I have responded to @XGONDALX's reply to me. I accidentally deleted my thread so I decided to just turn my camera on & shoot a response: 1/
Long story short, @XGONDALX makes the tenuous claim that the ḥadīth we were discussing--"I will expel the Jews"--is mutawātir (mass-transmitted). He then spams his viewers to make this claim, making it clear to me that he doesn't even know what the word mutawātir means. 2/
Not only is his response about mutawātir-ness irrelevant to my initial argument -- which is why I am accusing him of being a bit intellectually dishonest & using a red herring -- but that claim is itself false, as I show in the video. 3/
Even worse, @XGONDALX uses munqaṭiʿ (broken) ḥadīths to justify his claim of mutawātir-ness! This is either intentionally misleading or it shows a general lack of knowledge of the very term & claim that he uses. Either way, it is not a good look! 4/
I suspect that @XGONDALX will have to fall back on the claim that the ḥadīth is mutawātir in meaning but not in wording. His own argumentation, however, would not seem to make sense in this regard... 5/
Of course, Islamic scholars can always try to claim that something is mutawātir in meaning... This is done for emphasis & to drive home a theological or legal point. But, even here, it would be difficult to claim, based on the fact that... 6/
...the only shared aspect in these reports is that some group (we don't know which!) was expelled from Arabia (we don't know what that includes!) by someone (we don't know who--was it the Prophet, ʿUmar I, or ʿUmar II???) 7/
None of this will help you establish that the Prophet Muḥammad himself actually ordered or did this, at least not from a secular historical perspective. This goes back to the point that you have not discussed, problematized, or questioned Munt's article at all.... 8/
in which he argues against your view that the Prophet actually ordered such an expulsion. This was the main point of my argument against you, yet you bypassed it altogether. 9/
I would kindly request you to be a bit more honest & transparent in your discussions with me, because we want to have meaningful dialogues in the future. It's OK to sometimes just say, "Ah I see, you have a point." That will be a respectable route to take instead of spamming. 10/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is why WikiIslam is *not* a reliable source to use. Here again, we see the gullible & credulous approach to the historical sources, especially when it can be weaponized to make the Prophet look bad. 1/
Contrast this gullible & credulous approach to the sources with the highly critical & skeptical approach taken by these same people towards the Qur'an, which is actually considered our most reliable extant source from the Prophet's life! 2/
You should know that these stories about battles are taken from the sīra-maghāzī literature, which is itself inspired by the Battle Days of the pre-Islamic Arabs (ayyām al-ʿArab), a genre known for exaggeration, especially when it comes to numbers. 3/
It is certainly true that modern Muslims are split on the issue of Ḥadīth. Nineteenth-century Islamic modernists, such as Sir Sayyid & Cherāgh ʿAlī, pioneered Ḥadīth skepticism, with none other than Ignaz Goldizher mentioning them in his Muslim Studies V.II. 1/
In other words, these Islamic thinkers preceded the doyen of Ḥadīth studies Goldziher. Unfortunately, this precedence & contribution to the scholarly field remains underrecognized by secular scholars today. They do not make it into the canon of Islamic Studies scholars. 2/
Meanwhile, traditionalist scholars championed the cause of Ḥadīth, resulting in a flowering of traditional Ḥadīth studies. On the subcontinent, this meant that even the historically Ḥadīth-wary Ḥanafīs turned to Ḥadīth & a more textual-based approach to religion. 3/
The idea -- that the Ḥudūd are meant only as a deterrent & almost never to be enforced in actuality -- is a fully mainstream opinion amongst traditional scholars, past & present, to such an extent that certain exemplary punishments -- including stoning & hand amputation-- 1/
were only rarely applied. I recall a claim made by Ibn Taymiyya, for example, that the stoning punishment had never actually been enforced based on witnesses alone (as opposed to self-confession) from the time of the Prophet to his time. I will need to dig this up... 2/
but Prof. @JonathanACBrown cites similar statements, including this: "In the roughly five hundred years that the Ottoman Empire ruled Constantinople, records show that only one instance of stoning for adultery took place... 3/
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/
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/
Well, I think both discourses are correct since they are directed at different audiences, with different purposes in mind. One is directed internally & the other externally; both are correct & at play: 1) rioting & looting is generally harmful; 2) yet, they are understandable 1/
in the context of greater discrimination, unfair systems, socio-economic inequalities & injustices, etc. Ultimately, the video, made by the right-wing Daily Caller, gets both things wrong. First, the fact that many black people in the video opposed rioting/looting dispels... 2/
right-wing stereotypes of that community. Second, the statements made by the suburban white folks in that video were also reasonable & well-placed. Overall, the video may be food for thought but not as the Daily Caller wants us to take it. 3/
I agree with Prof. @JonathanACBrown & would also point out, along these lines, that another element that is woefully ignored is the decades-long support of right-wing Islamist forces by Western countries (US/UK/Israel) in a bid to counter nationalism & as a part of... 1/
Cold War politics. They engineered this wave of right-wing Islamism & then, in a morbid irony, switched to seeing the green crescent as the enemy when the same foe it was propped up against, i.e. the red sickle, was no longer seen as a credible threat & boogieman. 2/
I had always been aware of this connection but only recently have I started to understand the true extent of this link, thanks to a colleague who pointed me in this direction. The riposte to this idea is always to gripe about how it's convenient for Muslims to blame the West. 3/