Thread by @DrJavadTHashmi

Did someone pay you to throw me this softball? Well, thank you for teeing me up this way. Much appreciated! In point of fact, there is actual scholarship on this very topic & you should at least exhibit a cursory awareness of it, my friend. 1/

https://twitter.com/XGONDALX/status/1387549982908198917

These statements are considered highly problematic & doubtful, & are almost certainly back-projections onto the Prophet & ʿUmar. They are put into the Prophet's mouth as a deathbed pronouncement, which you should know are very convenient & therefore of highly doubtful nature, 2/

especially when it counters earlier Qur'anic/Prophetic policy & just happens to line up with later highly crystallized theological views. But, of course, you won't take my word for it since I am a Muslim, so I would refer you to Harry Munt's peer-reviewed article on it... 3/

with the literal title of the sort of ḥadīth you cite on this topic with such gusto. Munt (2015) concludes that the evidence "casts serious doubt on whether such a widespread action [expulsion] actually took place, certainly not in the decades immediately... 4/

"...following Muḥammad's death." Munt goes on to say about the statements attributed to the Prophet & ʿUmar: "There are certainly serious problems with the claims that Muḥammad and/or ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb were responsible for any attempted expulsions." 5/

The sīra speaks of the expulsion of three Jewish tribes on grounds of purported belligerency/treason; this too is hard to verify, although there is evidence from the Qur'an that the early believers seized a fortress of the People of the Book & did indeed banish those people... 6/

on account of their belligerency/violation. This was not, however, based on their Jewishness, as those reports you cited indicate. Instead, those reports are suspect, & are likely pious back-projections of an action first attributed to ʿUmar's namesake. 7/

Munt writes: "Such a confusion of ʿUmars did occur in other circumstances; both are on record as having issued various reports of what later came to be known as the 'shurūṭ ʿUmar'" (265). Of course, this is not just happenstance but often an intentional back-projecting... 8/

...onto earlier figures, here first to ʿUmar I (easy enough with the same name) & then finally to the Prophet himself. There is also a typological connection between these three figures. Munt, of course, rightfully questions if even ʿUmar II is the right person... 9/

& not himself a back-projection. In sum, it is highly unlikely that either report you mentioned actually goes back to the Prophet or ʿUmar. This can only be affirmed based on a gullible view of the sources, which underscores the consistent inconsistency in your work. 10/

You evince a skeptical attitude towards the Qur'an, relying on modern secular scholarship to churn out your videos on this topic. Yet, when it comes to Ḥadīth & sīra, suddenly you turn into the most gullible & dogmatic traditionalist in methodology. This is inconsistent... 11/

but also opportunistic. What you construe as a "nonsensical excuse... brought up by Muslim apologists" is actually just what modern secular scholarship says on this issue, which you yourself should have been familiar with when addressing this issue. 12/

If you knew the scholarship on this issue, then the matter is even worse for you, as it shows disingenuity & lack of transparency. (You don't think your readers should know what academics think of this issue??) 13/

Of course, now you will make the standard switch that anti-Islam ideologues make, which is to now claim "OK, but it doesn't matter because *most* Muslims believe these ḥadīths & that's all that matters." Yet, if you now put a traditionalist cap on, then you must do justice 14/

to their view. The traditionalists take this interpretation to mean the limited environs of Ḥijāz or at most the Arabian peninsula. As far as active expulsion, this text is considered a dead letter & is much like traditional Jewish/Christian beliefs about the Holy Land. 15/

The most you can say--which I would agree with--is that it dishonors the memory of the Prophet to back-project this to him. Fred Donner has argued that the Prophet's early movement was actually ecumenical, embracing Jews & Christians, hardly the picture you paint... 16/

or, admittedly, the traditional sources. Even if we don't go all the way with Donner, what is almost inarguable is the idea that confessional boundaries were ill-defined & fuzzier during the Prophet's lifetime & it took some generations afterward to sharpen & harden. 17/

This comes back to Munt's article as he explains why he thinks that such reports/actions of expulsion were back-projected in the first place. This was part of theology, not history, as sacred spaces were used to draw confessional boundaries & articulate one's *own* identity. 18/

"Sacred spaces, & access to these spaces, have throughout history played an important role, not only in such efforts at drawing up boundaries between religious communities, but also in demonstrating community's superiority over another" (267). 19/

This is linked to my own dissertation on jihād, in which I argue that the laws of jihād against the infidel were drawn up by later Muslim scholars in order to sharpen & reify confessional boundaries. More importantly, it is about self-identity, i.e. to define Muslimness. 20/

As WC Smith writes, this phenomenon of reifying confessional boundaries *after* the death of the eponymous figure is shared by virtually all major religions. This means that religions become more intolerant & exclusivist in generations after the death of their "founder." 21/

This explains why reformist/modernist thinkers like me are so attracted to reconstructing the historical Muḥammad & strip him of the later accretions, which we believe are superimposed for theological reasons & paint a more intolerant picture than was true. 22/

Finally, Jews have historically fared better in the Islamic east than in the Christian West (see Cohen's "Under Crescent & Cross"). Cohen makes the point that Jews (like other non-Muslims) were second-class citizens in the Islamic world, but they were still *citizens*... 23/

unlike Latin Christiandom where they were perpetual serfs/slaves. That's a big difference & reveals also why ahistorical analyses like you engage in are so presentist, dangerous, & misguided. NAZISM, really?? REALLY? 24/

First you linked Islam to ISIS & now to Nazism. But, you're not an Islamophobe, right? My friend, as much as I think you are a likable enough guy on a personal level, my question for you about the Islamophobe question is: if not you, then who? 25/

@KhalilAndani @AkyolinEnglish
Folks, please retweet this if you benefit from it...
Make me know that I am not tweeting my responses in vain. This is time-consuming & I don't want to do this more if I hear crickets. 26/

@jricole @prof_ahmetkuru

This tweet storm sponsored by Halal Guys.