Why The Historical Critical Method Is Flawed | Imam Tom Facchine
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 07. 2024
- You can support our work on Patreon:
/ uticamasjid
PayPal: uticamasjid@gmail.com
Instagram: / uticamasjid
Come and Visit us!
Google map: goo.gl/maps/YHG8dGDGodcgvobi9
This is excellent. Thank you Imam Tom!
📌
May Allah azza wa jal preserve you, Imam Tom and your team. You always deliver sensible and relatable advice.
Who say their approach to the matter is completely neutral, in most cases they are sitting at the heart of subjectivity.
Thank you so much Gazak Allah khayran this is super interesting, I was just reading a book that states clearly that the tools of scrutiny developed by Muslim scholars wasn't applied as heavily to the Serah as it is to Hadith, so looking at it as historicaly in accurate as opposed to Hadith makes way more sense! Especially the way it was reported!! By whom and from whom! I wasn't aware of the insidious agenda that translators and orientalists usually have, though, and that some of them take on their war on Islam as their main source of living. may Allah guide them! I hope my arrogance and ignorance doesn't cause me to go astray ! This a very tough ibtilaa
Nicely done ❤
Just remember to apply the historical critical method to the historical critical methodists and all will be well.
😂
At the end of the day we should go where the facts take up and not rely on myths, prejudices and falsehood but rigorous scholarship. Humility and caution are required because there are more things in heaven and earth that are understood in many ideologies and philosophies. By their fruits you shall know them and the truth will set you free.
there are no facts. in religion or outside
At the correct time! May Allah bless you and make you among righteous.
I am watching ads, the least i can do for this amazing channel.
Well said
I listened to the full debate, (which I highly recommend others to do so). Yet nowhere did Javad hashmi wholesale reject the hadith corpus!?? Rather, he questioned the many layers of "interpretation" of certain quranic verses, by some classical sunni scholars on the expense of the actual plain reading of the verse/s including their contexts.
First, your comment is confusing because you begin talking about hadith and then end talking about tafsir.
Second, at 13:30-13:50 of the debate he clearly sidelines the hadith categorically. They are literally on a slide titled "Historically Unreliable Sources." Now, you could argue that he had imposed that restriction upon himself and that this is not his personal position, but that brings me to point number 3:
This video is focusing on HCM, not Javad Hashmi's exact position or personal beliefs. Javad Hashmi's presentation brings to light the typical attitude and epistemology of Western academics in History and Islamic Studies departments, and that is the topic of this video.
-Imam Tom
@@UTICAMASJIDImam Tom I think we need to show the superiorty of the Hadith Sciences over the HCM like how Ibn Taymiyyah showed the supeority of scriptualist theology and analogy over the other groups and against the Greek logicians definitions and syllogism, that would solve these peoples doubts and bring more interest in the learning of hadith sciences itself
Excellent and inspiring
Solid 💯
Can you also talk about the book " Islamic Civilization in thirty lives" by Chase F. Robinson
JazakhAllah Khair
Could you recommend a book that exposes this method in an objective way
But Imam Tom, what about other religions? They have so many religious and supernatural claims that are usually dismissed by the historical critical method and rightly so
We can literally use the Hadith methodology and deal with it that way, and perhaps things like Carbon dating aren't an issue but the false assumptions that interpret the finding like there is no God, no miracles, no prophets, these assumptions are biased and for that particular stance, we need to stop compromising with these false methodology and assumptions when we have sufficient and superior ways
nobody cares about other religions
@@jj-yi1neI am so glad that I do not follow any religion.
Like Einstein I am agnostic. A year before. he died, he said
:" For me, Judaism LIKE ALL OTHER RELIGIONS is for me,
an incarnation of childhood superstition"". ( highlighting mine)
All the major religions agree on 3 things
(1) There is only one true religion
(2) We have the one true religion.
(3) All other religions are wrong.
why is flawed? only because he BELIEVE so?
The terminology "real" in and of itself works within a particular worldview in the west. Something far more fundamental under the surface isn't addressed much.
This sounds to me more like a knee jerk (over) reaction to the HCM!
What makes it a knee jerk reaction, other than that you apparently disagree?
It's been 5 days, please enlighten us as to this knee-jerk response. We'll wait.
3/4/23
0:21 That somebody is Dr. Javad T. Hashmi.
Perhaps, you focus on HCM here. But if you mentioned the debate, be thorough and kind; and refer. So your viewers can find easily. It is called being civil.
I'm under no obligation, civil or otherwise, to link to anything or name anyone, especially when the video is about something broader. In fact, that's a deliberate choice I make in almost all my videos. The purpose of this channel is to deal with ideas, not personalities. I merely mentioned the debate because it inspired my treatment of the issue.
-Imam Tom
@@UTICAMASJIDTaksir, I support you. In fact, you do you―it's your channel. You want to discuss ideas, fine.
If this is truly about broader ideas as you claim, not persons, you remain consistent. For example, you mentioned Dr. Shadee Elmasry, but you missed and called Dr. Javad. T. Hashmi a "somebody", "this person".
I always call both sides for moral hipocrisy and standards. In fact, Muslims strategically employ a so-called Western "historical critical method" against Christians and Bibles. When it is applied to Quran and Muhammad, they call for special pleading.
Not very effective. And poor engagement indeed.
@@Akbar_Ato”almost all of my videos” context matters
We don't quote muslim uncle tom
Analysis: Less than 2-5% of hadiths are likely to be fabricated.
Whereas the actual figure may actually be less than 0.5% or even lower.
We shall know for sure on the day of Judgement.
So it's wise, to bracket few hadiths into doubtful category and not argue about it till DOJ, but keep doing good works in the Ummah and not to forget working against evil forces either neutralizing or weakening and minimizing them atleast.
Also, believing in the Quran but not the Sunnah when both have been conveyed by the same people does not make any sense. If you deem the Sunnah not reliable, why would you trust the Quran that was preserved by the same people? Brilliant as usual tabarakallah
ALL THE MAJOR WORLD RELIGIONS AGREE ON 3 THINGS
(1) THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUE RELIGION.
(2) WE HAVE THE ONE TRUE RELIGION.
(3) ALL OTHER RELIGIONS ARE WRONG.
Very important point. This is the Iman of Abu Bakr (rA)
You're a bright man, Imam Tom. But I don't think HCM is that flawed. Not all of the non-Muslims who use it are secularists or materialists. Using science, history or other religious narratives to interpret surrah is actually very old and was used by pre-modern Muslim scholars. We shouldn't reject all hadith but the authentication process is flawed too. There are authentic hadiths that contradict each other and even the Qur'an. So we need more ways to judge hadiths beyond what the salaf had. Why wouldn't Allah allow us? If we believe in Islam, we believe it can withstand scrutiny from more modern evidence as long as its not coming from purely Modernist agendas. Thats why we need Muslims to use HCM instead of letting non-Muslims use it against us; because the method isn't going to go anywhere.
Lots of fallacies implied here.
It's not very relevant whether the people using HCM are secularists or materialists, what matters is if the HCM is sound as a method or not, and if the HCM is secularist or materialist, then it isn't sound. Withstanding modern evidence is different from withstanding a method of critique founded on epistemic assumptions that renders the Truth illegible or nonsensical. Whether it's going anywhere is also irrelevant, shirk isn't going anywhere either, that doesn't mean we should use it or coopt it.
But this is all beating around the bush. Paradigmatically, the salaf understood the revelation better than us, and understood the authenticity of hadith better than us. The Prophet said that the best generation was that of the Companions, then those after them, then those after them. Our understanding of history is entropic, not progressive.
In fact, you are in doubt about hadith. Authentic hadith do not by and large actually contradict the Quran or the other authentic hadith. There only seems to be a contraction to you, subjectively. Most ostensible contradictions can be reconciled with proper interpretation. Jam' comes before tarjeeh always. The few examples of genuine contradictions are not fundamental but shape the possibility of permissible disagreements among the jurists.
-Imam Tom
@@UTICAMASJID Please explain how HCM is secular/materialist/colonialist. The originators were Christians btw and their methods were similar to Muslim rationalists. Early Muslim scholars were criticizing hadiths.
If the salaf understood the revelation better than us, why did many revert and abandon Islam? And split the ummah into warring sects? Its a logical fallacy ascribing greater understanding to a people just because they had a direct relation with information. If so, a correct understanding of the Gospel would've survived because apostles were closer to Isa PBUH. And using a hadith to defend the authenticity of hadith is circular logic.
I just read 2 Bukhari hadiths that contradict each other: Muhammad says Jonah was the greatest prophet & then Muhammad says all prophets are equal. Its impossible to follow both. So its illogical to follow hadith based on authenticity alone when we have objective measures that don't rely on faith. Would you convert to Islam based on faith alone and not fact-checking?
@@UTICAMASJID I want to add most Islamaphobia comes from the hadiths about Aisha's age that directly contradict the Qur'an repeatedly, from the age of women at marriage to consent of women in marriage.
Its hadiths that Islamaphobes use to criticize the Qur'an because they aren't the word of Allah and the holiness of the Qur'an is the only thing all Muslims are required to believe in.
Also, you said most hadith doesn't contradict the Qur'an. Maybe, but most hadith isn't even authentic. And the most authenticated books are still full of contradictions and straight fabrications. The Qur'an is the ONLY revelation and rules over hadith. The reality presented by the Qur'an and the biography of the prophet negates a majority of hadiths.
The mask is starting to come off...
I explained in the video, and elsewhere, that HCM is founded on a materialistic view of the world, particularly philosophical naturalism. No "supernatural" causes are permitted to exist, human history and society is driven my immutable and universal laws, no civilization is truly exceptional, etc. You can refer to Jonathon AC Brown's "Muhammad: A Very Short Introduction" pg78-80 to see this at play. The assumptions of the HCM are indeed European Enlightenment assumptions about how the world works and are not only parochial, but they contradict Islamic ontology and epistemology. You cannot merely gloss "criticizing hadiths" as somehow identical to this worldview and methodology, and if by "Muslim rationalists" you are referring to the Mu'tazilah, then you are no doubt well aware that they are fringe and not representative of Islamic orthodoxy.
It is a lie that many of the salaf or Companions abandoned Islam, you have merely made a bald claim without evidence, and even if you had evidence and were correct (you're not), it wouldn't logically follow that the salaf and Companions that remained faithful weren't authoritative in their understanding of the revelation. Warring sects, also irrelevant. My argument is not based on logic alone, it is anchored with revelation (I cited an authentic hadith), which you seem to have an issue with. Yet I did not use a hadith to justify hadith as such, I used a hadith to justify the primacy, superiority, and authority of the understandings and interpretations of the salaf over our own.
It is merely your conclusion that you can't follow both the hadith that you alluded to (though I wish you would provide citations so I can verify). Even the Quran says something similar, that some prophets are better than others (2:253) and that we are not to differentiate between them (2:136). Does this mean you throw away the Quran? No, only a little bit of goodwill and effort is required to understand that by not differentiating between them Allah is talking about the duty to believe in them all equally, which doesn't contradict some of them being superior to others. Jam' over tarjeeh, always.
Islamophobes criticize the Quran too, will you then throw that away? Again, irrelevant.
The problem is not one of blind faith vs. fact checking, it is that your "fact checking" is ideologically motivated, myopic, and reformist. You rush to dismiss anything that doesn't agree with your preconceived notions and values whether it is authentic or not, thus elevating your own reason and ego over the revelation to which you are supposed to submit. Very treacherous territory.
-Imam Tom
@@ltopomcfly5583There is no contradiction between reason and revelation but there is a contradiction between truth and falsehood and you lack the self awareness to recognise your baseless secular assumptions, have you even asked whether the various things you have doubt over, why do you have doubt over those particular things rather than things another group such as racists would find Islam doubtful over or groups like communists or nazis or the pagans each of whom had their own so called "rational" doubt, every group from the time of Muhammad till now will find Islam undesirable to their invention of "rightouesness", and they will blindly imitate their authorities or forefathers with the exception of Islam that is we blind follow ( Allah, The Messenger, The Salaf) based on evidence (The Literary Miracle of The Quran, The Hadith and Quranic Preservation and Authentication, The Proofs Of Prophethood, The Organisation of the Quran, Intertextuality, Signs Indicative of it being Allah and not Magic, Humans, Devils etc) rather than speculation and guess work inspired by shaytan as is secularism and every falsehood
Until you prove that miracles are real there is no reason to study history as if they are real. I believe there is rainbow unicorn that grants wishes every time i jump from the roof. My friend believes that earth is flat. Is proclamation that you believe something changes the facts of reality?
you can believe it. dont force it on me
Testimony my friend, testimony. If hundreds of people reported something that they witnessed and those were reported by thousands of different people in the same way and those people have been deemed reliable and they all came from different place on top of It, that cannot be denied. If you deny testimony then history and all sciences and human endeavors collapse.
@@karimb972 All natural science is build on observable and repeatable experiments not testaments of other people. History relies on material evidence or experiments to some degree. People's testimonies is only part of it. Testimonies are barely admissible in court because how mostly unreliable they are. Just go to any magic show to see how easy it is for magician show you only what he wants not what is actually happening.
you can believe that your grandma is a monkey, believe as you want, but don't force me to believe that your grandma is a monkey
😂 Alhamdullilah, we don't take our Deen or knowledge from crayon users who think the Haqq is predicated upon the imaginative delusions of weak mortals.
Thanks for the entertainment, little one. Now run along your lunch break is almost over 😘