. Muslims can't state the Quran is the true literal Speech of God otherwise they would be committing a blasphemous act by believing god is literally on earth with us at this very moment. They also can't deny it is the Speech of God for Islam considers the Quran to be the perfect Kalamullah (literally the Word of God). It is one of the core tenets of belief that Muslims believe the Quran to be the actual Words of God sent down to Muhammad as the last revelation. They also can't adopt a middle path like the Asharis-Maturidis because I've already shown that this just leaves the Quran inside a grey area, it's both the Word of God and also not the Word of God at the same time. Other problems are also relevant which I've already discussed above. Either the middle approach collapses into itself, becoming either one the extreme views, literal divine affirmation like the Atharis, or the extreme divine nullification like the Mutazilites.
Other religions don't have this problem. They do not believe Jesus or Moses were gifted the actual literal Words and Speech of God which existed since time immemorial. Christians believe the Bible was divinely authored by the Apostles of Jesus, where the Holy Spirit guides the writers of the Bible into writing down the true teachings of Jesus and Christianity. Christians don't believe the Bible's passages are the literal Speech of God which has existed with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as if affirming the Bible was also another Divine Person of the Trinity. No, only Muslims as far as I know affirm both their Holy Book contains the Speech of God which both exists on Earth and also with God up in heaven but that leaves them in a contradiction of whether to affirm the Quran is God Himself on Earth or the true Words of God are still up in heaven. After all, how can the Divine Nature which is uncorrupted and perfect exist in a world not perfect, but actually filled with sin, corruption, and spiritual pollution?
In the end, Muslims face a dilemma with regard to the Quran's Holy and Divine Nature. This a dilemma which after going through all the possible Muslim answers that have been given over the years, still fails to give us a proper satisfying answer.
Conclusion
All the responses and viewpoints of the major Islamic sects fail to answer the question, of whether the Quran is created or not. They tried to square a circle by trying to find a balance between affirming the Quran is the divine Word of God while at the same time not falling into a literalist interpretation where god is on Earth (as the Atharis do). However, all responses so far have failed to properly find the right solution, all either fall into extremities at both ends of the spectrum (Mutazilite and Athari) or tried to strike a balance, but only managed to kick the can down the road even further.
If Christianity has the Problem of the Trinity, a major fundamental question that still has philosophers and theologians scratching their heads trying to find an answer, then the Problem of the Quran's Nature is the Islamic version of it. The difference is while Christians continue to debate and argue about the Trinity's true nature, Muslim and Islamic scholars have relatively abandoned the debate, choosing to hold either one of the three major schools of thought. My personal opinion is this is an unfortunate situation, ever since the decline of philosophy in Islamic thought, Kalam and Falsafah (Islamic philosophy) have gained a bad reputation amongst Muslims as being a "gateway to blasphemy". Rarely you will find Muslim scholars in the modern era debate about this, let alone teach laymen Muslims about these topics.
At the very least, I hope my post can inspire future Muslims to look into this topic further, creating new fascinating answers and arguments that contribute to the Muslim and non-Muslim understanding of what Allah is in Islam.

Introduction
Muslims believe the Quran, the holy book of Islam itself is not just a religious book for guidance but also the literal word of god i.e. Allah itself. In everyday conversations, you will hear Muslims call it Kalamullah (Word of God), not in the Christian sense where the Word is Jesus and God but actual sayings, sentences, and words uttered by god himself and compiled into a single book by human hands. While Muslims are proud of their holy book being the literal words of god sent down to all of mankind, there are a few problems with that mainly concerning Islam's doctrinal theology and its core beliefs.
Disclaimer and Notes
Now, before I start, a disclaimer. The issue of the Quran being god's word or not has been one of the most pretentious and divided issues in the Muslim community. Because of this issue, multiple sects (considered deviant and heretical today) popped up in the early years of Islam's history leading to multiple debates, condemnations, and even inquisitions for those that were against the majority-held view in history. So to make it easy considering Islam has tons of historical sects, all of whom held widely different views than modern-day Islam when it comes to the Quran's states as the word of god (or not), this post is aimed at Ashari, Maturidi and Ahlul Hadith/Athari aqeedah sects who make up the majority of Muslims today, collectively considered to be under the umbrella of Ahlul Sunnah Wal Jema'ah (Literally meaning "The People of the Prophet's Tradition and Consensus" or to make it easier to understand "The Followers of the Prophet's Teachings and the Righteous Community"). This term is commonly understood in Islam as those who follow the true and righteous path in Islam which according to the hadiths, out of 73 deviant sects, only 1 (the above I already mention) will be on the correct spiritual path.
Why do I say this problem is akin to the Trinity problem in Christianity? Both are key problems that form the basis of the entire religion, not just for an individual believer but also for the scholars who dabble in religious sciences. Both the Quran and Trinity make up the core fundamental teachings upon which other teachings are established and expanded further. Without these key concepts, the entire premise of both religions (Islam and Christianity) would fall apart within a matter of seconds. Both issues are also hotly debated even to this day. As I mentioned before, the issue of the Quran's creation or non-creation was an important issue that occupied the minds of early-century Muslim scholars and thinkers, to the point schisms and breakaways from the main branch started to emerge. The same thing happened in Christianity with the Trinity which led to excommunication, the Arian controversy, and multiple individual distinct sects, all of whom have a different understanding of what the Trinity is.
Last, I would also like to mention that considering the Trinity has been severely criticized by non-Christians alike as proof of Christianity's falsehood and internal contradictions, then the same should be said with Islam's problem of the Quran's status. However, unlike in Islam, Christianity continued to debate up to the present day and even adopted Greek philosophical concepts to better explain away the Trinity and the relationship between each Divine Person of the Trinity. In Islam, the opposite occurred. Those who used Greek philosophy and rhetoric were condemned as either falling into falsehood or corrupting the religion by introducing pagan concepts. Ironically, the most condemned bunch of the Muslim sects I'll talk about below, the Mutazilites were the ones who most used philosophy which led to their rejection of the Quran's non-createdness.
Due to the decline of the Mutazilite sect, the rise of more conservative movements, and the criticism of Aristotelian philosophical ideas by Al-Ghazali (Note, he wasn't against philosophy, he was against philosophical ideas that went against Islam like the eternity of the world and denying bodily resurrection in the afterlife), theological discussions and debates surrounding the question faded away. Even now, most Muslims consider the issue "solved" and simply adopt one of the three main positions. Unsurprisingly, while the West and Christianity continued adopting new ideas, this means the Muslim positions lacked much substance and arguments seen in Christianity with Greek and Neo-Platonist ideas which in turn, means there are tons of problems with their positions, (which is the whole point of the post)
Now, with that out of the way, let's begin.
How Have Muslims Historically Responded to this Problem?
There are two answers to the question of the Quran's status. One, to affirm that it is the literal word of god from Allah Himself which existed with him since eternity or to affirm it is a created being just like every other creature and human planet earth. The second view doesn't mean that the Quran is simply the work of man, quite the opposite. Rather, it posits that the Quran still holds religious significance as Islam's holy book and is still the Word of God but it was created at a later time by God, not existing eternally with god before the creation of everything. In the second view, the Quran still holds religious significance for praying, guidance, and the basis for Islam, only that it is of a lower status than god himself, being a creation of god that was created at a certain time.
The second view is considered invalid and rejected by all major sects of Islam in the modern era (Ashari, Maturidi, Athari) as a heretical belief that the Mutazilites (The Withdrawers) held. I'm not going to go into who they are, what is their history, or what are their beliefs (you can google it yourself). Just know these are the guys who believe the Quran was a creation of god and were condemned by pretty much every Islamic group and sect from their beginning all the way up to the present modern day. This is one of the only issues where every Islamic sect agrees with each other in condemning this belief, be it Ashari, Maturidi, or Athari. Thus, the second option then is 100% of the table for most Muslims, unless they want to affirm holding beliefs of a heretical group that died out 1000 years ago. I don't think any Muslim will dare to affirm Mutazilite beliefs for fear of ridicule and committing major sins, so there's not much here to discuss. For the sake of brevity, I will address the second view since the one even Muslims will deny and reject. After that, I'll address the Second View
The Second View
But for the sake of argument, I'll assume some rare brave Mutazilite Muslim wants to give it a try. Now, here are some of my questions for you. If the Quran is a creation of god and not the literal Word of God before time immemorial, what is the Quran's relationship with god? You believe these are still words from Allah that help mankind to arrive at the truth and Islam yet at the same you also believe that these were created at a time later than god. How can something that is both speech from god and also created by god himself exist simultaneously at the same time? Anything that is created at a later time means it's a creation, a contingent object that depends on an external creator. It can't be part of god because god is eternal, atemporal, necessary, and independent of everything and anything. If it were god or contained some part of god inside of it, then this is no different than Jesus and the Son of God in Christianity where it contains both a human and godly nature, so does that mean you now believe the Quran to be both god and creation? Just like the Christians who you condemn as a false corrupted religion? This is the First Problem you must face, that be affirming it is both from god and not god, you are throwing yourself into the same pit as Christianity with a dual nature which is already a false religion. I like to call people who affirm this stance "Dualists".
The Second Problem "dualists" face is that this nullifies the Quran's honorific status in Islam, which goes against what the majority of the Muslim world believes in. For Dualists, what is the Quran's honorific and spiritual status in Islam now? We've all seen Muslim riots and protests against the burning or stepping on the Quran by non-Muslims around the world. A man burns or rips up the Quran and the entire Muslim world goes into a frenzy. In Islam, simply placing the Quran on the floor is considered disrespectful and sinful. In the majority of sects today, the Quran must be honored and respected 24/7 partly due to the fact Muslims believe it to be the literal Word. But for Dualists, what is your stance and reason for continuing to respect the Quran? Considering you no longer believe the Quran to be the actual Word, can non-Muslims now vandalize, rip apart, step on, or place the Quran on the floor?? Would you have any problem with it? It's no longer the Word itself but a creation of god. Sure, you might ask others to "respect other religions and beliefs" but aside from this, what else do you have?? Is simply putting a religious book on the floor disrespecting other religions? What makes your holy book now any different from the Jewish and Christian perspectives on their religious books? They don't go into a frenzy every time Bibles are burned or disrespected. Will you do the same thing?
The Third Problem since it's a created thing, wouldn't this also mean that at some point in the future, the Quran no longer exists? That the Quran is finite and will at some point cease to exist? Wouldn't this mean at some point, Islam itself becomes useless because the number one source for everything, the Quran no longer exists? The Quran will cease to exist if it were created, when it happens, will the meaning of the verses and Muslim understanding built up over the centuries also cease to exist? Tafsirs, Fiqh, and Tajwid all suddenly become useless and void of any meaning because the backbone of Islam, the Quran no longer exists. What about the Muslim understanding of what Allah is? Isn't that detrimental should the Quran cease to exist? The best outcome is that Muslims still retain the knowledge but Islam becomes spineless without a religious book and the worst outcome is the complete disintegration of Islam as everything built upon the Quran, now becomes useless. It would mean the complete death of Islam as a major Abrahamic religion.
Next, what about during the Hour, when everything in the heavens and on the Earth will be destroyed and no longer exist? Muslims believe that when the Hour arrives, everything will be destroyed. Every human, child, animal, plant, planet, universe, devil, and angel will die inevitably. Only god remains. Due to this, according to Dualists, will the Quran experience the same fate? All of its verses and Surahs destroyed by god himself. Now I know Muslims, even those of other sects believe the Quran will disappear bit by bit before the Hour as a sign of the impending doom and apocalypse. However, other Muslims believe that yes, the Quran will disappear but the verses themselves remain preserved with god i.e. Allah since these are the literal words of god himself. In a sense, the verses suddenly don't exist, they return back to god.
TLDR, the Dualist Mutazilite view implies a contradiction where the Quran is both God and not God at the same time, it nullifies the Quran's holy status and the divine meaning of the verses, and last, it means the Quran is finite and will cease to exist at some point in the future.
Now, onto the Ashari, Maturidi and Athari sects,
The First View (The Majority)
These three are the most prominent and widely held doctrinal sects in the current Muslim population. I will be splitting the next sections into two sections, Ashari-Maturidi (since both are quite similar and considered a single unified school of thought by Muslim scholars) and the Athari school.
Ashari-Maturidi
The Asharis and Maturidis believe the Quran and its verses to be the literal Word of God itself, with Allah since eternity before time however they believe the book form of the Quran (mushaf), the one which every Muslim holds and reads is of man-made origin. In other words, the verses, sentences, letters, and meaning of the text are from god himself while the cover, paper, ink, writing, and publishing are from mankind. The Ash'ari creed makes a point of difference between the content of the Quran and the physical manifestation of it (in speech or as pages in a book).
The Main Problem with this argument as said by Atharis and Mutazilites is that this strips the Quran of its spiritual and holy essence in Islam. If the real divine aspect of the Quran that came from god itself are the verses and meaning of it only, then should we burn every last Quran in the world, it wouldn't be a problem. After all, the divine part still exists as it is from and with god himself, only the earthly worldly portions of it get destroyed. Why's that a problem? I mean what is the problem spiritually concerning Islam's doctrinal theology itself? What's the problem with destroying the cover or vandalizing the writing of it? It's not from god, it's man-made. The effect of this would be enormous.
This means now non-Muslims and Islamaphobes can now burn, rip, tear apart, step on, vandalize, and desecrate the Quran because they are only destroying the part that is not divine. Would Asharis or Maturidis agree to this? Is now destroying the Quran not a major sin but actually allowed? The true essence of the Quran i.e. the part that is truly divine remains preserved and exists since humans were created and will continue to exist long after everything has died and withered away. The vandalization and desecration of it does not affect the Quran because the true divine verses and meaning remain preserved. This problem is similar to the Second Problem with the Mutazilite belief, it nullifies and strips away the Quran's holy status and honorific place among the Muslim community. If it isn't truly god's divine word, what's the problem if it gets destroyed, wet, or burned?
Heck, I've heard this same argument from other sects, claiming and accusing the Ashari are just Mutazilites in disguise because their main stance of the Quran's identity revolves back to the Mutazilite position where the Quran is a creation of god. One of the main accusations against the Ashari sect is that it's just a rehash version of Mutazilite or Jahmiyyah theology (I don't have time to explain what this is right now, better if you look it up yourselves) due to similarities in doctrine and also because Imam Ashari, the founder was once a Mutazilite himself (not helping the Ashari case) but Asharis claim he renounced all Mutazilite theology and returned back to the true correct path. In this case, should the objection above against the Ashari-Maturidi position succeed, then it would help critics a lot against Asharism.
The Second Problem with holding the Ashari position is that this resembles the idolatry of Hinduism and Paganism or at least, is slipping into idolatry practice. If they claim the Speech of God is contained within the letters, pages, and ink of the Mushaf (the Quran's Uthmanic standardized codex), then how dare they believe the actions of humans can absorb and physicalize the Sacred Divine Speech of God, for Muslims believe god can never be limited by His creatures. This would also mean they believe the ink written on the Quran's pages is a physical intermediary, designed to encapsulate the Speech of God into a physical form, no different than the idols of Hindus and Pagans who believe their idols to be an intermediary or a worldly representation of the True Divine Nature.
Hindus don't claim they worship idols, rather they believe them to be ways to spiritually connect with the divine as a locus for prayer just like how Muslims consider the Kaaba as the direction for prayer, not an idol for worship or as a reminder for believers of the faith similar to how a photo of a spiritual leader is a sign of respect and a daily reminder every-day when you wake up. How is this different than believing the ink inside the Quran holds the truth or emulates the Divine Nature from the Ashari claim? Ashari Muslims affirm the Quran is still the Word of God just represented through a physical form, so how is this not idolatry? Believing that a physical human-made physical manifestation holds the Divine Speech so that followers of Islam can get closer to god?
This would be even worse than the Mutazilites, for committing idolatry whether intentionally or not is a major grave sin in Islam, to the point those that who commit it and do not repent back are considered as Kafir (infidels). If even they aren't committing idolatry and shirk (polytheism), another major sin in Islam, then at the very least, they believe that a divine part of God can be captured inside the ink and pen of writers as if they the Speech of God and the ink become one and the same, another reference to the Christian belief of God having both a Divine and Human Nature. Of course, Muslims and Ashari Muslims consider this to be heretical and blasphemous, but what's the difference between believing the Quran is both man-made and divine versus the Christological belief of Jesus being both God and Man?
The Third Problem with the Ashari answer that the Quran itself is created while the Speech of God isn't is where is the Speech of God then? Asharis can't answer that it is still in heaven for they also believe the Mushaf or Quran contains the Word and Speech of God. If they believe that it is still in heaven with god and not on earth, then what are they even reading every day? Clearly not the Speech of God if they claim it isn't with us now, perhaps an imperfect human copy of the divine Speech of God but that would mean the Quran is imperfect and the work of man, which would be affirming the Mutazilite position. So they can't claim it is both in the heavens and on the earth nor claim it is either in the heavens only or on the earth with mankind only.
I already explained they also can't say the Speech of God is contained inside the ink and letters of the Quran for that means the Divine Speech has become limited because of it. God in Islam can never be limited, nor can His creatures limit god. So if isn't option A, B, or C, where is the Holy Sacred Speech of God then? The Speech which is supposed to be the principle guiding force for all of mankind especially, Muslims. How can Asharis then claim they believe in the Quran as the revelation and Word of God sent down to Muhammad if they can't tell us where in their holy book, is the Speech of God itself? At worst, this means the Ashari belief entails the Quran isn't holy or divine thus eliminating Islam's entire main source and one of the 6 pillars of Iman (faith), and at best, reading the Quran isn't a holy act nor can be used as a book for guidance, for Muslims aren't reading the Word of God then. They are reading an imperfect fallible man-made copy of the Speech of God, not the true Divine Inspiration from Allah.
TLDR, the Ashari-Maturidi middle path that the Quran was uncreated and eternal, yet its ink and paper, individual letters and words were created strips the Quran has multiple problems, some may even go against what Islam stands for. It strips the Quran of its Divine Sacred Essence as the Word of God, at worse it may lead to shirk and idolatry akin to the Hindus and Pagans, and at best, Asharis can't point to us where the Word and Speech of God is in the Quran.
Athari/Ahlul Hadith
Now for the Atharis, they are strict literalists who believe the Quran and Allah's Speech both are uncreated unlike the Asharis/Maturidis who adopt a middle path, or the Mutazilite who outright claim the Quran was created, the extreme position.
The First Problem with the Athari position is pretty clear, if the Quran is the literal Word of God completely, then does that mean what Muslims are holding is a literal piece of God here on earth in the moral realm? Does that mean god is with us all the time? How can god, who Muslims consider as being transcendent be here on earth with mankind? If the Quran is the literal physical Speech of God and not just metaphorically or analogically, then does this mean the Speech of God exists on Earth? How can god be here on Earth? The Atharis believe literally that the Quran is the Speech of God, so unless they claim the Speech of God suddenly transformed into a physical object (which I'll address below), the Quran would be a god or at least have a piece of the divine essence of Allah.
This is no different than the Christian position where there exists a God in heaven and a God on Earth at the same time. As I already mentioned, Muslims consider the Christian position of a god on earth unacceptable yet when we look at their own views, we find (in the Athari case) a piece of god exists on earth. Allah still exists in the heavens, yet the Speech of God exists here in the Quran. Let's not even get into the issue of a transcendent god existing in the mortal physical realm, where the laws of physics govern meaning god would be limited in some capacity (which most Muslims would see as ridiculous)
The Second Problem is the relationship between the Quran (God's Speech) and God himself. Considering the Quran was revealed to Muhammad and sent down by Gabriel, how should we understand the Speech of God is here now? Do Atharis believe that the Speech of God suddenly separated from the main body when the Quran was revealed and sent down to earth? Or do Atharis believe the Quran is still the undivided Speech of God, in which case a part of god is literally on earth?
Or what about when the Quran was compiled in book form starting with Abu Bakr's reign and ending with Uthman's standardization? Should we take this to mean now not only does the Speech of God literally exist on earth but the Speech of God now has taken shape, molded into letters and words while compiled into a book equipped with paper pages and covers from front to back? If they want to deny these are from god i.e. the physical cover is man-made, then they would be subscribing to the Ashari-Maturidi doctrine of the middle path (which I already showed also has problems). If they want to take the other path and claim the Quran we have now is not the Word of God literally, then they would be subscribing to the heretical Mutazilite position which also, has tons of religious and doctrinal problems.
TLDR, the Athari literalist position invites more harm than good when it comes to answering the question of the Quran's uncreated nature. It would mean god is literally on earth, or a piece of god's divine essence is. Affirming that a piece of the Divine Essence exists here on earth with mankind would be something similar to the Christian belief that god exists both in the heavens and on earth (Father and Son). Other than that, it would also complicate the relationship between the Quran and God even more. If the Quran is the literal Word and Speech of God, how do Atharis explain the Quran's standardization into a single written book with ink, paper, and covers? Does it mean the Speech of God underwent a physical transformation?
Consequences
Islam posits the Quran to be the Word of God from Allah Himself, however how exactly does that work leads to massive problems within Islam's doctrinal framework. Muslims can't state the Quran is the true literal Speech of God otherwise they would be committing a blasphemous act by believing god is literally on earth with us at this very moment. They also can't deny it is the Speech of God for Islam considers the Quran to be the perfect Kalamullah (literally the Word of God). It is one of the core tenets of belief that Muslims believe the Quran to be the actual Words of God sent down to Muhammad as the last revelation. They also can't adopt a middle path like the Asharis-Maturidis because I've already shown that this just leaves the Quran inside a grey area, it's both the Word of God and also not the Word of God at the same time. Other problems are also relevant which I've already discussed above. Either the middle approach collapses into itself, becoming either one the extreme views, literal divine affirmation like the Atharis, or the extreme divine nullification like the Mutazilites.
Other religions don't have this problem. They do not believe Jesus or Moses were gifted the actual literal Words and Speech of God which existed since time immemorial. Christians believe the Bible was divinely authored by the Apostles of Jesus, where the Holy Spirit guides the writers of the Bible into writing down the true teachings of Jesus and Christianity. Christians don't believe the Bible's passages are the literal Speech of God which has existed with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as if affirming the Bible was also another Divine Person of the Trinity. No, only Muslims as far as I know affirm both their Holy Book contains the Speech of God which both exists on Earth and also with God up in heaven but that leaves them in a contradiction of whether to affirm the Quran is God Himself on Earth or the true Words of God are still up in heaven. After all, how can the Divine Nature which is uncorrupted and perfect exist in a world not perfect, but actually filled with sin, corruption, and spiritual pollution?
In the end, Muslims face a dilemma with regard to the Quran's Holy and Divine Nature. This a dilemma which after going through all the possible Muslim answers that have been given over the years, still fails to give us a proper satisfying answer.
Conclusion
All the responses and viewpoints of the major Islamic sects fail to answer the question, of whether the Quran is created or not. They tried to square a circle by trying to find a balance between affirming the Quran is the divine Word of God while at the same time not falling into a literalist interpretation where god is on Earth (as the Atharis do). However, all responses so far have failed to properly find the right solution, all either fall into extremities at both ends of the spectrum (Mutazilite and Athari) or tried to strike a balance, but only managed to kick the can down the road even further.
If Christianity has the Problem of the Trinity, a major fundamental question that still has philosophers and theologians scratching their heads trying to find an answer, then the Problem of the Quran's Nature is the Islamic version of it. The difference is while Christians continue to debate and argue about the Trinity's true nature, Muslim and Islamic scholars have relatively abandoned the debate, choosing to hold either one of the three major schools of thought. My personal opinion is this is an unfortunate situation, ever since the decline of philosophy in Islamic thought, Kalam and Falsafah (Islamic philosophy) have gained a bad reputation amongst Muslims as being a "gateway to blasphemy". Rarely you will find Muslim scholars in the modern era debate about this, let alone teach laymen Muslims about these topics.
At the very least, I hope my post can inspire future Muslims to look into this topic further, creating new fascinating answers and arguments that contribute to the Muslim and non-Muslim understanding of what Allah is in Islam.
For those that have no time to read everything, I placed TLDRs under the most important points. Even reading that should give you a basic idea of what I'm talking about

Translated from https://bincangsyariah.com/kolom/musik-itu-haram-atau-halal-ini-penjelasan-quraish-shihab/
BincangSyariah.Com – Several musicians who decided to emigrate completely sold all their musical instruments at low prices because of concerns that musical instruments were haram. Regarding this matter, Tantri Kotak also expressed similar concerns and asked about his concerns on the Shihab&Shihab Talk Show some time ago.
Meanwhile, according to Najwa Shihab, he once read a hadith narrated by Muslim which said that Allah is beautiful and loves beauty, and isn't art part of beauty itself? At this point, what is the law on music and what is its position in Islam?
According to Prof. Quraish Shihab, before entering into the law of haram-halal music, it would be good to explore the context of asbab nuzul which was the background to the prohibition of music during the time of the Prophet.
In its time, the Koran was the most beautiful work of art, even today. So when the Koran was revealed, Arab and non-Arab people were amazed by the melodious chanting of the Koran, which touched their hearts.
Meanwhile, at that time there were people who were unhappy with Islam and wanted to divert people from listening to the Koran. "So he went to Persia to buy good books which they hoped would divert the Muslim community from the Koran. "There are also those who invite singers," explained the Professor of Tafsir at the Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University.
So, because this song has the potential to distract people from the Koran, the following verse was revealed:
وَمِنَ النَّاسِ مَن يَشْتَرِي لَهْوَ الْحَدِيثِ لِيُضِلَّ عَن سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ بِغَيْرِ عِلْمٍ وَيَتَّخِذَهَا هُزُوًا ۚ أُولَٰئِكَ لَهُمْ عَذَابٌ مُّهِينٌ
It means; And among humans (there are) those who use useless words to lead (people) astray from the path of Allah without knowledge and make a mockery of the path of Allah. They will suffer a humiliating punishment (Qs. Luqman; 6)
According to the author of Tafsir al-Misbah, the word lahwun means something that is in vain. So the word lahwun here is understood as something unimportant that people do which results in important things being neglected or in a broader context doing something important results in more important actions being neglected.
“The point is here. If you don't ignore something important, don't neglect remembering Allah, then (music) is fine. "Religion forbids it if it takes up time in such a way that what is important is neglected," said Prof. Quraish.
Moreover, it is human nature to enjoy beauty, but don't let the beauty you hear or express make people deviate from nature. So the red line here is that music is allowed as long as it is within the limits of the corridors permitted by Islam.
"If the content of the song makes someone love their homeland more, or creates close friendships, that's fine as long as it doesn't lead to anything deviant from Islam," said Prof. Quraish again.
For example, the Prophet once had two female singers in his house. When Abu Bakr entered, he rebuked the singers for singing in the Prophet's house. The Prophet said, "Let it be, O Abu Bakr, now that it is Eid, please let people sing," but as soon as there was content in the song that was not correct, the Prophet straightened it out. This hadith is contained in the history of Imam Bukhari.
Meanwhile, regarding the statement saying that musical instruments are haram, this also needs to be straightened out. Because there are no laws for this tool, but when it is used there is a law that is born. The context of the flute being forbidden is because when it is used it makes people who listen careless, but the Prophet David also played the flute but that did not prevent him from remembering Allah.
“It is not the equipment that is prohibited but its use. In the past it was banned because it was used for something bad. "There is no law against tools, in my opinion," concluded Prof. Qurash.

DISCLAIMER:
I'm not educated in Arabic and I am not knowledgable in Hadith and Quranic terminology espescially Hadith sciences, and thus may provide inaccurate information that will NOT affect the overall meaning of the message, hopefully lol.
For the sake of brevity, I'll gloss over a lot of these terms and may misrepresent them. Please forgive me if I speak in error.
This post is basically a mangled summary of this wonderful paper, Before Orthodoxy: The Satanic Verses in Early Islam by Dr Shahab Ahmed. My post will NOT do this extremely detailed paper any justice. If you'd like to read it yourself in full, please DM me as I have the link to the book.

What is the Satanic Verses incident?

There's so many reports around it but the gist is that Muhammad pbuh reveals a a set of verses to tribes people that allows the worship of the polytheistic gods of Mecca in the agreement that these tribes people will eventually join Islam and forgo these Gods.
P:290 "The Prophet is remembered as consciously considering a temporary compromise with polytheism. He contemplates allowing Thaqīf to continue worshipping al-Lāt and al-‘Uzzā for a year as part of the terms of a negotiated agreement through which they will ultimately accept Islam. Thaqīf suggest to him that he make Divine Revelation the instrument by which to justify his concession."
Moreover, the early Muslims also believed that verses like Surah Al-Hajj 52-53 were in response to this incident where Allah rebukes Muhammad but also comforts him as if it was a natural part of the prophethood:
22:52
وَمَآ أَرْسَلْنَا مِن قَبْلِكَ مِن رَّسُولٍۢ وَلَا نَبِىٍّ إِلَّآ إِذَا تَمَنَّىٰٓ أَلْقَى ٱلشَّيْطَـٰنُ فِىٓ أُمْنِيَّتِهِۦ فَيَنسَخُ ٱللَّهُ مَا يُلْقِى ٱلشَّيْطَـٰنُ ثُمَّ يُحْكِمُ ٱللَّهُ ءَايَـٰتِهِۦ ۗ وَٱللَّهُ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌۭ ٥٢
Whenever We sent a messenger or a prophet before you and he recited, Satan would influence his recitation. But Allah would eliminate Satan’s influence. Then Allah would establish His revelations. And Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.
Obviously, the early Muslims didn't believe these verses eventually made it into the Quran since Allah has rebuked it.

Did the early Muslims believe it?

The paper basically goes in extremely thorough detail on why early Muslims believed it and it was infact a major part of their understanding of the Prophet. I frankly couldn't understand his methodology cos I'm TERRIBLE at hadith, tafsir transmission and what not (very new to this) so I suggest you look through the paper where Dr Shahab proves beyond reasonable doubt that the early Muslims did indeed believe in this incident.

Why did early Muslims believe it, and why did Muslims after them reject the incident?

Okay so this is the really really interesting part in my opinion. Dr Shahab basically states that the concept of infalliblity proscribed to Muhammad was actually a concept that developed with the development of Hadiths. For early Muslims, Muhammad was actually seen as a fallible figure and that the satanic verses incident was entirely consonant with their world view. Similar to the stories of Yusuf where he resited the temptation of Zulaykhah or when Adam disobeyed his Lord and approached the tree. Dr Shahab writes about this here:
“The sīrah- maghāzī project thus had no need of an infallible Prophetic model for pious mimesis: there is little drama to be had from a hero who never makes mistakes. Drama arises when there is the possibility of things going wrong, of defeat, of failure, when events must be out- witted and setbacks overcome. This is precisely what happens in the Satanic verses incident.”

So why did Muslims later on reject these Satanic Verses?

Firstly, the hadith sciences that they had developed basically evaluated almost all of these hadiths as weaks. More importantly, and this is the REALLY INTERESTING part, the image of a fallible prophet who could succumb to the pressure of Satan and basically peer pressure didn't fit with their idea of the prophet espescially at a time when they were deriving laws from the actions of Muhammad pbuh. Dr Shahab excellently summarizes this view here: “In rejecting the Satanic verses incident, the Ḥadīth project—emerging with increasing force and definition from the mid-second century onward was disapprovingly at odds with the early understanding of Muḥammad’s Prophethood. The logic of the Ḥadīth project required an infallible Prophet whose words and deeds would lay down legal, praxial, and creedal norms for pious mimesis, as a definitive method by which to establish the veracity and authority of those prescribed norms. It is that logic, and that notion of Prophethood, that would later establish itself as Islamic orthodoxy.”

So did the Satanic Verses incident actually happen???

As to the actual historicity of this event, Dr Shahab Ahmed says that orientalist scholars in the past have generally taken this Satanic verses incident to be true BECAUSE early muslims accepted it despite it running contrary to their idea of an infallible Muhammad pbuh, HOWEVER in sight of how early Muslims actually viewed Muhammad pbuh as a person struggling with prophethood this argument does not have strong merit as there is presumably no reason why early Muslims could not have made it up.

Lessons to be drawn from this research (imo):

1. Muhammad was not infallible. He was a remarkable person who was a great moral character but NO he did make mistakes. This infallibility prescribed to him was a later invention!
2. Hadiths, Tafsir, Sirah or ANY Islamic materials outside of the Quran all reflect the biases and perceptions of Muslims of their time. Only treat Quran - the word of Allah as infallible!

That the universe is expanding:

We built the universe with ˹great˺ might, and We are certainly expanding ˹it˺.

(https://quran.com/en/adh-dhariyat/47).
So, let me explain. Lamusi’una is an active participle. (https://corpus.quran.com/wordmorphology.jsp?location=(51:47:5))) Active participles refer to things going on at the moment. So, the only rational conclusion is that this verse is trying to say “we are expanding it.”
That the moon is reflective:
71:16

placing the moon within them as a ˹reflected˺ light, and the sun as a ˹radiant˺ lamp?

(https://quran.com/en/nuh/16)
10:5

He is the One Who made the sun a radiant source and the moon a reflected light, with precisely ordained phases, so that you may know the number of years and calculation ˹of time˺. Allah did not create all this except for a purpose. He makes the signs clear for people of knowledge.

(https://quran.com/en/yunus/5)
Yes, the Tafsirs, corpus, and dictionaries all say "reflected light."
Ibn Kathir at multiple points

And He created the sun with its shining light, and the moon with its reflected light.

(https://quran.com/fussilat/37/tafsirs)

It gives off little light, then on the second night its light increases and it rises to a higher position, and the higher it rises the more light it gives -- even though it is reflected from the sun -- until it becomes full on the fourteenth night of the month.

(https://quranx.com/tafsirs/36.38)

(and a moon giving light.) means, shining and illuminated by the light of something else, different from the light of the sun, as Allah says:

(https://quran.com/en/al-furqan/62/tafsirs)
Corpus: ( https://corpus.quran.com/wordmorphology.jsp?location=(10:5:7)) )
Also, look at these
Lisan Al-Arab dictionary, Book 3, Pages 805, 808.
Al-Muheet dictionary, Page 454.
Al-Mu'jam Al-Waseet dictionary, Page 962.
Al-Mawrid dictionary Arabic-English section, Page 1196.
Arabic-English dictionary the Hans Wehr dictionary, Page 1008, 1009.
نور (noor): نy بي (bayyan) reveal, reflect.
إستنار به (istanaara bihi): د شعاعة y إستم (istamadda shu'aaa'uh) was supplied by its light.
انار المكان (anaara al-makaan): وضع فيه النور (wada'aa feehi al-noor) Put light into it, or reflected light off of it.
} ا} ت الشجرو انارت ايضا . ورy ن (nawwarat al-shajarah wa anaarat aydan): اخرجت نورها (akhrajat nooraha) The plant reflected the light off of itself, or it showed the light off of itself. However, plants, as we know, are not a source of light.
انار النبت (anaara al-nabtu): ظهر و حسن (tha-hara wa hasan) the plant was revealed well from light.
نور (noor): be revealed, to be lighted, to receive light.
(https://www.reddit.com/IslamicRefutations/comments/12pjng4/re_the_moon_is_a_light/) (That is where I got those dictionary definitions and Tafsir Passages and the Corpus Quran link.)
Also, multiple things about egyptology that the Bible got Wrong.
That is also proof that the Quran didn't copy the bible.
Moses was estimated to be around the New Kingdom. Joseph before that. Kings were referred to Pharaohs starting from the New Kingdom.
In Joseph's chapter, 12:50, it says this.

The King ˹then˺ said, “Bring him to me.” When the messenger came to him, Joseph said, “Go back to your master and ask him about the case of the women who cut their hands. Surely my Lord has ˹full˺ knowledge of their cunning.”

(https://quran.com/en/yusuf/50)
In 51:38, it says this.

And in ˹the story of˺ Moses ˹was another lesson,˺ when We sent him to Pharaoh with compelling proof,

(https://quran.com/en/adh-dhariyat/38)
Not once in Moses' chapter was "King" used. Not once in Joseph's chapter was "Pharaoh" used.
The bible completely differs on that.
Genesis 37:36, and the king is referred to as a Pharaoh.

Meanwhile, the Midianites sold Joseph in Egypt to Potiphar, one of Pharaoh’s officials, the captain of the guard.

(https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2037%3A36&version=NIV)
The dictionaries said that as well.
And also that Potiphar was not used in the old kingdom.
The oldest use of that name was on a stone slab dated to at earliest, 1069 BCE. Also, Al-Aziz is not a name, but a title. The Qur'an uses it correctly. (https://www.reddit.com/DebateReligion/comments/dvet7n/the_qurans_historical_accuracy_vs_the_bibles/) (This post goes into detail with more sources to show you guys what I mean. It gives the estimates, more verses, and artifacts which prove the point)

𝙏𝙝𝙞𝙧𝙙 𝙦𝙪𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣: 𝙋𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙚 𝙩𝙚𝙡𝙡 𝙪𝙨 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙢𝙤𝙨𝙩 𝙞𝙢𝙥𝙤𝙧𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙩 𝙗𝙤𝙤𝙠𝙨 𝙞𝙣 `𝘼𝙦𝙞𝙙𝙖𝙝 (𝙘𝙧𝙚𝙚𝙙).
A: The most important book in `Aqidah is the Qur'an; it is the most truthful, the greatest and the noblest book. You should adhere to it as much as possible and recite it often. It includes `Aqidah, guidance to goodness and warning against evil. If you read it carefully out of desire to learn and follow its instructions closely, whether in words, deeds or `Aqidah, you will find all goodness in it from the beginning to the end i.e. from Surah Al-Fatihah [Surah (1)] to Say: "I seek refuge with (Allâh) the Lord of mankind, If you contemplate this great book and recite it often, you will comprehend the `Aqidah which Allah (Exalted be He) accept from you and from the Mu'mins (believers). Then, you should read the books of Hadith, such as the Two Sahih (authentic) Books of Hadith (i.e. Al-Bukhari and Muslim) and others. After that, you should read the books of scholars known for knowledge, grace and true `Aqidah, such as the books written by the Shaykh of Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, including "Al-`Aqidah Al-Wasitiyyah", "Al-`Aqidah Al-Tadmuriyyah", "Al-`Aqidah Al-Hamawiyyah", "Minhaj Al-Sunnah" and "Majmu` Al-Fatawa". There is also the book of `Aqidah written by Ibn Abu Zayd Al-Qayrawany and the explanation of Ibn Abu Al-`Ezz for Al-Tahawiyyah `Aqidah, being a useful one. Moreover, there are useful books written by Ibn Al-Qayyim (may Allah be merciful to him). There is also the book entitled "Fat-h Al-Majid" written by Shaykh `Abdul-Rahman ibn Hasan; and "Al-Tawhid", "Kashf Al-Shubuhat" and "Thalathat Al-Usul" by Imam and Shaykh Muhammad ibn `Abdul-Wahhab. "Kashf Al-Shubuhat" and "Thalathat Al-Usul" (Part No. 7; Page No. 179) There is also "Al-Durar Al-Saniyyah" that include the Fatwas (legal opinions issued by a qualified Muslim scholar) issued by the scholars of Najd. I advise the beginner knowledge seekers to memorize the Qur'an or as much as they can, and to study the books entitled "Al-Tawhid", "Kashf Al-Shubuhat", "Thalathat Al-Usul" and "Al-`Aqidah Al-Wasitiyyah." They clarify the reality of the three parts of Tawhid and Salafiyyah (the way of the righteous predecessors), which is the `Aqidah called to by Shaykh and Imam Muhammad ibn `Abdul-Wahhab (may Allah be merciful to him), and which is the `Aqidah adopted by Saudi Arabia. It entails adhering to the Qur'an and the Sunnah, and following the way of the Salaf (righteous predecessors) in `Aqidah and rulings according to the Qur'an, the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), and the way of the Sahabah (Companions of the Prophet) and their followers. Some people call it Wahabiyyah `Aqidah, and think that it is a new `Aqidah contradictory to the Qur'an and the Sunnah. This is not the case; it is the `Aqidah followed by the Salaf of the Ummah (nation) as previously mentioned but our enemies gave it this name to make people hate it and others imitated them out of ignorance. However, a knowledge seeker should not be deceived by this; they should know the truth from their books, not through the claims of their enemies and those who are ignorant of their `Aqidah. May Allah grant everyone guidance and success!
https://www.alifta.gov.sa/En/IftaContents/IbnBaz/Pages/FatawaSubjects.aspx?cultStr=en&View=Page&HajjEntryID=0&HajjEntryName=&RamadanEntryID=0&RamadanEntryName=&NodeID=4270&PageID=891&SectionID=14&SubjectPageTitlesID=22689&MarkIndex=3&0 The fourth question of Fatwa no. 8943 Q 4: What is the best book on Tawhid (monotheism) and ‘Aqidah (creed) and how can a person get that? A: The greatest and best book to clarify the sound ‘Aqidah (creed) is the Glorious Book of Allah, the Qur’an, then the Hadith of His Messenger (peace be upon him). The following is a list of some of the most beneficial books on this subject: (Part No. 2; Page No. 261) Fathul-Majid, Al-‘Aqidah Al-Wasitiyyah, Al-‘Uluw Lil-‘Aliy Al-Ghaffar, Al-Tawassul wal-Wasilah, Al-Sawa‘iq Al-Mursalah Abridged, Tathir Al-I‘tiqad and Sharh Al-Tahawiyyah. May Allah grant us success. May peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad, his family, and Companions.
The Permanent Committee for Scholarly Research and Ifta’
Member Member Deputy Chairman Chairman `Abdullah ibn Qa`ud `Abdullah ibn Ghudayyan `Abdul-Razzaq `Afify `Abdul-`Aziz ibn `Abdullah ibn Baz
https://www.alifta.gov.sa/En/IftaContents/PermanentCommitee/Pages/FatawaDetails.aspx?cultStr=en&View=Page&PageID=614&PageNo=1&BookID=7
The twelfth question of Fatwa no. 8150 Q 12: Please, inform us of the useful Islamic books that we may refer to in matters related to ‘Aqidah (Islamic creed), Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence), and authentic books of Sirah (biography of the Prophet). A: You should first refer to the Holy Qur’an and the books of Sunnah like the Two Sahih (authentic) Books of Hadith (i.e. Al-Bukhari and Muslim) and the Sunan (Hadith compilations by Abu Dawud, Al-Tirmidhy, Al-Nasa’y and Ibn Majah). In the area of Tawhid (monotheism), you may refer to “Sharh Al-Tahawiyyah” and “Fath Al-Majid Sharh Kitab Al-Tawhid”. In the area of Sirah and Fiqh, you may refer to “Zad Al-Mi‘ad Fi Hady Khayr Al-‘Ibad”. We also recommend you to read the books of the Shaykh of Islam Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah and his disciple Ibn Al-Qayyim. May Allah grant us success. May peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad, his family, and Companions.
Member Member Deputy Chairman Chairman `Abdullah ibn Qa`ud `Abdullah ibn Ghudayyan `Abdul-Razzaq `Afify `Abdul-`Aziz ibn `Abdullah ibn Baz
https://www.alifta.gov.sa/En/IftaContents/PermanentCommitee/Pages/FatawaDetails.aspx?cultStr=en&View=Page&PageID=613&PageNo=1&BookID=7
Choosing books
The seventh question of Fatwa no. 4678 What are the available books, that you suggest, that a Muslim may depend on to know about religious issues? May Allah reward you with the best. A: The basic principles a scholar should depend on to study religious matters are the evidence included in the Book (Qur'an) and the authentic Sunnah reported from the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), the Ijma` (consensus of scholars), and the other sources of legal evidence such as Qiyas (analogy) and presumption of continuity unless otherwise proven. As for a learner who is not qualified to examine the evidence and deduce judgments, he is required to delve into the books of well versed scholars to benefit from their knowledge. The most important of such books are Tafsir (exegesis of the meanings of the Qur'an) by Ibn Jarir Al-Tabary, Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, Tafsir of Al-Qurtuby, jurisprudential commentary of Ibn Al-`Araby, Fath Al-Bari, a commentary on Sahih Al-Bukhari by Ibn Hajar, the commentary of Al-Nawawy on Sahih Muslim, `Ardat Al-Ahwadhy, a commentary on Sunan of Al-Tirmidhy. A learner may also refer to the key sources of Hanafi Jurisprudence like Fath-ul-Qadir, the key sources of Shafi`i Jurisprudence like Al-Majmu`, a commentary on al-Muhazab of al-Shirazi by Al-Nawawy, the key sources of the Maliki Jurisprudence like Al-Kafi by Ibn `Abdul-Bar and Al-Muqademat by Ibn Rushd, the grandfather, and Bidayet Al-Mujtahid by Ibn Rushd, the grandson, (Part No. 12; Page No. 121) and the key source of Hanbaly Jurisprudence like the books of Al-Mughny, Al-Kafy, and `Umdat al-Fiqh by Ibn Qudamah, and Zad Al-Ma`ad by Ibn Al-Qayyim. As for books on creed, you may refer to Sharh Al-Tahawiyya by Ibn Abu Al-`Izz, Al-`Aqida Al-wasityya by shaykh-ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, Mukhtasar Al-Sawa`ek Al-Mursalah by Ibn Al-Qayyim and Fath Al-Majid sharh Kitab Al-Tawhid by shaykh `Abdul-Rahman ibn Hasan. You should also seek the advice of the scholars you trust concerning the relevant books you may read and you should ask them about matters you do not fully understand. May Allah grant us success. May peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad, his family, and Companions.
The Permanent Committee for Scholarly Research and Ifta'
Member Member Deputy Chairman Chairman `Abdullah ibn Qa`ud `Abdullah ibn Ghudayyan `Abdul-Razzaq `Afify `Abdul-`Aziz ibn `Abdullah ibn Baz
https://www.alifta.gov.sa/En/IftaContents/PermanentCommitee/Pages/FatawaDetails.aspx?cultStr=en&View=Page&PageID=4353&PageNo=1&BookID=7
Shaykh al-Albaanee: Recommends Books For A Young Person That Is Starting Out In His Islaamic StudiesQuestion: What are the books you recommend a young person that is starting out in his Islaamic studies to read?Answer: If he is a novice, then from the books of Fiqh, we advise him to read ” Fiqh As-Sunnah” of Sayyid Saabiq, while seeking assistance from some of its references, such as ” Subul-us-Salaam” (of Imaam As-Sana’aanee, rahimahullaah). And if he looks into ” Tamaam-ul-Mannah” (of Al-Albaanee) then that will be stronger for him. And I advise him to read ” Ar-Rawdat-un-Nadiyyah” (of Sideeq Hasan Khaan).As for the subject of Tafseer, then he should habitually read from the book ” Tafseer Al-Qur’aan-ul-’Adheem” of Ibn Katheer – even though it is somewhat long – for it is the most authentic from the books of Tafseer today.Then, on the subject of religious exhortation and heart-softening narrations, he should read the book “Riyaad-us-Saaliheen” of Imaam An-Nawawee.Then, with regard to the books related to Creed, I advise him to read the book ” Sharh Al-’Aqeedat-ut-Tahaawiyyah” of Ibn Abee Al-’Izz Al-Hanafee. And he should seek assistance, also, from my comments and explanations to it.Then, he should make it his customary practice to study from the books of Shaikh-ul-Islaam Ibn Taimiyyah and his student Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah, may Allaah have mercy on them. For I hold them to be from the rare and unique Muslim scholars that have treaded upon the methodology of the Salaf As-Saalih (righteous predecessors) in their understanding, while having Taqwaa and righteousness. And we do not purify anyone over Allaah.Shaykh al-Albaanee (may Allaah have mercy on him)[Al-Asaalah, Issue #5]https://www.alalbani.info/alalbany_eng_029.php
Sheikh Aman al Jamee https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0JoVi9Uy8Q

Taken from Tafsir Ibn Kathir on Surah 9:28-29
Allah said …
, if they do not choose to embrace Islam …
, in defeat and subservience …
, _DISGRACED, HUMILIATED AND BELITTLED. _Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, FOR THEY ARE MISERABLE, DISGRACED AND HUMILIATED. Muslim recorded from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet said …
<>
This is why the Leader of the faithful Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, demanded his well-known conditions be met by the Christians, THESE CONDITIONS THAT ENSURED THEIR CONTINUED HUMILIATION, DEGRADATION AND DISGRACE. The scholars of Hadith narrated from Abdur-Rahman bin Ghanm Al-Ashari that he said, "I recorded for `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, the terms of the treaty of peace he conducted with the Christians of Ash-Sham:
‘In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. This is a document to the servant of Allah `Umar, the Leader of the faithful, from the Christians of such and such city. When you (Muslims) came to us we requested safety for ourselves, children, property and followers of our religion.
We made a condition on ourselves that we will neither erect in our areas a monastery, church, or a sanctuary for a monk, nor restore any place of worship that needs restoration nor use any of them for the purpose of enmity against Muslims.
We will not prevent any Muslim from resting in our churches whether they come by day or night, and we will open the doors [of our houses of worship] for the wayfarer and passerby.
Those Muslims who come as guests, will enjoy boarding and food for three days.
We will not allow a spy against Muslims into our churches and homes or hide deceit [or betrayal] against Muslims.
We will not teach our children the Qur'an, publicize practices of Shirk, invite anyone to Shirk or prevent any of our fellows from embracing Islam, if they choose to do so.
We will respect Muslims, MOVE FROM THE PLACES WE SIT IN IF THEY CHOOSE TO SIT IN THEM.
We will not imitate their clothing, caps, turbans, sandals, hairstyles, speech, nicknames and title names, or ride on saddles, hang swords on the shoulders, collect weapons of any kind or carry these weapons.
We will not encrypt our stamps in Arabic, or sell liquor.
We will have the front of our hair cut, wear our customary clothes wherever we are, wear belts around our waist, refrain from erecting crosses on the outside of our churches and demonstrating them and our books in public in Muslim fairways and markets.
We will not sound the bells in our churches, except discretely, or raise our voices while reciting our holy books inside our churches in the presence of Muslims, nor raise our voices [with prayer] at our funerals, or light torches in funeral processions in the fairways of Muslims, or their markets.
We will not bury our dead next to Muslim dead, or buy servants who were captured by Muslims. We will be guides for Muslims and refrain from breaching their privacy in their homes.’
When I gave this document to Umar, he added to it, _`We will not beat any Muslim. These are the conditions that we set against ourselves and followers of our religion IN RETURN FOR SAFETY AND PROTECTION. If we break any of these promises that we set for your benefit against ourselves, then our Dhimmah (promise of protection) is broken and you are allowed to do with us what you are allowed of people of defiance and rebellion.’" _

Summary:
Following the migration to Medina, Muhammad initially sought to win favor with the Jews by altering the Qibla from Mecca to Bait al-Muqadass and incorporating many Jewish rulings into Islamic Sharia. However, this effort at appeasement quickly turned into deep-seated enmity and animosity.
The turning point came when:

• The Jews challenged Muhammad to perform the "Miracle of Fire," a test commonly associated with prophethood claims in the Bible.
• Muhammad and his Allah failed to produce such a miracle, leading to widespread disbelief among the Jewish community in Medina.

As a result, their exposure of Muhammad as a false prophet marked the end of Jewish appeasement and the onset of intense anger and hostility towards them.

The TEST of "Miracle of Fire":
The Bible contains several passages that highlight the phenomenon of divine acceptance of a person's sacrificial offering through the appearance of a mysterious fire that consumes the offering. These instances can be found in verses such as Judges 6:20-21, 13:19-20, and 2 Chronicles 7:1-2.
Actually, Muhammad had already made a mistake, and he had also previously confirmed this method of the miracle of fire in the Quran 5:27, in the story of Adam and his sons, where a fire appeared and consumed the offering of one son who sacrificed a sheep.

Quran 5:27: Recite to them the truth of the story of the two sons of Adam. Behold! they each presented a sacrifice (to Allah): It was accepted from one, but not from the other.

Tafsir Tabari, under verse 5:27 (link):

It was narrated from as-Suddi, in his narration from Abu Maalik and from Abu Saalih from Ibn ‘Abbaas, and from Murrah from Ibn Mas‘ood, and from some of the companions of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him): ... Habeel (Abel) offered a fat lamb as his offering, while Qabeel (Cain) presented a sheaf of corn but secretly took out and consumed a large portion of the corn. Subsequently, fire descended from the heavens and consumed Habeel's offering, while Qabeel's offering remained untouched and unaccepted. In response, Qabeel became enraged and threatened to kill Habeel, vowing that he would not allow him to marry his sister. Grade: Sahih (Albani)

Consequently, when Muhammad asserted his prophethood, the Jews asked him to provide proof through the manifestation of a miracle, specifically the fire consuming his offering.
Muhammad found himself unable to dismiss this demand outright, as he already acknowledged it in the story of Adam in the Quran.
However, Muhammad resorted to a different approach, offering a new excuse. He accepted the validity of the miracle involving the fire accepting the offering, but he refused to showcase this miracle. He justified his inability to show this miracle by accusing the Jews of Medina that their forefathers sinned by killing previous prophets

Quran 3:183: They (the Jews) said: "Allah took our promise not to believe in any messenger unless He showed us a sacrifice consumed by Fire (From heaven)." Say: "There came to you messengers before me, with clear Signs and even with what ye ask for: why then did ye slay them, if ye speak the truth?"

However, this excuse by the writer of the Quran does not hold up under scrutiny as it is unjust to punish individuals for the sins of their ancestors. In this case, the writer of the Quran is essentially claiming to hold the Jews of his time accountable for the actions of their forefathers. This contradicts the concept of divine justice, which does not attribute guilt based on lineage.
Secondly, the writer of the Quran contradicts his own claims within the text. The Quran repeatedly asserts that the practices of Allah remain unchanging. Yet, in this instance, Muhammad is deviating from that principle by rejecting the miracle of fire as a valid proof of prophethood.

Quran 48:23: [This is] the established way of Allah which has occurred before. And never will you find in the practice of Allah any change**.**

This frustrated Muhammad so much, that he used to say even if 10 Jews believed in him, then all Jews would become Muslims.

Sahih Bukhari, 3941:
عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏ "‏ لَوْ آمَنَ بِي عَشَرَةٌ مِنَ الْيَهُودِ لآمَنَ بِي الْيَهُودُ Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Had only ten Jews (amongst their chiefs) believe me, all the Jews would definitely have believed me."
Sahih Muslim, 2793:
عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، قَالَ قَالَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ "‏ لَوْ تَابَعَنِي عَشْرَةٌ مِنَ الْيَهُودِ لَمْ يَبْقَ عَلَى ظَهْرِهَا يَهُودِيٌّ إِلاَّ أَسْلَمَ Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) as saying: If ten scholars of the Jews would follow me, no Jew would be left upon the surface of the earth who would not embrace Islam.

Note: The Islamic Translators of Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim added these words in parenthesis on their own "(amongst their chiefs)" or "Scholars of the Jews" It is a Distortion (TEHRIF) case, while these words have nothing to do with the original tradition, which is talking about normal 10 Jews, and not about any of their chiefs/scholars. Islamic preachers are compelled to do this TEHRIF (distortion) while it EXPOSES Islam and Muhammad, and Islamic preachers want to HIDE the Truth from the masses.
This distortion by Islamic preachers is utterly shameful and shows how dishonest they are and how ashamed they are of the truth.
It seems Muhammad repeated this statement multiple times, and his companion 'Auf ibn Malik is also a witness to a similar statement from him.

Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, Hadith 23464: حدثنا أبو المغيرة قال حدثنا صفوان قال حدثنا عبد الرحمن بن جبير بن نفير عن أبيه عن عوف بن مالك قال انطلق النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يوما وأنا معه حتى دخلنا كنيسة اليهود بالمدينة يوم عيد لهم فكرهوا دخولنا عليهم فقال لهم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: يا معشر اليهود أروني اثني عشر رجلا يشهدون أنه لا إله إلا الله وأن محمدا رسول الله يحبط الله عن كل يهودي تحت أديم السماء الغضب الذي غضب عليه Narrated by Abu Al-Mugheera through Safwan through Abdul-Rahman ibn Jubayr through his father through 'Awf ibn Malik, who said: One day, the Prophet ﷺ and I went to a Jewish synagogue in Medina on one of their festivals. They hated that we made an appearance. The Prophet ﷺ said: "O' Jewish tribe, show me twelve men from among you who testify that there is no deity but Allah,and that Muhammad is his messenger, and Allah will spare all the Jews under the visible heaven from the wrath He has upon them."

But the Jews of Medina still refused to accept him as a true prophet, and that was the point where Muhammad's enmity and hatred started against the Jews:

• First of all, Muhammad changed the Qibla once again from Bait-ul-Muqqadas to Ka'ba in Mecca.
• Then he started openly threatening the Jews to accept Islam, otherwise, they would be expelled from Medina, and he would snatch away all of their lands by force.

Sahih Bukhari, 3167:
Narrated Abu Huraira: While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet (ﷺ) came out and said, "Let us go to the Jews" We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them,** "If you embrace Islam, you will be safe.** You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle (only),** and I want to expel you from this land.** So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle."

Yes, that was the whole argument of Muhammad: "...that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle (only) ..."
Please remember that Muhammad used the same argument to attack innocent Pagan tribes (who had nothing to do with Muhammad previously and had never attacked or harmed Muhammad).

Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 3012: Narrated As-Sab bin Jaththama: The Prophet (ﷺ) passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." Prophet said: All the graze-lands belong to Allah and his prophet.

Later Muhammad's anger and hatred against the Jews went so high that he was no more satisfied by expelling them from Medina, but he wanted to expel them from the whole Arab peninsula. It was due to the reason that it was a shame for him that he was claiming himself to be the promised prophet of the Jews, but the Jews were telling people that he was not that promised prophet. Muhammad didn't want the Jews to tell this to others, thus he wanted to expel them from the whole Arabian peninsula.

Sahih Muslim, 1767(a):
It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.

And this hatred against Jews goes till the last hour, where Muhammad asked his followers to kill all Jews:
And this hatred against Jews goes till the last hour, where Muhammad asked his followers to kill all Jews:

[Did the Prophet ﷺ have Security Guards?]
All praise is due to Allah, Lord of the Worlds, and Peace and Blessings be upon our Prophet, Prophet Muhammad ﷺ.
Something I've seen quite a bit happening nowadays is people criticizing scholars, or someone who is well known, for having security guards with them. People criticize a scholar that I know of for having security guards with him in case he gets attacked. Similarly, in Masjid al-Haram, we see security with the Imams, and people criticize them by saying things like “The Prophet ﷺ didn’t have security” and “Do you not trust Allah?” Both statements don’t make much sense, so I want to explain the reality of this matter.
The first problem is when people think if one has security that he doesn’t trust Allah.
There is a well-known hadith that many people are aware of: a man said to the Prophet ﷺ, “Shall I tie my camel and trust upon Allah?” The Prophet ﷺ replied, “Tie it and leave your trust upon Allah.” (1)
So from this hadith we know that one should do whatever is in their hands, then rely upon Allah. Before we sleep, we lock our doors at night, right? We don’t just say, “Well, Allah is watching,” and sleep with our windows and doors fully open for anyone to come and steal our stuff, right? When we are hungry, we go out and buy food to eat; we don’t just sit starving at home and say, “Allah will feed me.” So in this life, we have to do what is in our hands. We wear our seatbelt in our car to stay safe in case of an accident, then we rely upon Allah. We have to do what we can, and then we can rely upon Allah. It is possible for Allah to give us food without us trying, but in this life, we have to do our due diligence. Similarly, if one feels like they need security and there is a risk for them to get attacked, there's nothing wrong with them getting security to protect themselves!
The second issue is when people say “The Prophet ﷺ didn’t have security.” This is completely wrong, and the answer to this claim is in one verse of the Qur’an: {O Messenger, announce that which has been revealed to you from your Lord, and if you do not, then you have not conveyed His message..
And Allah will protect you from the people. Indeed, Allah does not guide the disbelieving people.} [Surat Al-Ma’idah, 5:67]
Aisha said: “One night the Prophet ﷺ was unable to sleep and said, ‘I wish a righteous man from my companions could guard me tonight.’ When we heard the noise of weapons, he asked, ‘Who is this?’ It was said, ‘Sa’d, O Messenger of Allah! I came to guard you.’ So, the Prophet ﷺ slept until we heard his snore.” [Sahih al-Bukhari 7231]
So we know from this hadith and many hadiths like this one that the Prophet ﷺ indeed had someone to guard him. But then in another hadith, Aisha said: “The Prophet ﷺ used to be guarded until this verse was revealed: {And Allah will protect you from the people.} [Surat Al-Ma’idah, 5:67] So, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ removed his head from the room and said to them, ‘O people, you may depart, for Allah has protected me.’” (2)
So after this verse was revealed, the Prophet ﷺ was protected by Allah, meaning he did not need to have people guard him as no enemy could kill him.
So, if someone arranges security for themselves, there's nothing wrong with it. They don't have a specific verse from Allah assuring them of protection, unlike the Prophet ﷺ. His situation was unique, as Allah explicitly guaranteed his protection.
Allah Knows Best.
(1) Sahih Ibn Hibban (731).
Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Ghazi said in Itqan Ma Yusin al-Juz (1/398): “Its chain is sound (Isnaduhu Jayyid).”
Shu’ayb al-Arna’ut said in Takhreej Sahih Ibn Hibban (731): “Sound (Hasan).”
(2) Sunan al-Tirmidhi (3046), Al-Mustadrak ala al-Sahihayn (3221), Hilyat al-Awliya (6/206), Al-Sunan Al-Kubra (18186).
Al-Albani said in Sahih al-Tirmidhi (3046): “Sound (Hasan).”
Ahmad Shakir said in Umdat al-Tafsir (1/710): “Its chain is authentic (Isnaduhu Sahih).”
It was mentioned that Al-Dhahabi said this hadith is authentic (Sahih) in Mizan al-I’tidal, but I did not find it in his book, Allah Knows Best.
See also: Fath al-Bari bi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari (13/219).
End quote from Nur al-Qalb (1/135-137) by Muhammad ibn Javed.