METHOD to the MADNESS?: How Historians of Islam View the Early Sources
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 03. 2023
- During my recent debate on religious pluiralism with Dr. Shadee Elmasry, it became clear that our methodologies were completely different. In this video, I expand a little bit more on the way modern historians view the early sources...
---
The Impactful Scholar, MPAC's official CZcams podcast, is brought to you by the MPAC Research Bureau, a part of MPAC (Muslim Public Affairs Council).
Please make sure to like, subscribe, comment and share!
Subscribe to The Impactful Scholar:
/ @drjavadthashmi
Follow The Impactful Scholar on Twitter:
drjavadthashmi?la...
MPAC (Muslim Public Affairs Council)
Subscribe to MPAC's channel: bit.ly/MPACCZcams
Like MPAC on Facebook: mpacnational
Follow MPAC on Twitter: / mpac_national
Follow MPAC on Instagram: / mpac_national
Visit MPAC's website: mpac.org
About the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC):
We improve public understanding and policies that impact American Muslims by engaging our government, media, and communities.
MPAC and The Impactful Scholar need your help! Please make a donation today: mpac.org/give.
Make sure to let us know that you donated to help The Impactful Scholar. - Zábava
'We must be cautious of reading God's book through the lens of the later tradition, instead we must engage the later tradition through The Quran'. Very true 👍
Thank you!
@@DrJavadTHashmi
I love your work, Dr Hashmi, the only rebuttal I hear towards the historical method being applied to the Sunni corpus is that the method is founded on assumptions embedded in a Judeo Christian worldview and therefore cannot be applied to a Sunni one.
@@neophyteone712 Thank you. In fact, orthodox/traditional/fundamentalist Jews and Christians actually use the same arguments against HCM, saying its presuppositions are atheistic-liberal-secular and thus do not apply to them.
Dr, how do you explain free will, how can life be a test if God already knows what will happen (being all knowing) and according to you can non Muslims who don't believe in god enter paradise?
Excellent presentation. Looking forward the next!
Thank you!
this was a really fantastic video, looking forward to next one
Thank you!
Great work! Hit the nail on the head with this video
Love the reference to Guru Nanak. I was just thinking that it would be a great example of fuzzy borders between Hinduism, Islam and Buddhism in the formation of religious movements in South Asia. It's good to see you look at religion more broadly to gain a deeper understanding.
Awesome bro
Talking past each other is one of the hardest thing to manage in a debate... it stems from the different fundamental premises n axioms held by the debating parties... which is why there is a debate in the first place
Another great and insightful video, on a side note, Dr Jonathan Brown made a video on "the thinking muslim" CZcams channel titled "what orientalists and modernists get wrong" I wonder if you've seen it and if you'll be responding to some of the points raised.
I started watching it and hope to respond soon, God willing.
Excellent program
Selam from Stuttgart Germany, unfortunately my english is not so good. I thing Dr Javad Hashmi says a lot of correct and good thinks. I‘m ehli Quran, I read the Quran in my language, I‘m trying to understand what my Creator Allah wants from me and what do you have to do to be a good person(peacemaker). I hear you in the Türkish Channel ‘Dini Cevaplar’. Quran is for me the only source in Din life. Selam Brother
Your English is great and thank you for the kind comment!
Merhaba ramazan abi sizi burda görmek ne güzel bende a birlik ingilizcemle anlamasamda dinliyorum dini cevaplara dedim orda yayınladılar videoyu ben 4yil önce görmüştüm peygamberimizin Hz aişeyle altı yaşında evlendiğini uydurma olduğunu geçen yıl yayinlayinca CZcams Dr ismini yazıp bu kanalı buldum benim cabamda takdire şayan bence dini cevaplara dedim yayinlarmisiniz çok dillendirilen konulardan biri
Selam kardeşim, eyvallah. O konu hakkında video gerçekten iyi olur. Allah rahatlık versin. Selam ve dua ile
@@Peace_6236 bı tane videosunu yayınladı dini cevaplar öteki serileride gelicekmis
Thanks for the excellent presentation Dr. Hashmi. I had a small question. From the historical critical method, does the prediction relating to conflict between the Romans and the Persians in Surah Rum not look like an addition made after the Prophet's death?
Dr Javad t hashmi. Considering meaning and interpretations can change over time. How do you understand the verese of promising preservation?
I consider the promise to be fulfilled, the evidence being the fact that no clear theological interpolations have been established. Thus, the theological content of the Quran has been preserved. This does not, however, mean that interpretations would be uniform.
My brother, thank you for your efforts.
I would say that during the debate, Dr. Al-Masry raised some very basic points which need to be addressed.
1) If you want to be truly inclusive (because you seem to be suggesting that you need to be inclusive for the sake of societal fabric or a just appraisal of the Christians and Jews) then why not include atheists, or other religions? They are a very large number of people on the Earth, and if we can't truly live well with others who we don't consider to be part of the acceptable group, then it still disqualifies a very large number of people.
2) If you believe that religious inclusivism is important for social fabric and functioning, then why could someone as intelligent as you not clearly define what exactly the conditions for being a part of that group are. If it was so important, and the hadeeth and Sirah are irrelevant in this regard, then we would expect a great deal of clarity from the Quran on this issue. (You said you were not sure if acceptance of the prophet as a messenger (SAW) was necessary to be a part of this group. Also, you mentioned social and political acceptance, but didn't define it clearly. Also, you said that there are complexities to the Christian theology which you didn’t articulate).
3) The tone and rhetoric of the Quran seem to contradict your thesis.
O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people.
5:51
Your ally is none but Allah and [therefore] His Messenger and those who have believed - those who establish prayer and give zakāh, and they bow [in worship].
5:55
And they say, "The Most Merciful has taken [for Himself] a son."
You have done an atrocious thing.
The heavens almost rupture therefrom and the earth splits open and the mountains collapse in devastation
19:88-90
This critical tone exists in several places in the Quran. So this type of inclusivism seems to be very different from the one you were alluding to in your opening statement.
4) If you trust in Allah's judgement, and his laws then you don't necessarily need to worry about these things excessively. If you trust that Allah is just and fair, then you do not need lengthy explanations to delineate his mercy or fairness. You just believe in it.
I would also add another point.
In verse 5:69, Allah says
Indeed, the believers, Jews, Sabians1 and Christians-whoever ˹truly˺ believes in Allah and the Last Day and does good, there will be no fear for them, nor will they grieve.
You say that traditionalists need to explain these sorts of verses away, but only a few verses later Allah says
They have certainly disbelieved who say, "Allah is the third of three." And there is no god except one God. And if they do not desist from what they are saying, there will surely afflict the disbelievers among them a painful punishment
So people are already being excluded from the group mentioned in 5:69 in the Quran.
Also, you already mentioned that you are prepared to accept the idea that acceptance of the prophethood of Muhammad(S) may be a requirement of being a part of the saved group.
So you already acknowledge that the precise, literal interpretation of 5:69 may not be appropriate.
So Dr. Masry's explanation that this is a summary verse seems to have weight. And, if this is true, then there are perhaps other verses that would exclude more people.
This is ignoring his claim that Allah’s reference to the Jewish and Christian scriptures predict the coming of Muhammad and therefore, Allah’s instruction for them to judge by those scriptures is referring to that.
Even if we ignore it then, arguably, what we are left with could still disqualify most Christians and Jews in the modern world.
So, with respect, my brother, arguing for this sort of religious inclusivity doesn't seem like it is truly as necessary, because we can trust Allah’s judgement and try to be as fair possible to people anyway.
So fast I'm here few seconds after the upload. B-)
Would the traditional method work to prove your POV but maybe to a lesser degree? Or does it not work at all?
Hmmm.... I would say that it is a more difficult view to defend using traditional/traditionalist paradigms.
What’s your reference that Nanak was a Sufi? Thanks
Salaam. I'm curious to know your recommendations on books written by Muslim academics on the origin of Islam, Historical Muhummad, Qur'an etc. Thank you in advance.
I would check out the work of Munim Sirry from University of Notre Dame.
Interesting discussion. What is the earliest complete manuscript of the Quran?
The Birmingham Manuscript. Ots practically a primary source document
I think the Birmingham manuscript has only 2 surahs@@ace9924
@@ace9924 Birmingham Quran is not complete, it's the blue Quran that's complete
Thx for the video. I tend to agree with your pluralistic view of salvation, as your arguments were very solid and I see the same in the Quran. But still I found that Al Masri argument regarding verse 48:13 wasnt to bad either at first glance, speaking in favor of a non-pluralistic approach of salvation. Verse says: "waman yumin biAllahi warasoolihi fainna ataadna lilkafireen saaeeran"
I understand that this verse should be read in context, but yet when a verse speaks about something positive we are very keen to extrapolate and expand the meaning of the verse to be applicable for all situations. So this would be a biased approach, dont you think.
So is there a contradiction between your arguments and this verse, or should this verse indeed be seen differently ? But then the thing comes, a reader of the Quran doesnt know the background of the verse, though we can see its context. I, or a common reader, would not necessarily read your interpretation in it I guess, based solely on this verse. And I would find it somehow contradictory to the conclusion that you have derived from the other verses proving religious pluralism in the Quran.
Or for example this explanation:
czcams.com/video/CEVMipDFS1Y/video.html
Good point. Perhaps it's best to look at who's addressed in each of these pluralistic vs non pluralistic verses. For example surah 49 is always saying oh believers then at 49:13 it switches to oh mankind we created you etc etc
It is always important to view the addressee. Verse 48:13 is clearly addressed to the Hypocrites amongst the Believers, as is evidenced by Q 48:12, 48:15, and 48:16.
@@DrJavadTHashmi please make a video in Urdu and dual question answer session and collapse with other like minded Muslims CZcamsr...
@@kenmiles23 Hmmm... I'll think about it, thanks!
I am a new subscriber I am not religious at all. I consider myself agnostic atheist . My wife is Sunni Muslim and I think the academia perspective is interesting.✌🏿🖤
People are afraid to use the mind and use double measures
Dr, javad ghamidi says that the Qur'an and sunnah have reached us through ijma and tawatur which brings certitude and it is how established history is transmitted, generation to generation transfer and is more reliable than an historical document of history. What are your views on this?
Alhumdulillah, you are a great and impactful scholar!
What is your opinion on requirements of a muslim women attire ,sir?
It based on conservative traditionalist views also what we can Muslim women dress code is actually middle eastern dress code all women from this region wore it in fact if you go there you will find non Muslim women wearing it
Please make Videos in Urdu.....
Overall I really appreciate your work but there is a question that needs to be asked.
By calling the prophet muhammad the seal of the prophets doesn't the Quran therefore do maintain a claim of exclusivity by declaring Islam as the final Testament of the monotheistic continuity.
It could be understood that Islam might endorse past traditions but deny future religious traditions.
"Seal of the Prophets" does not need to be understood as final, as Ahmadis, for instance, argue. However, my own view is that it does indeed imply just that. The Quran seems to imply an impending end of the world, rendering the question about future religions moot.
Is the prophet for all humanity or just for the 7th century Arabs?
You will always encounter problems when you debate topics such as, _"How Historians of Islam View the Early Sources"_
Why?
Because you are starting a debate on a CONTRADICTION.
What is that contradiction?
To begin with... When did the _"history of Islam"_ start?
Right from the beginning when the earth stabilized and is able to support all living creatures... or, 1,400 years ago?
Think, ponder and reflect on the Quran Alone.
peace.
Have you heard about the Mushaf of Ali? There was some sectarian controversy about the collection of the Quran
Are you a perrenialist? It sort of sounds like you are (nothing wrong with it if you are, just curious).
I came to religious pluralism through my reading of the Quran, Fred Donner's study, Wilfred Cantwell Smith, and John Hick. The last of these, John Hick, is often contrasted to the Perennialists. However, I would say that the differences are often exaggerated. In sum, my influences were actually not card-carrying Perennialists nor was it the literature they produce... but, nonetheless, I do not find anything really objectionable in the Perennialist camp. I have especially enjoyed the writing of Reza Shah-Kazemi.
Why should we trust the history of a religion if it's only transmitted by the believers of that religion? Surely no one who ever believed in Muhammad would say anything bad about him so isn't islamic history potentially biased? In order to accept islam i must accept what believers say about Muhammad but why should I put my faith in their version of events?
Well don’t be a Muslim then right? Or are you a Muslim?
Well if you read hadith you will see there are 2 different versions of the prophet. The wise noble one and then the one who is putting iron coals in eyes and tons more weird behaviour
@@Cassim125 the Quranic depiction of Muhammad is consistent, and it's older than the Hadith literature, though it isn't as focused on the prophet.
@@inhumanhyena yes the quran presents him as calm, noble but also fallible and susceptible to doubts, fear, frustration etc
Bias would still exist if the narratives were from non muslims in that era, as naturally they would be opposed to each other. Why would non muslim sources be any less biased?
Christian comes from the name Christ , SO HOW CAN JESUS BE CHRISTIAN? RELIGION CAME AFTER JESUS CHRIST.
You should grow your beard back or at least a goatee. It suits you better.
Innad diina inda Allahi Al-Islam...is there any clear evidence than this? Please stop...unless you are only questioning the meaning of the word Islam.