🔔 Don't forget to like, comment, share and subscribe. 💵 Support Al Muqaddimah Financially (Recurring Payments): www.Patreon.com/AlMuqaddimah 💸 Support Al Muqaddimah Financially (One-Time Payment): www.Patreon.com/AlMuqaddimah
You are a real fool...... History is never infallible .....as they are accounts of individual having point of views & agendas may be........ Maximum history students become astray as they loose sense of reality....... You are on the verge
Just to prove you wrong on 1 point, counting wounds on bodies ( number of lashes / cuts / stabs / missing bits) was an established custom among such warriors and there are many reports about this.
14:01 the Sahih Al-Bukhari is not considered authentic by Sunnis because of Imam Bukhari being a celebrated scholar, it is considered authentic because of the methodology he used to collect the Hadith. (The methodology which you haven’t explained. ) The Hadith books are considered more authentic than the books of Tarikh because of this method, but in your examples you seem to have mixed the books of Hadith and Tarikh. Also, books like Sahih Bukhari don’t attempt to hide authentic reports of shortcomings of the Sahabah as you mentioned earlier and rather ironically are also quoted by the Shia because of the same reason. Moreover, the scholars have been active from past few decades in revaluation of these works of Hadith and Tarikh using a process called Takhrij (تخریج) and critical additions of many books are available now. Also, no matter how authentic a Hadith or Athar is, if it is about the beliefs and practices , it has to be qualified by the Quran. The famous example of this is authentic Athar about Umar and Usman banning joining of Umrah and Hajj, which no companion of the prophet or later scholars accepted because there is a clear permission for it in Quran.
You are also making an assumption that secular historians consider Quran as word of God or Prophet being a messenger. The idea of hadith exists only because people have faith in Islam. Hadith narrators are evaluated based on how many times they prayed, fasted, performed a bidah or not, ate halal or not. All these criteria are religious in nature and means nothing to secular scholar
Who guarantees that Bukhari got all hadiths correctly? He got information from his contemporary mullas. What was the verification method except concurrence from multi sources. But how could be verbal traditions remain authrntic over 400 years. Even in most modern time no information can be preserved unless written on a safe paper and preserved.
The word you’re looking for at 6:17 for Hadith that are not about the prophet is آثار (Athaar). So these collections are usually called collections of Ahadith and Athar by Islamic scholars.
The people who wrote “history” actually had a lower bar for sources unlike Hadith which did. In fact writing a history without any authentication was the norm because they believed in documenting all they could since authenticity was never a condition.
Textual criticism in christianity began when the bible was first translated into european vernavular in the 16th century (was translated into Arabic in the 19th century), it reached a professional level around the 19-20th century and is still ongoing today, In Islam however it started in the first century. Unlike the Quran, the hadith are transmitted oral accounts which were written 1 century after they happened and even in the canonical collections of Bukhari and Muslim there are several narrations of the same hadith due to some people paraphrasing and others forgetting part of it. Most of the hadith are without context, this is not to take from the value of hadith as in practice it was the first serious endeavor of having authentication of the historical record. The hadith are transmitted by way of chains of narration, x heard from y who heard from z that .... took place, a study of who x, who y, and who z were and whether what they are saying is true by checking what others had said about them and whether they had indeed met those who they are purported to have taken the accounts from began and so the first "peer review" mechanism took place, all before the internet in the 2nd and 3rd centuries fo the hijra, which unlike the christian calendar has been continously kept, the current gregorian calendar for example was first instanced int he year 535 CE by Dionysius Exiguus, the 25th of December in addition for example being the pagan holdiay of the roman deirty 'Sol Invictus' is clearly shown in the "Chronograph of 354", the earliest christian calendar predating the current one, but I digress, the writing down of hadith was forbidden by the prophet himself for the aforementioned issue (people forgetting, paraphrasing, taking words out of context) only the Quran was ordered to have been written and linguistically they are too far apart, it is clear that the Matn of some hadith, the substance or the wording was altered as the language used seems to be more "modern" instead in instances. Arabic had not changed in any significant way since the Abbasids, 1200 years ago sound as "modern" as things written in the last 50 years. Arabic is the oldest continuously spoken language in the world, the only possible corollary, Chinese, has script which has no relation to the actual language hence why Japanese and old Vietnamese use it, event the script itself was only codified in the 1700s in the Kangxi emperor's dictionary. A miracle in plain sight Hadith for example has several levels of correctness, from Hasan which means "well" to rejected as pertains to the Matn or the substance of the hadith itself, the "isnad" of the Hadith or the chains of transmission / citation also have varying levels from Marfu' meaning quoted without having actually met any of the people in the transmission chain or a second hand account or Mudalas meaning plagarised from another transmitter of hadith without citing and Marfud meaning outright rejected for various reasons, There is another layer of complexity here called ilm-aa-rijal, the study of the bibliography of those in the chains of transmission themselves and their soundness whether objectively by crosschecking where they lived and whom they met or subjectively by seeing what their peers said about them regarding their character. Those unaware of the aforementioned would not only have not been allowed to cite hadith it would have been a criminal offense and there are hadith which clearly contradict one another and one ought not be citing hadith without knowing all other hadith from the colossal hadith collections that were written, even the earliest hadith collection, Musannaf Abdel Razaq Al-Sanani ( 137-211H / 744- 827 CE) and Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaybah ( 159H-235H / 775-849 CE). for instance had over 53,000 hadith with their chains of transmissions included has yet to be translated into English . Yes, Bukhari and Muslim are taken the most correct as they had the most narrow criterion, but an enormous study is required before citing either one of them. Later scholars such an Al-Darqutni show that there were mistakes made. I say later here though he is still over a millennium old this seriousness of scholarship was the first endeavor of its kind in human history, what became today known as university degrees started with the institutions giving "ijaza" or certificate t transmit hadith and talk about it , indeed they are the origins of the University system we know today. This scientific method of studying hadith and jurisprudence was developed and already in practice in the 2nd and third centuries of the hijra (around 750 CE) back when most of europe did not have a written script for their vernacular, enormous encyclopedia such as the 40 volume history of Al-Tabari which, averages 400 pages per volume (and is only one of his works) were written, the only corollary of which in the west would have been the "decline and Fall of The Roman Empire" by Edward Gibbons in the 1700s, considered a watershed, a monument of its time, with a span that would have hardly constituted a volume and a half of Al-Tabari's encyclopedia and written a millennium later. Jabir Ibn Hayyan (101-199 H / 721-815 CE) the father of chemistry whose theories (distillation, measurement system, oxidaton, nature of substances, etc) remained dominant until the 18th century. and who was the first to elucidate the scientific method said: "The first thing that is required for anyone who seeks the knowledge of chemistry is that he should work with his hands and experiment, for he who does not work with his hands and does not experiment will not attain any degree of knowledge." Ibn al-Haytham (4th century of Hijra), referred to as "the Physicist" in Europe is famous for the first comprehensive scientific book on optics, before his study of optics and perspective paintings were entirely 2 dimensional, a leap after his treatises and works were translated is visible in how paintings became three dimensional, He discovered integral calculus (physicist, mathematician and astronomer who discovered calculus, Newton often references Arabic in his writings for a reason), is even still argued with today the work "The Enigma of Reason" primarily deals with his arguments. regarding the scientific method he said "The duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and... attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency." There are texts from the 800's CE debating whether, if one for example were to take a log of wood that was not theirs, make a column out of it and have it as a foundation of a house, later the original owner of the column comes back and demands the log to be retrieved into his custody and refuse monetary compensation ought the judge comply, tear down the structure and give him the log or ought he enforce a monetary compensation. this was 1200 years. Property rights were taken that seriously, you could not simply handwave it and enforce a monetary compensation as that property in question was not attained by proper channels, hence it' s ownership and how much ought be the compensation for it is judicated by its owner and no one else has the right to, not the governor or even the caliph. Stephen Langton, the writer of the Magna Carta (12th century, contemporary with the crusades for a reason) studied in the university of Paris which archives show had plenty of Arabic treatises in its procession, there can be no question about it being inspired by the "Sharia". Both the renessiance and the european enlightenment were directly preceded by massive translation movements form Arabic (see the Republic of Letters by Alexander Bevilacqua, The House of Wisdom: How the Arabs Transformed Western Civilization By: Jonathan Lyons. God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
@@americaeaustraliaepius4338dude Harvard university had a researcher falsify data about honesty, you all cry over your journalism being one sided and controlled by rich people, your scientific research are literally a reflection of their donors and you're chidding ancient times?
Sahih Bukhari was 600,000 Hadith and he threw out 99.7% of them as false. The Romans Aztecs and Chinese had millions of first-hand accounts. Hadith is nothing but 4th-6th hand accounts. Hadith are overwhelmingly authored by Israelis. The JEWISH TALMUD is the #1 source of Fabricated Hadith. Hadithists made Prophet Muhammad a p*** hile, homosexual, war criminal so they could have excuses to do every evil.
I'm honestly saddened at the amount of people who are against scholarly analysis of their own religion/faith. Your channel has been instrumental in educating people on Islam's history, including me.
I think that's because modern Islamic identitarianism requires scholars to be language priests supporting a vision of Orthodoxy and not a critical academic.
Its not that people are against scholarly analysis of their own religion, the disagreement is about who and what is considered scholarly. Your framing is pretty loaded imo.
This basically says: "It's surprising the amount of Muslims that accept themselves as scholars of their own faith rather than relying on orientalist western 'scholars'".
Oh you mean 'scholarly analysis' by orientalism... That's great to know . By way go go to your home & have some help on scholarship before using the word first
@@ExposingHindutva101 there's no need for aggression on a RUclips Comment section. I was simply referring to the fact that a lot of people respond with aggression, anti-intellectualism, and all sorts of nonsense when confronted with facts that may contradict or elaborate on their beliefs, this applies to literally any field.
There are a few things I learn from Majlis Qiraah Sama’ Hadith Imam Bukhari a few days in Malaysia. Imam Bukhari travels a lot to search hadiths and pray 2 rakaat ( istiqarah provbely ) for each Hadiths. So who are we to compare their commitment with us today?
@@StraightforwardpkThis is my viewpoint. To associate Hadith with Quran is like Ascribing a partner to God. There is Only One God. Not some Cocksucking Scholar who knows when the Prophet clipped his toenails and ate chicken and demands you fucking pay him respect because he knows such. Ya Allah forgive me if I am in grave error, and guide me if I am in total error.
I find it concerning the amount of people not bothering to understand the view point, jumping to conclusions like accusing you of being a kafir and what not. May Allah open their minds and guide the ummah into prosperity.
I literally said in the video that I'm not calling Bukhari inauthentic, just that its nature makes a specific group of people, including myself, disregard it for historical research. People are stupid, I guess.
@@AlMuqaddimahYTI think it's social conditioning, not stupidity. Our scholars are functionally priests who derive their authority from language expertise and not ordainment (whether we admit it or not) and the result seems to be a total capture of rhetorical device. Without a grasp of rhetoric, people can't distinguish between persuasive arguments and so "truth" becomes an identitarian tradition rather than an intellectual pursuit. IE "the ways of our forefathers." Then you ask "don't they use their reason?" and surah Ibrahim becomes quite clear. In my observation people who do this conflate worshipping Allah with worshipping a traditional perspective, and attempt to punish others for engaging in intellectual pursuit of the signs Allah has told us to consider because to engage in the language of description is to violate the identitarian dynamic. May Allah guide us all and have mercy on the ummah of the Prophet SAW.
I understand this brother wants to establish a channel that is based on the secular historical lens. It seems this is to broaden his appeal by trying to appeal to Muslims both Sunnis and Shia as well as non-Muslims. However, one must remember if you use non-Muslim sources to retell Muslim historical events and leave out Muslim sources. They do have biases and inherent misconceptions, misunderstanding, islamophobia and islamic stereotypes. Plus, the Western Historical Method has been developed in Western academia, which has a secular preference. Secularism has lots of inherent assumptions and prepsuspostions about Islam and religion in general as well as a eurocenteric way of viewing the world underpinned with Orientalist colonial mind set of other non-white non-westeren cultures, traditions and faiths. So one must never assume that this method of viewing, understanding and retelling Islamic history is neutral, fair or just.
I've read secular books on Islamic history by authors who can be described as Islamphiles (e.g. Juan Cole) and they were still treated as "oriental" by Muslim reviewers. What most of these Muslims who complain constantly about "orientalism" and "anti-Muslim bias" really are mad about is that western academia is studying Islam without presupposing the metaphysical divinity of the faith like Muslims do. Thing is this is impossible simply because western academia study all sorts of religious history so why Islam be the exception? What's funny is that, Muslims do the same exact things in all the biases, misconceptions, misunderstandings and stereotypes you accuse the west of. It's common in the Islamic world when you pick up a history book studying Jewish or Christian history and origins written by Muslim historians to find them almost exclusively using Islamic material not Jewish or Christian material because for them the Qur'an and ahadith hold more truth than the Bible, church histories or even secular studies, so how do you -as a Muslim - deal with that? Are Muslims writing about the history of middle eastern religious groups who have been under their control engaging in their own inherent assumptions and presuppositions and viewing the world with their own version of Islamocenteric colonial mind? Is that a bad thing -as in the case of the west - or a good thing?
@dust001 Even if we assume that some of what you said is true, you can't deny the fact that they will still try to read Islamic history and revision it in a way that makes Western Civilization look historically superior.
Wow you used all the buzzwords didn't you. Unfortunantely they only work on white people who have only had to deal with Muslims in the past 50 years or so. Try calling Hindus, Balkaners, non-Muslim people from Caucus, Armenians, and any of the native Middle Eastern non-Muslims who havent been completely cleansed and/or forced out yet as "Islamophobic". Try calling the non-Muslim South East Asians as Islamophobic. Read their histories that existed well before "Western Historical Method 🤓" and tell me it's "Islamophobic" you complete and utter coward. Just because Islam forced everyone with a brain into Europe does not mean history that is critical of Islam is "Eurocentric", as convenient as that may be for you. Maybe if Islam wanted a kind lens on it, it should have left some non-Muslims to exist peacefully and unoppressed within its territories.
@@Emir_969 Yes, you can deny that "Fact".You also should. That is an hypothesis of yours and must be shown in each individual case where you say that they are indeed applauding western civlisation or secularism as "Above" anyone else. As a Swede, I have no interest in my country's domination of Finland historically aside from jokes between friends. I have an interest that people should live with increased well-being and being allowed to think freely about the world to further our understanding of it. That example comes from numerous conversations I've had with this very kind of dismissive attitude, it is damaging to everyone, I'll dismiss your ideas on their own merits and you should dismiss my ideas on their own merits.
Speaking as a Christian, who has spent decades, trying to learn more about early Christian history, I appreciated your distinction between religious and the secular and traditional sources, and how frustrating it can be to try and sort between them. Particularly if you’re trying to explain the results of your research to someone who is not themselves a researcher. Christians often think that I’m an atheist because I question this or that second century tradition that is unsubstantiated by historical evidence, atheists either assume I am one of their own Because I am critical of this or that source, and they often suffer from the same assumption that Christians do: the idea that if one word is incorrect or metaphorical or whatever, then the entire thing is a lie, There is no God, and we should just write the whole thing off and go back to playing Warhammer 40K. :) And then, of course, you have to contend with the people who have done no research, have little or no understanding of Christianity, or history, or anything, jumping on board with their latest pop culture, conspiracy theories. Throw sectarian differences on top of that pile, as you expressed here, and it’s just a mess. A friend of mine once said, “ really just scholarship is the loneliest hobby, because you simply cannot discuss it with Lehman unless you’re willing to put in hundreds of hours of bringing them up to speed. And if you try to discuss it with people who are already knowledgeable, they will automatically refute whatever you say based on their own frequently religious biases.” It is all very frustrating, and I can only assume that anyone trying to do a reasonably objective study of the history of their own religious group faces similar obstacles. Just the same it is very nice to hear these frustrations articulated as well as you did here. Thank you for that.
You know that we don't have such problems, because our religion actually has technology, debates, heretics and points. Meanwhile Islam is just lol trust me bro, it's Poligamy time.
@@hgkghkhgkgh8378 Those problems still exist, just to a lesser extend. Take the term "arian" for example. If we are to believe christian sources, arianism, as formulated by arius, never died out and was found everywhere, throughout the centuries, for over a millenia. That wasn't the case at all. the so-called arians of the goths, were not arius-type arians. They believed that christ was divine and a small-g god (as can be seen by ulfilias formula). And that distinction has not been made until sometime late in the 20th century. So less than 50 years ago.
@@hgkghkhgkgh8378Don't be so condescending. There's serious Islamic scholars; I'm not a Muslim and disagree with a lot of the religion's fundamental values, but I recognize smart people when I see them. They work within the bounds of their culture.
@@hgkghkhgkgh8378 "lol trust me bro" is everything Christianity stands on, Paul never met Jesus AS physically, we don't know who the gospel writers are as they were confirmed to be anonymous, so in reality what do u have for eye witnesses for the ressurection of Jesus AS? They all come from the Bible, and using the Bible to prove the ressurection is circular reasoning
@ That’s a pretty insulting thing to say about Islam. I mean, I’m 100% a practicing, believing Christian, which means that I do not believe many of the things Muslims do, but Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are cousin faiths. Even though we disagree about who’s getting it right and who’s not, we are all worshiping God to the best of our understanding. I’m not a Muslim, I’m not a Jew, but both faiths absolutely positively deserve our respect. Don’t pick fights for no reason.
This is exactly what imam Tom discussed on blogging theology in his secularism playlist, your not looking at history, your just restating orientalist myths, you relies secularism is not a neutral viewpoint to render history do you?
@@000-t3c-i5u The main issue I have with this channel is its assumption that interpreting Islamic history from a secular perspective using the historical-critical method is unbiased and neutral. A basic understanding of philosophy quickly reveals how flawed this claim is. Let’s break down the historical critical Method. The Neutrality Claim: Historical criticism claims to approach historical events "objectively" or "neutrally," attempting to analyze what "actually happened" based on available evidence. This appears scientific and unbiased on the surface. The Hidden Assumptions: However, this approach typically embeds several unstated philosophical assumptions: - Methodological naturalism (explaining events through natural rather than supernatural causes) - Empiricism (privileging physical evidence over testimony or tradition) - Materialist causation (events must have material rather than spiritual causes) The Core Contradiction: The key insight you're making is that these assumptions themselves represent a particular worldview. Someone who believes in: - Divine intervention - The reality of spiritual forces - The possibility of miracles - Non-material causation is operating from an equally valid epistemological framework. The materialist framework isn't more "neutral" - it's just a different set of assumptions about reality. The Subjectivity Problem: This reveals a deeper issue: true neutrality in historical investigation is impossible because: - Everyone approaches evidence with pre-existing frameworks - Our understanding of what constitutes "evidence" is theory-laden - The selection of what's relevant or irrelevant is influenced by our worldview - The interpretation of causation depends on our metaphysical assumptions
@@000-t3c-i5u There's no irony in accepting non-muslim research, that's your projection. The problem is when a Muslim writes, it's apologetic. When an atheist writes about Islam, it's objective. Both have biases, both can be apologetic or both can be *relatively* neutral. Al Tabari, as an example of a medieval book, does dissect sources though, that's the issue. You fail to see that.
@@000-t3c-i5u I don't have a problem with that though. I don't know if post-structuralists are the originator of this thought, but that makes no difference to me. I always thought all sources are biased. We should be skeptical but the real hypocrisy is when effectively all Muslim scholarship is dismissed with a wave of a hand "oh it's just apologetics", but there's is not? I have to talk specifics to get this point across, here's one. Look at the story of Qira'at. Muslim sources are very transparent on the issue. Orientalists initially come trying to upend everything, only to now generally agree that they got it right. This example happens everywhere, I'd be happy to discuss a specific issue if you like.
If Ḥadīth can't be used a historical source just because they aren't secular, then the non-Muslim sources of that time weren't secular either. Edit: Change the thumbnail because it deems all Aḥādīth as "false traditions" which is not merely inaccurate but also dishonest on your part.
Secular history is constructed by contrasting opposing biases. We can and do use Muslim sources, but when it comes to theological claims, that falls under the study of theology, not history. I don't personally believe in ancient mesopotamian religion, but if I did, you'd probably think I'm overreaching if I claim that Enuma Elish or the Epic of Gilgamesh are accurate historical accounts. These texts are extremely useful to show us what type of stories mesopotamian people were writing down, but not necessarily to reconstruct secular history. Similarly, we should and do dismiss Christian accounts that demonize Muslims, and viceversa. It makes more sense to contrast different narratives, check the archaeological record and debate what likely happened. Which is what historians do.
@@MaryamMaqdisi When the Ḥadīth is authentic, you don't need to construct a narrative out of thin air by contrasting the different "secular" narratives. Comparing the authenticity of Aḥādīth to that of ancient mesopotamian manuscripts or artifacts is blatantly inaccurate.
Nothing from secular history is authentic, because worship piece of rock or they are idolaters and christian jesus from iran, all lies. Only islamic history and monotheist history. Like American history is very authentic in its beginning , not when federal reserve christianity idolatry was installed as official religion fo America, then everything historical is LIES and LIES. But when America was monotheist like Islam, even though Americans didnt have same scrutiny as islamic scholars did in verifying narration, still American history is so accurate and correct and reflects truths of Quran. Islamic Sources are very objective. what the fck are u talking about? Secularist are liars. my whole life out to murder me like french, italian, jews, christians, pagans, hindus, asian communists. have to lie to why mass murdering torturing bankrupting enslaving people. Islamic sources like just look at Aisha رَضِيَ اللّهُ عَنْهُ the wife of Prophet ﷺ , she gives so many narration sthat shows a complete picture of each side and their point of view in conflict namely the conflict herself and father was involved with against Ali عَلَيْهِ ٱلسَّلَامُ . She رَضِيَ اللّهُ عَنْهُ said in hadith that ali عَلَيْهِ ٱلسَّلَامُ believed he thought he should of been caliphate, this is in Sahih muslim and sahih صحيح البخاري You don't get more objective than that. Sunni hadiths are so objective, always self incriminating, hadiths of arabs being evil and going to be extermianted is narrated by arabs. hadiths of persians and desi background being followers of anti christ and perishing are hadiths authenticated by persians and desis themselves, where do u get that kind of honesty from secularists or christians or jews or pagans? You don't , their religion is lie , or foundation is lie, so everything supporting it is full of lies.
@@hall511 That is historical quote/Rawaya and I do not build my faith on Rawayaat but on Book of God only. By the way, Plato wrote about Socrates, and Plato was a student of Socrates. Now, I ask you: was any Hadith-compiler a student of the Prophet? No. Book of Bukhari was concocted by a Persian 220 years after the death of Rasool
@@abdar-rahman6965how do you know he was his student ? Moreover this common ignorance regarding how bukhari is compiled is present in many , even if we had no bukhari still the hadiths are there in other books , first hadith book was 30 years after the prophet , bukhari is the authentic collection
First of all, I can see how many of the commenters only saw the thumbnail and the title and decided to leave a comment. Second, I didn't say anything about Hadiths that hasn't been said by people more qualified than myself. People like Albani have directly questioned Sahih al-Bukhari. I didn't say that I agree with him or anything. I merely said that there's so many questions raised on that book that it, as a collection, can not be used directly. Individual Hadiths are used, for sure. I realize that so much of Sunni Islam is built on Hadiths that even a perceived attack on them warrant such a vigilant response, for no reason. If you don't understand the point of the video, then I really don't know what to do. P.S. Please read Edward Said's Orientalism before calling something Orientalist. :)
Please don’t select such a thumbnail next time. I do partly agree with you but making a blanket statement like false hadiths even if to lure viewers in is essentially not ethical
Just to prove you wrong on 1 point, counting wounds on bodies ( number of lashes / cuts / stabs / missing bits) was an established custom among such warriors and there are many reports about this.
Your research comes with weak evidence to support what you are saying. Albani criticized a few Hadiths in Bukhari but took the rest and followed same methodology as him. Albani is the one who should be questioned for that not Albukhari. No evidence supports contradictions in Bukhari Hadith!! Shia disagreement about Bukhari is because of their belief that contradicts all the books of Hadith. They even believe Quran is not authentic?? You haven't provided a single source to what you are saying?? You can't just pick Hadith you like and leave the other.
Less Knowledge is dangerous. As you said about taking things collectively to establish an understanding is important. One with the hunger of knowledge would never hate the secular historians techniques of establishing history. You are young and smart, you must have read lot of books but still its not collective.
Your albani argument proofs your ignorance on this matter so clearly, he is a muhadith who is job is to critically analyse ahadith and their chains… like many before did .. and out of 100k plus ahadith he found a few to be weak according to his view …. That doesn’t mean that he doesn’t regard sahih bukhari as one the most authentic books ever compiled…
Your arguments are largely from an orientalist perspective. @7:00 your sunni-shia argument is basically “well 1 large group of people dont accept Sahih al Bukhari, so can we really rely on it??” And the answer is yes we can. Every generation, scholars have checked and verified the books of hadiths and their contents. It is impossible for us to have gotten this very serious aspect of Islam wrong for 1400 years and only now in the last century did our orientalist saviors emerge to save us from our own ignorance
Typical of hadith rejectors. You people rely on modern secular historians rather than the scholars of Islam (people who devoted their lives to studying the final religion of Allah ﷻ )
@@zoheezus those who reject hadith or question its authenticity typically misunderstand or undervalue this preservation system. They might focus too much on the possibility of error or corruption, but they don't give enough weight to the lengths scholars went to safeguard the sunnah. The preservation was so thorough that even weak or fabricated narrations were identified, recorded, and excluded from core collections.
If anything this video just exposed himself that he do in fact have some hidden agenda behind his videos .. God has promised us he will expose the munafiq and here it is in full display.
The critique of Orientalism comes from an academic perspective that has only been possible since the rise of philosophical modernity. Thinkers like al-Afghani and Muhammad Abduh weren't simply allowed to say "we have done things like this for 1400 years, and now here are these newcomers who orientalize us." They had to develop independent criteria for the validity of truth-claims, which is the same thing that Ghazali does in the 'Ihya Ulum ad-Din, and that Ibn Rushd does in the Decisive Treatise. In other words, having *both* Islamic and "extra-Islamic" (secular) grounds for epistemology and logic was historically seen as compatible and even preferable for many of the greatest minds of the Golden Age and of Pan-Islamism. It's not "self-orientalizing" to accept non-revelatory sources and criteria of truth. Taqwa does not make 2+2=5.
One particular comment I'd just like to make as a historian (albeit one focused on history that is not Islamic, mine is a cultural history of immigration and imperialism, and right now I'm doing research into Japanese history) is just how much debates can change even year by year Relatively few fields are ever static, and those that are usually lack sources to spur debate, or the archaeology just hasn't happened yet. Reading through the histories of a field like mine comes a history of histories onto itself, and this video demonstrates that perfectly. Thank you for this video, since work like yours helps keep non-academic historical debate alive and in peoples' minds, and that is always important
@@thesalafislav Ridiculous to think that the majority of them wouldn't be biased, even implicitly (its ridiculous to even compare Christian or Shia tradition to Sunni tradition). Or wouldn't have proper education, in either Arabic or in hadith sciences. Especially not being close to the level of our hadith scholars lol
Okay brother, I respectfully disagree with some of your talk points, especially when you place secularism on a pedestal on attaining truth. Yes, al bukhari is more a religious book, since it isn't meant to tell the history of a certain era, rather many of the acts and sayings of the Prophet and his companions. But if you take the methods he used to make sure that those hadeeths are authentic, it is far greater and more reliable than any historical book written at the time or even in that millenia. What stops any secular historian from lying or if the historian himself isn't lying, what stops the people and sources they get it from to be reliable and trustworthy? Like how many historical "facts" are just a result of misinformation/ something someone said taken at face value without the source and background cheks of the original author of said fact, sometimes the orignal author is even just forgotten. The idea is that secular scholars of a few centuries ago didn't have the level reliability that Al-bukhari had, even shia sources can't really claim to have chains of narrations that go back to the time of the prophet, and many of them are just taken at face value. In islam a pious man is less likey to lie, and even if he was to lie, Al bukhari wouldn't take people's words at face value, he would learn about the people he is taking the narrations from, he would make sure their memory is strong and they are trusted and truthful people in their communities... so just because some western Liberal feminists, and some secular oriantalist "historians" have issues with Al Bukhari doesn't mean their criticism is right. They have the right to criticis, but they don't actually criticise his methods or his actual work, only the things they don't like and don't believe in... so their criticism is more biased than the thing they are criticising... The whole idea is that yes, there are islamic historians that are unreliable, but when you compare methods and the means so many historians and hadeeth writers took to make sure what they were writing was factual and true, and you would compare it to the same historians from different areas at the time, you'd see a stark difference. And as you said current secular historians only have their standards as a result of islamic and muslim standards in conveying truth.
current secular historians only have their standards as a result of islamic and muslim standards in conveying truth. Not really. Now, The contentious "Team Christian" in me wants to say that secular historians standards come from the Christians, but I believe I must abandon this too to what I think is the actual reality... Which is that a long development running in parallel to either religion resulted in the standards the secular historians now have. 1) Older scholars wanted to discover reality through Philosophy and the tales of their ancestors, but then discovered deficiencies in this. There was always something that made the old approach complicated like: a) lying and disagreement over the course of events (if two people are said to be wrong, the possibility remains that both really are). b) Related to that, a creative retelling of reality which misses a literal truth (Like saying, The Republicans were totally wiped out. Yet, they're present for the next election). c) Physical evidence in contrast with histories passed down from ones elders. (Like saying the Hebrews conquered Canaan, its a claim that's difficult to prove even if you accept it, because conquest has a tendency to destroy evidence). d) Plain old credibility issues. For a long time, historical and scientific study simply involved referencing the classics and ancient writings, but never questioning or cross-examining them. Instead just revering them for their age. 2) Lets run a thought experiment together: You believe in miracles, yes? I do. But, the question here isn't about the reality of miracles, but secular institutions. Why they behave as they do, and have developed their own standards over time: a) Lets say a Pastor or Imam gained a million dollars out of nowhere, and said it was a miracle. Now, this may be true. Nothing is impossible with God, and these are honest men, I assume. But, the IRS won't be nearly as charitable about that. Would you think more or less of the IRS if they simply accepted that this million dollar gain by these Men of the Cloth was miraculous, without checking and investigating at all? b) Unrelated - Lets say a million dollars disappeared from a bank. Maybe you own it and other money is held in it. Maybe you're a client and your money is saved there. The bank claims, "This was the work of Devils or Jinn". Are you confident your clients would accept that? Would you feel that this bank was trustworthy of your funds?
let him be clear upon his own terms he uses & the so called scholarly analysis ---- And let him abandon the limitless nonsense written in the name of history .... the so called secular authentic history.
@@daftyute One of the biggest straw Manning I have ever heard. Did you ever understood what he meant ❓ And who thinks a scholar must put aside his beliefs aside before doing scholarly research then it's obvious -- either his beliefs are irrational like the trinity or he is not a scholar himself.
Making the distinction between historicity and religious readings is a good move: it shows you're thinking carefully about your sources and makes your channel stand out as a reliable one. It's hard on RUclips to get academic history of Islam. There's a gulf of understanding between the west and Islam that is manifesting in rather dangerous ways at the moment, so your channel is timely and valuable. Plus the hard work you put into these videos. You're doing the right thing, mate.
I'm not a Muslim, so I can't say whether any of this is disrespectful or anything like that. What I can say, though, is I know quite a few Muslims who have complained to me that these sorts of secular historical reviews from Islamic perspectives are very hard to come by. Obviously, some people will be upset, but I think there are others who are equally happy such a source exists. It's not just about accuracy, or being more correct, but it helps to understand and connect more deeply with religious heritage. Or at least, that's how I have heard it. Maybe I happen to just know outliers. But there's definitely people out there who value this sort of thing. And, if I can put my own two cents in the matter (which may not be warranted), I'm of the opinion that if these sorts of secular overviews arent done by Muslims, then non Muslims will have a monopoly on the narrative and history-telling of Islamic history from secular sources, which would be a far greater shame. All too often I hear people complain that Islam is told from non Islamic perspectives. This is true, and a valid criticism. But if people shy away from these areas of thought, it's the only remaining alternative.
The problem is, it’s not about secular vs non-secular, it’s about historical analysis and facts. The rigorous criticism of hadeeth, in terms of both content and chains of narration, was done by early Islamic historians like Bukhari and Muslim. They looked through something like 1 million chains of narration, analyzed each link in the chain of narration ad infinitum - the biographies of each narrator, what their neighbors said about them, political inclinations, everything - and graded each chain that way. There’s a lot more to it, but what I’m saying is that by simply “rejecting” the Hadeeth categorically - it really doesn’t make any logical sense. In that vein, you should also reject history itself, which is far less rigorously authenticated than Hadeeth. If you want to be academic, be academic. But don’t half-ass it as a self-taught RUclipsr.
@3thmnify I don't think he was discounting it's validity entirely, I think his point was that, due to it's nature, it can't be treated the same way we would a historical newspaper, shell midden or whatever else. That doesn't make it an invalid source or him even correct necessarily, but I do think it's a noteworthy difference. As a Muslim, I imagine this is likely more difficult since he has the option of determining which aspects are "true" for such sources (difficult to do even ignoring faith), or by distinguishing between the two kinds of source entirely. I'm not saying that's the best compromise of the two necessarily, but I don't think it's unreasonable or unacademic.
I think your channel is a precious gem. I don’t know many channels like yours, especially with your quality and presentation. I hope to watch many more videos here. I don’t come here to learn religion, but to learn history.
@surahalbaqaraha191yeah anyone or anything that doesn’t agree with you word by word according to your own worldview are all “Evil” and you are an “Saint”
“Secular historians are unbiased and therefore their statements must be taken as fact, and not questioned. Meanwhile religious historians are biased and can’t be trusted. By the way, what is a chain of narration, anyway?” 🤡
@@3thmnifyThis comment. 😂😂😂 His whole video is *BIAS* against “Hadith” by trying to sound academic, while calling it “False Tradition” with his clickbaity oh-so-controversial thumbnail.
@@AyneEverlastaside from the thumbnail being clickbait nothing said in this video is biased against islam he even explicitly said that he doesn’t reject hadith as a religious text and historical contexts need further academic reading, all of which is objectively true
@ [9:09] - [9:30] “hadiths have a large Corpus of material about these narrators including the biographies and genealogies of many of them however a lot of that too is based on *hearsay and unreliable older Traditions* . What method did the compiler of the hadiths use to separate the truth from the embellishments?” This is a clear excerpt from his video for all to see that he consider *Hadith unreliable, heresy, and NOT TRUE* implying that our Islamic Practice of Sunnah and Prophetic Tradition is based on events that, not only are historically inaccurate, but also did not happen in history and were mere heresy; his logic applies generally on *BOTH* whether in Religious or Historical context. Not to mention, *HE DID NOT EXPLAIN WITH DETAILS THE RIGOROUS METHODOLOGY OF MUSLIM SCHOLARS OF COLLECTING HADITH, CATEGORISING, GRADING AND VERIFYING IT* , except shooting some examples here and there, which is regarded nothing more than a *RED HERRING.* All while he took a great length - if not most of his video - to explain the “Western” Historic Method and the whole history behind it, which *DOES NOT COUNT AS “OBJECTIVE” ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON* at all, and therefore it’s *BIASED.*
The "authenticity" of Sahih al-Bukhari, as well as the other collections termed "Sahih", is self referential. That is to say, the author states that every hadith included in the collection passes his crieria for authenticity. Each compiler has slightly different criteria. If two hadith contradict each other, this does not impact the grading of either as "sahih" because the relevant criteria do not consider the /matn/, or the text or meaning of the hadith, but only consider the /isnad/ or the chain of transmission.
@@Rudolfvirchoww I think you made this example up since Quran was not recorded in the Prophet's lifetime so no Quran eating goat could have crossed the Prophet's path. However, if such an account had an isnad that passed the test of Sahih for whichever compiler, that hadith would be "Sahih" following the relevant standard. This is what is meant by the statement, there is no examination of the text (textual criticism), only of the isnad, the chain of transmission.
@@deceiver-paul Malik's chain of narrators was considered the most authentic and called Silsilat al-Dhahab or "The Golden Chain of Narrators" by notable hadith scholars including Muhammad al-Bukhari.
How do you know the Quran was reliably narrated to us? Once you find the answer to that question, you understand why you can’t simply categorically reject Hadith as being unreliable. The foundation of all historical knowledge is narrations, aural or written. If you reject Hadith, which is the most rigorously authenticated and analyzed source of biography in history, you might as well reject history itself.
أَفَلَا یَتَدَبَّرُونَ ٱلۡقُرۡءَانَۚ وَلَوۡ كَانَ مِنۡ عِندِ غَیۡرِ ٱللَّهِ لَوَجَدُوا۟ فِیهِ ٱخۡتِلَـٰفࣰا كَثِیرࣰا﴿ ٨٢ ﴾ • Fadel Soliman: Do they not ponder the Recital[1]? For had it been from any other than Allah, they would have found in it much discrepancy. An-Nisāʾ, Ayah 82
Textual criticism in christianity began when the bible was first translated into european vernavular in the 16th century (was translated into Arabic in the 19th century), it reached a professional level around the 19-20th century and is still ongoing today, In Islam however it started in the first century. Unlike the Quran, the hadith are transmitted oral accounts which were written 1 century after they happened and even in the canonical collections of Bukhari and Muslim there are several narrations of the same hadith due to some people paraphrasing and others forgetting part of it. Most of the hadith are without context, this is not to take from the value of hadith as in practice it was the first serious endeavor of having authentication of the historical record. The hadith are transmitted by way of chains of narration, x heard from y who heard from z that .... took place, a study of who x, who y, and who z were and whether what they are saying is true by checking what others had said about them and whether they had indeed met those who they are purported to have taken the accounts from began and so the first "peer review" mechanism took place, all before the internet in the 2nd and 3rd centuries fo the hijra, which unlike the christian calendar has been continously kept, the current gregorian calendar for example was first instanced int he year 535 CE by Dionysius Exiguus, the 25th of December in addition for example being the pagan holdiay of the roman deirty 'Sol Invictus' is clearly shown in the "Chronograph of 354", the earliest christian calendar predating the current one, but I digress, the writing down of hadith was forbidden by the prophet himself for the aforementioned issue (people forgetting, paraphrasing, taking words out of context) only the Quran was ordered to have been written and linguistically they are too far apart, it is clear that the Matn of some hadith, the substance or the wording was altered as the language used seems to be more "modern" instead in instances. Arabic had not changed in any significant way since the Abbasids, 1200 years ago sound as "modern" as things written in the last 50 years. Arabic is the oldest continuously spoken language in the world, the only possible corollary, Chinese, has script which has no relation to the actual language hence why Japanese and old Vietnamese use it, event the script itself was only codified in the 1700s in the Kangxi emperor's dictionary. A miracle in plain sight Hadith for example has several levels of correctness, from Hasan which means "well" to rejected as pertains to the Matn or the substance of the hadith itself, the "isnad" of the Hadith or the chains of transmission / citation also have varying levels from Marfu' meaning quoted without having actually met any of the people in the transmission chain or a second hand account or Mudalas meaning plagarised from another transmitter of hadith without citing and Marfud meaning outright rejected for various reasons, There is another layer of complexity here called ilm-aa-rijal, the study of the bibliography of those in the chains of transmission themselves and their soundness whether objectively by crosschecking where they lived and whom they met or subjectively by seeing what their peers said about them regarding their character. Those unaware of the aforementioned would not only have not been allowed to cite hadith it would have been a criminal offense and there are hadith which clearly contradict one another and one ought not be citing hadith without knowing all other hadith from the colossal hadith collections that were written, even the earliest hadith collection, Musannaf Abdel Razaq Al-Sanani ( 137-211H / 744- 827 CE) and Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaybah ( 159H-235H / 775-849 CE). for instance had over 53,000 hadith with their chains of transmissions included has yet to be translated into English . Yes, Bukhari and Muslim are taken the most correct as they had the most narrow criterion, but an enormous study is required before citing either one of them. Later scholars such an Al-Darqutni show that there were mistakes made. I say later here though he is still over a millennium old this seriousness of scholarship was the first endeavor of its kind in human history, what became today known as university degrees started with the institutions giving "ijaza" or certificate t transmit hadith and talk about it , indeed they are the origins of the University system we know today. This scientific method of studying hadith and jurisprudence was developed and already in practice in the 2nd and third centuries of the hijra (around 750 CE) back when most of europe did not have a written script for their vernacular, enormous encyclopedia such as the 40 volume history of Al-Tabari which, averages 400 pages per volume (and is only one of his works) were written, the only corollary of which in the west would have been the "decline and Fall of The Roman Empire" by Edward Gibbons in the 1700s, considered a watershed, a monument of its time, with a span that would have hardly constituted a volume and a half of Al-Tabari's encyclopedia and written a millennium later. Jabir Ibn Hayyan (101-199 H / 721-815 CE) the father of chemistry whose theories (distillation, measurement system, oxidaton, nature of substances, etc) remained dominant until the 18th century. and who was the first to elucidate the scientific method said: "The first thing that is required for anyone who seeks the knowledge of chemistry is that he should work with his hands and experiment, for he who does not work with his hands and does not experiment will not attain any degree of knowledge." Ibn al-Haytham (4th century of Hijra), referred to as "the Physicist" in Europe is famous for the first comprehensive scientific book on optics, before his study of optics and perspective paintings were entirely 2 dimensional, a leap after his treatises and works were translated is visible in how paintings became three dimensional, He discovered integral calculus (physicist, mathematician and astronomer who discovered calculus, Newton often references Arabic in his writings for a reason), is even still argued with today the work "The Enigma of Reason" primarily deals with his arguments. regarding the scientific method he said "The duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and... attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency." There are texts from the 800's CE debating whether, if one for example were to take a log of wood that was not theirs, make a column out of it and have it as a foundation of a house, later the original owner of the column comes back and demands the log to be retrieved into his custody and refuse monetary compensation ought the judge comply, tear down the structure and give him the log or ought he enforce a monetary compensation. this was 1200 years. Property rights were taken that seriously, you could not simply handwave it and enforce a monetary compensation as that property in question was not attained by proper channels, hence it' s ownership and how much ought be the compensation for it is judicated by its owner and no one else has the right to, not the governor or even the caliph. Stephen Langton, the writer of the Magna Carta (12th century, contemporary with the crusades for a reason) studied in the university of Paris which archives show had plenty of Arabic treatises in its procession, there can be no question about it being inspired by the "Sharia". Both the renessiance and the european enlightenment were directly preceded by massive translation movements form Arabic (see the Republic of Letters by Alexander Bevilacqua, The House of Wisdom: How the Arabs Transformed Western Civilization By: Jonathan Lyons. God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
Could you please explain what you mean by 'secular source'? If you mean the western historians, are they really secular and what source are they referring to when they write regarding history?
Historians try to correct for biases, for example they normally look at a Christian source making outlandish claims about Islam and think, right, they're ideologically motivated, we can't take this at face value. Same thing with Muslim sources. Some claims are much easier to defend than others, and using a multitude of sources, archaeology and other data scholars can get a good idea of what's likely correct, but as the video puts it, it is a field of educated guesses rather than established facts.
@@MaryamMaqdisiif you don't use Ḥadīth as a historical source just because they aren't a secular source, then the non-Muslim sources of that time aren't secular either.
Thanks! Especially for making it clear that one can be a believer, without thinking that every part of one's tradition is of equal value. I do think that the idea of truth, or at least a single truth, is not very helpful. But maybe that's just me.
22:18 methods like this are also used in Hadith authentication. The Hadith scholar don’t only use Riwayat (the chain of report) but also Dirayat which means analyzing the content of a Hadith to see whether it makes any sense or not. Also, the cautious behaviors of Islamic scholars towards modern historiography is not without merit and it is caused by the so called orientalists from whom even the modern historians distant themselves. Also, people who do see modern historiography from the other side, do see a tendency of the modern historians of often saying the opposite of what has been established, just to sound sensational. The “oh actually it was like this”. However, in recent years historians are more mindful cautious of this bias.
Dirayah is mentioned in Usool al Hadith, but it is rarely employed. When it comes to Imam Bukhari or others from Hambali school, riwayah takes precedence over dirayah if not completely ignored. Dirayah involves use of aql which is considered deviance as per Hambalis. Bukhari's collection is considered sahih because of the strong chains and not because of any other criteria. Hanafis use several Hadith which they consider to be authentic though Bukhari considered those inauthentic. Hanafis and Malikis were more open to use of other daeef hadiths because the strength of the chain was not the only citerion for them. However, over centuries the Ahlul Hadith/Hambali position came to represent the orthodox position.
Christian church fathers used to "see if it made sense" and all they did was to remove the importance of women apostoles and of social justice in Christianity and focus instead on silly concepts like that you're saved if you just believe that Jesus was God. "Seeing if it makes sense" is nothing but a way to impress your own human failures into the religion.
@@arifshoeb6177 Sounds super mature of you! There are many Hadiths that are weak but still considered relevant because they align with the Quran and Sahih Hadith, both of which are established as reliable and serve as the gold standard in Islamic teachings. while there are weak Hadiths that are used for encouragement to do good deeds, they aren’t automatically classified as Hasan or Sahih just because the content “feels Islamic” or aligns with established beliefs. A weak Hadith’s status remains as it is unless there is stronger evidence to support its authenticity.
I agree with Al Muqaddimah that people are biased. The number of people who are insulting him rather than having a civil discussion is proof of his point.
Saying "salafism" is just proving your ignorance, if you don't realise that there is no understanding of the Qurʾān and Sunnah without the Salaf then then you are severely misguided.
@@mrmr446 The only people who use salafism are non-Muslim propaganda pushers or ikhwanis who think Muhammad ibn AbdulWahhab brought something new by teaching tawheed and abolishing shrines, let me guess, you hate when people tell you that the Muslim ruler must be obeyed and you think concerts in Saudi are reason enough to make takfir on those in authority? What other possible meaning could be intended by such a westernised word? Please, do tell.
@@AZ-1003 'a ruler must be obeyed?' How many Saudi kings drank and gambled? An easy pathway to tyranny demanding absolute obedience of any ruler, Muslim or not. Not in favour declaring anyone takfir but I do remember living in Saudi when the regime ramped up the Dawa and I know they have destroyed a lot of history.
Secular sources tend to be more acceptable because secular historians tend to account for the biases in the sources, whereas non-secular historians do not tend to account for the biases in the sources. For example, a non-secular historian like a Muslim historian will be hesitant to say or attribute anything bad about a revered figure like a companion of the prophet, whereas a secular historian won't be reluctant to say or attribute anything bad to the companion of the prophet.
It wasn't though it basically was we have to be pro secular western academics and anti Islamic sources because "some feminists and other groups don't like certain sources in Islam"?
Sahih Bukhari was 600,000 Hadith and he threw out 99.7% of them as false. The Romans Aztecs and Chinese had millions of first-hand accounts. Hadith is nothing but 4th-6th hand accounts. Hadith are overwhelmingly authored by Israelis. The JEWISH TALMUD is the #1 source of Fabricated Hadith. Hadithists made Prophet Muhammad a p*** hile, homosexual, war criminal so they could have excuses to do every evil.
I love how this channel always attracts islamophobes or racists, only to disappoint them. 😂 This is the exactly what they like in titles, but what they hate in content. Thank you Syawish
So we have (ilm ur-rijal)(the science of men), which is an Islamic field of study concerned with examining the narrators of hadith in detail, including their biographies, to establish the authenticity of the hadith. Thus, we have the biographies of the narrators, including their public image, for thousands of ahadith to determine which ahadith are authentic and which narrators are trustworthy. We also have (isnād)(chain of narration), which mentions every narrators of a certain hadith, who narrated to who, so on and so forth, until the hadith gets recorded by reliable scholars. We don't accept missing links in chains or a hadith passing from a liar to someone else. This process of verifying ahadith has been conducted for centuries, making the ahadith more reliable than most historical texts. Not using ahadith in your videos because of "unreliability" is humorous. Even if their purpose is religious in nature, they still record important history. Not to mention historical sources of pre and early Islamic Arabia can only be found in ahadith or written by scholars who might have also compiled ahadith, but other than that ahadith collections don't record anything else about future events. So how else will you study pre-Islamic Arabia? Or Early Muslim battles? And as for non-religious Muslims sources why would you ignore them in favour of modern secular sources, why not mention Muslim and non Muslim sources together? Why do you favour one over the other?
@@arifshoeb6177 It's the same concept, sorry you're not able to draw analogies, so let me explain. In the modern study of the historicity of the early Church and Christianity, historians will use the writings of early Church fathers in order to piece together what went on (using Ireneus, Polycarp, Ignatius, Papius, etc.). These people were all officials in the Church, and thus would obviously have their biases, however due to them being some of the most well recorded people, they are often a main source of information. So if you were in the place of modern historians, you would say to reject all these sources because they're religious rather than historical, but that's simply not how it works. I would not have a problem if Muqaddimah simply said he doesn't take hadiths at face value, but outright dismissing them as a non-historical source due to biases is completely unacceptable, and something neither he nor anyone else would do for any other history.
Brother, as soon as you started going on about knowledge being a human right and "we need a revolution by the proletariat right now" I went to jump for the subscribe button to find I already am subscribed... I may be subscribed to too many channels, not that that's a bad thing. So I hit the like button instead. We may not need a revolution per se, but we need more teachers and learners. Keep making learning fun, keep passing it on! We have to pass it on to keep it.
@@ExposingHindutva101 Not sure what that's getting at. But I don't find learning to be a chore or bother or painful. If you do or think that it should be, cool. I've tried beating knowledge into people, it just left me with too many bodies to hide. lol
@@chrispy1398🤦🤣🤣🤣 what do you mean you don't know what he is getting at!!? He is shaming you for daring to have fun while learning!! Don't you know how offensive that is! Now get in the Ice bucket full of needles and you better not start learning until I see some tears!! 👏chop chop 👏 Trying to have fun while learning...😒 The nerve of some people.....😜 I hope I don't have to say (JK) 🤣
There is an exaggerated importance for Hadith from Bukhari because it suits a sectarian narrative of Islam that was supported by the political elite at the time of the compilation of Hadith. This was further cemented by fiqh, which was sourced out of the same Hadith sources. So much of what is stated as a religious decree has basically been sourced out of books from such a contentious and turbulent time in Islamic History, which raises so many questions about all non-quranic fundamentals. Islam is not a rabbinical religion. There is no reason to accept anything from anyone as a given, no interpretation of a scholar, or even any text other than the Quran. To a Muslim, there is no text that can't be questioned for its words or authenticity other than the Quran. Why should Muslims be bound by the understanding at a given time in Islamic history, which was also influenced by the politics of its time. It's noteworthy that most compilations of Hadith were done in periods of history when the Ummah was fragmented with many ideological ‘fitnas’. Unlike the Quran, there is no universally accepted book or collection of Hadith by the Muslim Ummah as a Whole, if a section of Sunnis have Bukhari or al Muwataa' , the ibadis don't and if the Shia have Al Kafi the Sunnis don't accept it. But if someone considers the other side not Muslim enough, that would still not negate that all 114 surahs of the Quran are the same for all of them. That alone is the biggest argument against the claim that the same people that brought the Quran are the same people that brought Hadith, since there was no narration that needed the scrutiny given to Hadith for the authentication. Despite this, here are a few basic arguments against the ‘ like the Quran’ idea repeated by all traditionalists: First argument, There is no Daeef Quranic verse, the Quran as the recitation known to us was protected in its full form through the multitude of narrations it came with, and Allah has guaranteed it's protection in his holy book, and we can see this through the millions that have memorized it, This is an article of faith to believe in, the same cannot be said for Hadith, which despite being conflated by ‘traditionalists’ with obeying the prophet is not the same, as people that refute the Hadith believe that the prophet didn't say the Hadith not that it's his command but it should be disobeyed. The Quran, with all it's commands, is universal to all Muslims in its full form, saying otherwise would mean casting doubt on its preservation going against a direct pledge of Allah of protecting it. There is no pledge from Allah of protecting Hadith. Even the Shias, that don't accept a majority of the Sahaba or the narrators recognized by Bukhari yet they didn't get a different narration of the 114 surahs, (I am not talking about attempts at additions but the full 114) Second argument, the Quran was in fact revealed to the prophet before it was recited to the companions and narrators, there is proof of this is in (20:114) ‘Do not rush to recite ˹a revelation of˺ the Quran’ This shows precisely why the Quran’s preservation would have a much higher standard than anything that would be said on the spot that could have been picked up by narrators, even if it was the same narrators. The prophet reviewed what was written/memorized during his lifetime and repeated it word for word & verse for verse as recitations in prayers. The same cannot be said for the Hadith. Third Argument, It is plausible and even highly likely that during the time of the prophet, the quran was not preserved only in recitation as most ‘scholars of the traditions’ believe, but rather in text form too. We should agree there were multiple scribes at a given time transcripting the recitations. The only thing that happened in the time of the caliphs that followed was a compilation. Fourth Argument, The early manuscripts like the Birmingham manuscript of the Quran can be found. What early manuscripts of the Hadith are there? Is there any method of authentication other than rules of the invented ‘science' for authentication. If the’ like the Quran’ idea truly stands, was this same ‘science’ needed for the quran?? That would be blasphemous to even consider, wouldn't it? Fifth Argument, more like a rebuttal to a common argument made against people that believe there Hadith isn't as binding as the Quran, How would we know how to pray( for example), This is a lot simpler than most people make it out to be, If you are a true Hadith ‘science’ believer you would easily find that many of the methods and practices of prayer are all coming to us from Aahaad Hadith this is simply because the prophet taught many people individually, but even the people that don't accept those Hadith or it's narrators still know how to pray in a very similar fashion to the Sunnis like the Ibadis and Shia. In addition to that, even the Hadith on how to pray is literally saying “pray as you have seen me pray” which is the physical practice of motions in prayer that narrators saw not directions dictated by the prophet to be passed down as the rules of prayer, if Hadith was truly to be taken as it is being prescribed as an absolutely necessary way to understanding the Quran, the minimum would have been a sequential step by step guide as a Sahih Hadees that has zero refutes by Muslim scholars like the verses of the Quran. Sixth Argument, If Islamic history is truly dissected when it comes to the rules of the Hadith narration and the choice of narrators, a “science” that was developed 100s of year after the prophet, we can easily find how this entire ‘Hadith science’ was used as a political tool to pick and choose what was considered acceptable and preservable. There are many examples of this, even in events that took place around the compilation and even in some cases ‘editing’. Yet these rules are taken as a given even thought even if we take the immediate generation that followed the prophet they couldn't even agree on a fixed definition of who a Sahabi was and the conditions they set were different that grades and categories were created in later generations. So taking fixed rules and definitions from generations 100s of years after, is simply irrelevant to Muslims that are now many generations after the ones that set the rule, it's only paving the way for creating a monotone single understanding of the Quran and religion as a whole stuck in the Islamic era the books and it's rules are from. There is a danger of raising Hadith beyond it's natural level as an advisory/complimentary guide to the Quran, where it creates new concepts that Quran didn't mention creating a whole branch of understanding that totally deviates from a direct understanding of the Qurans words as recited. We as Muslims, should agree that first way to test of any prophetic text is to compare it's message against the Quran, if it goes against a clear verse before even looking at the source, but unfortunately even within Sunni schools of thought there are many concepts taken out of Hadith that don't exist in the Quran and are imposed as an understanding of the Quran despite being literally contradictory. An easy clearcut example of this can be found in a common ‘Scholarly’ Sunni understanding ‘A believer can go to hell for his sins before going to heaven’ this clearly contradicts (101:6-11) ‘So as for those whose scale is heavy ˹with good deeds..’ Which suggests that the aggregate of deeds good and bad decides if they will be in a life of bliss or in the abyss, which the following verse are directly pointing to This concept is even refuted directly in the Quran in (2:80), where Allah asks the Jews that make the claim that fire will only touch them for a number of days, if they took a pledge from Allah. Followed by (2:81): “But no! Those who commit evil and are engrossed in sin will be the residents of the Fire. They will be there forever.” And it is even repeated in (3:24) with stronger words: “This is because they say, “The Fire will not touch us except for a few days.” They have been deceived in their faith by their wishful lying.” There are many examples of this, but it shouldn't be hard to see what the verse in the Quran is saying. Other debatable concepts like the Punishment of the grave are in murky waters. I personally think it's not even worth a discussion, the traditionalist school in general, uses scare tactics when it comes to Hadith, they say not obeying the Hadith is disobeying the Prophet, but it's really not the same, we don't really know if the prophet said it, We are expected to trust people that are considered to have the knowledge to an invented ‘science’ based on rules that didn't come to us even from the immediate generation after the prophet. As for the Quran, it is an article of faith to believe in it and that Allah preserved it. The text books of the Hadith are not direct sayings of the prophet they are merely narrations of what the prophet could have said on a chain of memories up until it was complied, without even an analysis of any other influences or even memory lapses, example we can find in many Hadith where even the narrator is trying to choose which word the prophet might have said without having the ability to choose the exact word that could have been used, which is nothing like the Quran. The ‘Like the Quran' argument is a blasphemous way of using ‘scholarly’ interpretation as an enforcer in Islam to push it into the same rabbinic method followed by the people of the book, Which the Quran warned us from doing. The Quran is supreme by far and out of this whole elm of Hadith there is nothing certain enough to be considered binding beyond a max of 300 Hadith at best with a real authenticity chain and even that could be debated. Everything else is advisory.
I am a bit surprised that the story about the letter from Prophet Muhammad to Imperator Heraclius is not in this video. After all, no ones know for sure that did he really receive such a letter or not. And if the Imperator did receive the letter from the Prophet, what is his actual reaction to it? Personally, I believed it is something in-between. After all, the letter is real. But aside from that, no ones know for sure what really happened back then.
My theory, by the way, is that the Byzantine Romans have no clue why the Muslims invaded. As in, The Muslims say that the Ghassanid client Kingdom started this by killing a missionary of Islam. This may be true. But, at the same time, the facts of this may have never reached the knowledge of the Emperor. As far as he and the rest of the Empire were concerned and could see, a ton of Arabs just decided to attack northwards just because.
@@lerneanlion "Just because". Its a phrase used to mean "No reason given", or "Just because they wanted to do that", or "For fun", or "done simply because they could do it".
@@jasonbelstone3427contemporary Christian sources do not even describe the conquests as religious. They describe the Arabs as “Ishmaelites”, “Tayyaye” and “Saracen”, all of which means Arab. There’s very little reference to Islam or Muslims in the Coptic and Syriac sources like John of Nikiu and John bar Penkaye; it seems that Christians understood them as godless heathens that God sent to punish them. So yeah, you’re correct.
Allah says he gave Israel to the Jews and no other nation. How else would it be possible for Israel to exist despite the opposition of 1.5 billion Muslims.
Great account and comparison of the modern historical method and its application to different historical contexts! I cannot help but hope, considering your background (no pun intended) that you'd make a video on Jadididsm in the Russians Empire and during the Communist Revolution. Shükran for your informative work. You approach may upset a lot of pitchfork villagers, but the majority of Muslims can see your engaging and respectful approach in popularizing the topic of Islam snd bringing it to the masses in a positive and productive light.
@@AlMuqaddimahYT You should have a livestream with him discussing this topic rather than staying in your echo chambers ruclips.net/user/liveYhoGlTNLOsQ?si=_1WR524lfQRlRS3R
@@arifshoeb6177 correction: 'fake humbleness' he uses LIBERAL and secular point of view to paint a narrative on RELIGIOUS places and people .. being 'fake humble' is to paint himself as a scholar lol if u can't see the agenda while he blatantly tell it to your face then there's something wrong with you.
I don’t mind that secularist, try to explain or analyze something, under their own perspective, but we can be sure that in the Muslim case they try to dismiss our sources while telling us to accept theirs, y personally read both, and I realize that their point of view is not universal truth, as well of our point of view might not be enough for secularist, and it’s ok. The point is, I’m not learning Islam from a non Islamic, and I’m not learning about secularism from a conservative, I’m Muslim and I take Muslim sources to learn, that’s it.
Learning Islam and learning history are entirely different things. He criticizes using Hadith el bukhari as a historical text uncritically, as a religious text other standards apply.
@عبدالرحمنعبدالله-ز4م And? Do Muslims really lack the self awareness to recognize they have strong biases in their own records just like literally everyone else? Especially in their religious traditions?
So you choose sources that 'so-and-so' said over texts and sources that have been deeply scrutinised in each of its steps of transmission and preservation?
I understand the arguments against using it as “the” source and taking it at face value. But isn’t completely disregarding hadith also throwing away good information? Isn’t taking it as “a” source with right amount skepticism it deserves a better approach than throwing it away wholesale?
It’s truly disheartening to see how closed-minded and brainwashed most Muslims have become. I really appreciate your perspective and the way you articulate your points in your videos. So much so that I want to share this with everyone I know. I hope it can help open minds, encourage understanding, and foster love between people despite their differences. I truly think this is the best video you’ve ever made up to this point. Please ignore all the noise and keep enlightening us! Your work is thorough and impactful in an extremely important way. Thank you so much! Your brother from Calgary.
Sahih Bukhari was 600,000 Hadith and he threw out 99.7% of them as false. The Romans Aztecs and Chinese had millions of first-hand accounts. Hadith is nothing but 4th-6th hand accounts. Hadith are overwhelmingly authored by Israelis. The JEWISH TALMUD is the #1 source of Fabricated Hadith. Hadithists made Prophet Muhammad a p*** hile, homosexual, war criminal so they could have excuses to do every evil.
The most relible methodology of passing on quotes, events and knowledge aka hadith is not reliable but random sources of quotes, event and knowledge which we have built the early history on is reliable because western academia said so. You wouldn't take a hadith with a strong chain that goes back to the Prophet(pbuh) but you would take a random rock with some carvings that takes about an event. What is the difference between the two? One is accepted by the West as a source other isn't. Go make tawba, think like a Muslim, act like a Muslim. Unsubscribed.
The peoppe of his time literally did the same they called him nabi or rasul they did not add any pbuh infront. He is doing the same prophet is the same as nabi he os basically saying "nabi muhammad" any further salutations such as saw are not needed
@eshaal1239 How dare you speak about this religion and its people without knowledge. It was narrated from al-Husayn ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “The miser is the one in whose presence I am mentioned and he does not send blessings upon me.” Narrated and classed as hasan by at-Tirmidhi (3546); classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Sunan at-Tirmidhi. May Allāh deal with you for speaking about His Messenger ﷺ without knowledge.
What do you mean by "Al-Bukhari's work is religious in nature, not historical?" Imam al Bukhari collected historical events (sayings and actions) of the Prophet (Peace be upon Him) from trustworthy companions using very strict criteria. "This is what the Prophet (Peace be upon him) said and this is what he did and here is my evidence." If you want to know what really happened during the Prophet's time with so much accuracy, you can't ignore Bukhari. You can disagree with the authenticity of some Hadith but ignoring Bukhari altogether is just plain ignorance. Your statement also assumes that since Bukhari was religious in nature, it can't be an accurate historical account. I don't know where you came up with this logic. Bukhari was just collecting information from companions who met the Prophet (peace be upon him) or had information linking to the Prophet (peace be upon him). And since we're obliged as Muslims to take whatever the Prophet conveys, then yes it also becomes religious in nature.
The "strict criteria" was things like never missing a prayer and paying his zakat, and he used centuries old records and oral traditions to "verify" that about long dead narrators in his chains. You can't even verify this stuff in modern times let alone back then. It's not a criteria a modern historian would take very seriously. Muslim and Bukhari did the best they could with what they had at the time, but we're not obligated to pretend their logic is flawless.
@@tesso.6193 sorry to say but your comment displays ignorance on the subject matter. One, your assumption of someone practising their religion would make his account untrustworthy? Is that your argument? Shouldn't it be the opposite? Would you rather trust someone who doesn't believe in God or the hereafter to tell you the truth or someone who knows there's accountability in the hereafter if he/she lies? Two, you said he used centuries-old records? Where do you even come up with this? Here was his 4 Main Key Criteria for compiling Sahih Hadith 1. Integrity of the Narrators (Adalah): The narrators must be known for their integrity and moral uprightness. This criterion was assessed through their daily behaviour and character, as even minor indiscretions could disqualify them from being considered trustworthy. This is called Ilm-Al rijal, "The knowledge about the men." He had to know who the narrators where before even paying attention to their narration. And yes religious people tend to be more trustworthy than non-religious people. 2. Knowledge and Memory: Narrators needed to possess a profound understanding of Islamic teachings and a strong memory. Their ability to accurately memorize and convey hadith was crucial, with scholars providing assessments of their capabilities. 3. Complete Chain of Narration (Isnad): A hadith must have a complete chain of narrators without any missing links. Each narrator in the chain was required to have met the others, ensuring continuity and reliability in transmission. 4. Meeting of Consecutive Narrators: It was essential that consecutive narrators in the chain had personal interactions, which helped eliminate uncertainties regarding the authenticity of the transmission. This specific requirement distinguished Bukhari's methodology from that of other scholars, such as Imam Muslim. I advice you to watch Farid's reaction of this video here: ruclips.net/video/YhoGlTNLOsQ/видео.html
@@dr.saidsaid I must saw I love how much intelligence is revealed by claiming my comment displays ignorance, then pulling a complete strawman from your imagination and arguing against it. When did I say being religious makes one untrustworthy? Complete desperation to play victim me thinks. In one or two comments you'll be shouting "orientalism" at the clouds. Neither being religious nor non-religious makes one more inherently trustworthy. But practicing Islam according to hadith logic is the criteria, which isn't valid by modern standards. For instance, we do no treat contemporary non-muslim sources as inherently invalid unlike hadith ""science"". Nor do we judge by what *people* say someone's character (read: visible religious behaviour) is. Their political and economic position is a far far better indicator of bias than alleged piety. "religious people tend to be more trustworthy than non-religious people" is something valid only in an alternate dimension or the imagination of bigots because in real life, some of the cruelest most fascistic and corrupt people tend to be religious. You're against the video's argument not because you have something intelligent to add, but because you're religiously biased but demand the world treat your religious bias as a perfect objective standard. You demand undeserved validity for arguments convincing only to people who hold your religious bigotry.
The real elephant sized room you didn’t mention: if Shi’a don’t take hadiths from companions like Uthman, then why do they take his compilation of the Quran? Doesn’t that defeat the point you’re trying to make? Just because Shi’a don’t agree doesn’t mean their stance is correct to disagree
Shias do take objections with the Uthmani Mashaf. They believe that he left out parts of it. Anyhow, the point wasn't that. The point was that al-Bukhari's work is religious in nature, not historical. If we take it into account, like you said, Shia sources don't agree with it and we'll have to leave those aside. I'm not raising a question on al-Bukhari. I'm just saying that a specific group of people, including myself, don't use it for historical research.
@@AlMuqaddimahYTI wouldn’t use it for historical research either to present to a non-Muslim audience. So my disagreement is not total. Specifically because I wouldn’t expect a non-Muslim to accept Muslim sources. However, there is great authenticity to bukhari with regards to his methodology. With regards to Uthman’s mushaf and the Shi’a, the Quran says it is complete and unchanged, so the Shi’a who don’t fully accept it are irrational.
Take that up with a Shia, lol. But yeah, I wasn't calling Bukhari inauthentic. Just that for the purpose of my research, I disregard it for the given reasons.
@@AlMuqaddimahYT No problem. I just thought the shia/sunni comparison would mislead people into thinking that just because the two groups disagree that they're both equally incorrect in this matter. In truth, only one is incorrect.
I think this way that you trying to do is Ibn Kaldon way but it dont workl@AlMuqaddimahYT like that you need a ground to stand on So Shia is not a good ground bc they have no Quran or hadith that they pass down and if you look in any thing in there you can disprove it And they were literally just few men in most of them history. But you can ask awar enemy like Jew or shrstns But the the new few week sect U consdr there point? That is not good for me
I use to think the same way when I was a young teenage confused in modernity until I started to take the path of study seriously and got introduced to some of the greatest muslim scholars who are also great historian the like of Dr Umar Faruq Abdallah who is a master of modern history and their methodology....I know how it feel brothers. You try to make sense of islam in front of your computer withtout any real master able to answer your questions and take you by the hand and you've been breathing the air of modernity since so young that it is almost impossible to see it as an "un-neutral" construct and you come across all those modern books presenting Islamic scholars of pre-modernity as these "naive" religious scholars relying on "piety" without any real sources to counter these arguments because you did not have access to the grest masters of the islamic tradition (who most of them are not translated in english). Brother, from the depth of my heart: If you search for Allah, He will open your heart to the path of deep knowledge and you will laugh while remebering this video in the future....Trust me. The example of Sayidna Abu Hurayra (may Allah be pleased with him) as being critisized by modern male/female scholars as a proof of Sunnis not agreeing on Sahih Al Bukhari is just TOO SYMBOLIC of the mind set I'm talking about. I know because I went though that while a young man trying to make sense of islam "on my own". No Sunnis disagreed on Him before colonization. He is critisized by "MODERN MUSLIMS" who have been completeley drowned by modern paradigms (which they don't even study nor understand) from their youngest age and are incapable of understanding: what is modernity and why it is ontologically inconsistent and flawed. Because of that, they are trying to "adapt" islam to the modern paradigm. As an example. According to the modern paradigm, the only moral framwork is liberalism that declares that the individual should be completely free to do what he wants without harming others. Because of that, the idea that a Muslim father could marry his daughter without her daughter's permission is considerered immoral by modernity...Of course, these "modern" muslims are then trying to desperately find a way to say that all these scholars (ex: in the Maliki or Shafii Madhab) were immoral and that they "misunderstood islam" (while most those modern critic never even studied a book on logic!) but the truth is that they don't have really analysed the ontological roots of this "liberal ideas" and the truth is that modernity have absolutely no capacity at all in affirming it. It is a a purely subjective framework that has no basis but it has been taken for granted by the whole world (muslims included) because those who propagated it WON THE MILITARY FIGHT against all the non-modern civilisations. As the last Caliph of the Ottomans, Shaykh Mustafa Sabri, who engaged in the critique on modern ontology said: "They mistook a martial victory for an intellectual victory". The Resume my brother is that the reason you adopted this point of view is because you adopted the "modern paradigm" without having studied it's critique and your main goal right now should not be focusing on history (even though it is important) but your main goal should be studying islamic philosophy from the point of view of muslim Scholars who engaged in the critique of modernity. This will open you the doors to understand why modern historians have a limited paradigm and why the traditionnal islamic paradigm (including hadiths science) is holistic and coherent. I can help you with connecting you with such great Scholars if you want (please send me an email: sami.maaroufi.333@gmail.com). I highly recommend you to connect with the teachings of great muslims scholars who are mastering the modern history framework like Khalid Yahya Blankinship or Dr Umar Faruq Abdallah, Tim Winter and others. Even non-muslim Scholars who rejects modernity and affirm islamic Worldview like Dr Wael Hallaq might be of great benefit in this journey. Again, focus your attention on modernity and it's critique before engaging in a subject that implies that modernity is right (like here in the question of oral narrations from the point of view of modern history). I wish you the best brother. May Allah bless you always!
Great video. An interesting tidbit: Buddhism also actively encourages people to question it, to never accept anything at face value but meditate on it and intellectually analyze it first. Informed allegiance over tradition. Sadly, most do not actually do so nowadays due to traditionalism.
Just 'meditating' on something in your own head is not enough either because your head is a limited space. You gotta go out there, discuss it with people and test it against an objective reality.
How can you discredit Abu hurayra's narrations simply because he some of what he narrates hurt some overly emotional feminists' feelings as if they look at history in a objective way. Bit disingenuous that
These comments prove again why our countries are not moving forward. Instead of being critical of narrations and writings, take every script seriously and make takfir on anyone who wants to be historically accurate
Aren't you shias who run to make takfir on he rashidun caliphs?! And jumping to say "why our countries" is very generalised, and shows your tight mentality. There's no one silver bullet reason or answer whatsoever, just like there's no single one way muslims can rise.
@@Ilt08 as an akhbari shii, i call upon you to be critical on your narrations. Do you know about the babs? That supposedly communicated with the mahdi? Doesnt really hold up to scrutiny
@AlMuqaddimahYT Please don't be disheartened by the 'traditionalist' comments. There is a huge need in Muslim communities for free thinkers like you. We are all learning here and having perspective, especially when it comes to history, for a more nuanced discussion, critique of sources is absolutely necessary, including what people consider fundamental to their belief. Traditionalists love to place Hadith as a second to the Quran and use scare tatics to say denial of Hadith is a denial of a command of the prophet. Thats why they go up in arms about your thumbnail, Please don't change it.
@abdulbasith5152 You might like your horse blinders on, I prefer having a wider perspective and I am happy to find like minded people like in this video. Muslim History unfortunately is full of politically motived 'religious' factions, if anything the original difference between Sunnis and Shia starts with a political dispute. These strands of Islam that we see today are all mutations of those early corruptions on both sides. And the mutations we see are all based on interpretations or selective references to 'prophetic' sayings. The exaggerated affinity is just a hooliganist approach to something that actually deserves an academic analysis.
@MehmoodEqbal I am Sorry, I assumed you to be a Muslim and hence made the Comment. But I did not know you are an athiest. From an Athiestic perspective ya sure you can have these delusions n doubts about everything except your intellect which you worship as your God but from a perspective of a believer we adhere to what Allah has sent through his Messenger. Deny any part of it is an act of Kufr or renders one disbeliever. But Since you already don't been to be inside the Circle of Islam I suggest you to read about Islam, prophet, and ponder the purpose of this life. And Insha Allah you will be guided. No hatred just a Naseehat!
@@MehmoodEqbal I am Sorry, I was thinking that you were a Muslim and hence replied that way. I did not knew you were an athiest, one who worships his fallible intellect as his God. So I understand that you are bound to have this athiestic doubts n delusions. But for us Muslims we believe in whatever Allah n his Rasool has said, rejecting any part of it is Kufr/renders one a disbeliever. But I understand that argument wouldn't suffice for you coz you clearly don't appear to be in the Islamic ring. So for you, I suggest you to read about Islam, ponder the purpose of Life and hopefully Allah will guide you. Insha Allah.
@abdulbasith5152 Your opinion of what makes a Muslim is irrelevant, it's laughable at best. The Takfiri approach is all that represents you and your beliefs. You are all the same. Listen to a few "scholars" and parrot the same opinions, and if your Imam or "Rabbi" is being disagreed with then your arguments would only be questioning the other sides creed and Iman. No difference between you lot and the people of the book: "They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of Allah" (9:31)
The Qur'an and authentic hadiths have higher standards of reliability compared to any classical secular history. Would love to see this guy discuss with Muhammad Ali the Muslim Lantern on this issue.
@@ezrafriesner8370 look up ilm rijal, it's a part of hadith sciences. Watch Sheikh uthman ibn farooq, farid responds, Muhammad ali explain why islamic testimonies standards of hadith are far superior than any other classical history.
This was poorly done. I understand the desire to be nuanced but false equivalencies and multiple statements that are either inaccurate, exaggerated, or falsely implied isn’t what I’ve come to hope for from this channel. If you actually wanted to produce good content on the concerns you have about the traditional methodologies - you should’ve had an interview with somebody that has a background in Ilm al Hadith. Would’ve been so much better than just listing out your own misunderstandings on the issue…
With all due respect Muqaddimah you heavily rely on western studies on Islam and you are not even well versed in Arabic and can't access the original sources. So let's not be disingenuous and say this chamnel is scholarly its not though is it Edit: the way he speaks about Hadith tradition makes me cringe this is why a little bit of knowledge is dangerous, just like the other comment said this channel should be renamed to *Al-Orientalism* 🤷🏾♂️
its sad to see muslim who didnt understand basic arabic or go through traditional muslim education, bragging about muslim achievement in education like ibn khaldun
Him rejecting Hadiths as a source because they aren't secular. I accept it. But non muslim historians have also said that the hadith science and the way of their preservation is the best that has been done in history. Rejecting hadith just cause they are of a certain religion is absurd instead he should ,most probably he knows that how hadiths have been recorded. Rejecting them even though knowing it is ridiculous.
Aslam O Alikum Warhamatullahi Wabarakatuho, I saw your comment and was really curious for the Non-Muslim Historians saying hadith preservation is best to be done in history, can you give me the references and sources of this information, Jazak Allah khair Akhi!
I couldn't find a single non-Muslim historian that ever spoke favourably (for Muslims) about anything related to the compilation of Hadith. In fact, it's quite the opposite, its looked at in the context of a 'politically motivated ideologic purge' in the few commentaries that even cared to mention this 'science'. So, really curious to know, Which non-Muslim historians have said 'best' - 'preservation' about the hadith 'science'?
@@ezrafriesner8370this "Muqaddimah" guy can't even access the original sources in Arabic and has to heavily rely on western orientalist sources. So his channel should be renamed to "Al-Orientalism" 😂
I cannot begin to express how important it is to have more Muslims like you, who both have faith but also reason. You are my window into a rational Muslim world and history. I really appreciate your treatment of this topic and how well-reasoned it is. Whether it is right or wrong, is something everyone clearly has an opinion about--and as a non-Muslim, I am not going to be approaching this like them. What I respect is that you have a well considered and well-explained stand, and one that rings true to me as far as my knowledge goes.
Even when I was Muslim, I saw an obvious flaw in hadith methodology. One of the criteria that scholars used to verify a hadith was that everyone in the chain of narration had to be Muslim. So that completely disregards a whole bunch of potentially significant information. But then you also realise that they have different ideas of who is a Muslim. Scholar A might think Jamal is a Muslim but scholar B thinks Jamal is a heretic and thus a disbeliever so he disregards that hadith. Another criterion is that each person in the chain has to be 'of good character'. I think the problem is pretty clear now
There isn't a religion that relies on outside sources regarding their practices and beliefs, at least knowingly. Your critique is irrational. Secondly, narrators of hadith of Ahl sunnah didn't disagree on who wasn't a muslim and who was. You're making up a non existent scenarion in the field of hadith. Murtads as usual have no clue what they're talking about.
I would like to say that the point you made in 15th minute goes both ways. Secularists would not even consider prophetic hadiths to be historically reliable or trustworthy because of their own bias( which is disbelief in God and prophets). They'd twist meanings of texts or would call them forgeries because they don't believe in prophethood of Muhammed(s .a .w) . Just like Sinai 361 in 19th minute, the vast majority of secularists don't believe that it is an evidence for Moses's(a.s) existence because ....they themselves don't believe that he ever existеd
Unfortunately all scholars do have a bias, but Quranic scholarship is pretty tame, since scholars don't really entertain whether something supernatural happened or not, they just focus on the things we can actually infer, for historians whether the Qur'an is the word of God isn't as important as knowing whether Muhammad and his followers thought it was. We can leave the question of God, scripture and so on to theologians. History is about us humans.
Also, many scholars are Muslims themselves, like Dr. Javad T. Hashmi. So the point isn't to be unbiased, but to gather enough people with different biases so they can keep each other in check while doing research.
People just do not care to watch the video and try to ubderstand his reasoning. All they care about it that he is not supporting hadiths here and hence they have to just go against him when he is totally reasonable in his views.
It's difficult to get the historic method across to a lot of Christians as well. Bart Ehrman has said, "History is not the past. History is what you can show."
@@muslimresponse103 I'm not comparing Christianity to Islam. I'm making a statement about how some Christians have difficulty understanding and accepting the historic method. There is a big difference between that and comparing Christianity to Islam.
I read an article in high school and then again for a college class about the historical method which brought up the example of a late 19th century French historian who was an advocate for the idea of "objective" history. However, it is very clear in hindsight how his interpretations of history were informed by his own biases as a result of the society he lived in. Specifically, he argued for the continuity of pre-germanic institutions in France after the fall of the western Roman empire. It is easy to surmise why a laye 19th century Frenchman would wish to downplay the role that germanic speaking peoples had in the origin of French civilization. Sadly the facts of history don't "speak for themselves". They have to be exposited by biased human researchers
lol imagine thinking that clown can refute anything, a wannabe neophite that lacks academic education and is too stupid to say there's no evidence of the supposed spliting of the moon because everyone was sleeping at night hahahahahaha
It is clear that most of the negative commenters did not watch the video and/or misunderstood it's point. There is historical truth and religious truth. You can use a hadith for either it's religious injunction or its historical utility. Syawish is not invalidating all Hadith as historical sources, he is just distinguishing their use for trying to be a better muslim, and their use to figure out what actually happened in the early Islamic era. Critics of Syawish are re-hashing purist litmus tests to argue that he is not a "correct Muslim" or a "kaffir". The problem with this approach, as with all fundamentalist beliefs (whether Muslim or not), is that Muslims do not agree themselves on who a "correct" Muslim is. If they did, why would there be Shias? Why would there be four different Madhabs? Why would Salafists movements by fighting each other in places like Afghanistan. Syawish's title is just a clickbait that all RUclipsrs need to do to please the almighty algorithim (Peace be Upon Zuckerberg). It does not mean, however, that he is a bad muslim, or a biased historian. All approaches to history may be biased, but at least the historical method trys to fight that bias. And it succeeds much more often than its opponents. Syawish, great video as always!
Love the topic, and my rule of thumb is if a Hadith, words of man, does not align the Qur'an, the definitive word of God, then it must be questioned and doubted on. However if they truly do align with the Qur'an then we can safely say they are truly Sahi.
Al Bukhari was a central asiatic man of persian culture who lived hundreds of miles away from the places the things he's narrating happened and two centuries after the stuff he is claiming was said.
I loved this video, I think you did an amazing job explaining everything (but, also can see how those who were raised in a tradition with no separation between historic and religious scholarship might not be willing to hear what you're saying), but it did make me feel sad thinking about how many frustrating comments you must get all the time... So I just wanted to comment and say I always appreciate your thoughtful, thorough research, as well as your well-articulated insights into the internal social, political, and sectarian tensions and debates within the Muslim world
Thank you. This video was an attempt to tell people that there's various criteria for looking at history, one that include traditions and ones that don't, but people aren't willing to listen, I guess.
@@AlMuqaddimahYTNo, its just that you people are BLINDED by SECULAR LIBERAL IGNORANCE and are pushing illogical and irrational ramblings and rants in guise of Academic Discourse. This tactic is typical for Liberal lapdogs like you ,you lied abt quran, prophet,hadith,islam as a whole and non existent lgbt*" in Caliphates.
What people need to understand is that faith and religious sentiments are different from actual history. There have been things that occurred throughout Muslim history that we simply don't want to accept just because they do not align with our beliefs. I think he is trying to portray this point because if he picks up the source or argument of one Muslim group, then the other sect will come up with a rebuttal. Instead, he tries to find a neutral source with no inclination toward any religious group, and that's a fair way to assess the history IMO.
His whole channel is a larp. If he wants to be secular and against religion then his channel should reflect that. Have a regular name, don't have this Arabic calligraphy stuff. He makes himself out like he and his channel is Mr. Muslim and then he exposes himself in 4k.
The traditions you've been taught to clutch onto dearly as your fathers and teachers have been taught to clutch are demonstrably, historiologically unsound, and you have difficulty coping with it, so you call those who present a sounder position "larps" (whatever in the world that means in this case) as an anemic means of discrediting them, but had you the actual knowledge necessary to engage, you would have actually engaged, and you evidently couldn't. And when it is said to them: “Follow what God has sent down,” they say: *_“Nay, we will follow that upon which we found our fathers,” - even though their fathers did not reason, nor were they guided?_* (2:170) And if thou obey *_most of those upon the earth,_* they will lead thee *_astray_* from the path of God; they follow only assumption, and they are *_only guessing._* (6:116) Those are the proofs of God; We recite them to thee in truth. Then *_in what narration after God and His proofs will they believe?_* (45:6) And whoso *_judges not by what God has sent down,_* it is they who are the *_hypocrites._* (5:44)
I think you should make a video that explains your personnal religious belief to shut the controversies as your vids are really good and a good source for muslims also
From a 'western' academic perspective surely criticising hadith is part of the game, but some of the points you raised are not really accurate in my opinion. You mentioned feminists not agreeing with Abu Huraira's transmissions, but since when is a modern western tradition like feminism a criterium for the historicity of narrations? This in itself is problematic as this is a form of 'orientalism'. Also the fact that reports might be contradictory or not agreed upon is only more reason for historians to include them and point out the different viewpoints. You also didnt touch upon the fact that hadith studies is a field in and of itself in the islamic sciences with many different standards and methodologies being applied. To leave out that field as orientalist scholars in the past have done by dismissing it on grounds that it is biased, is a biased claim itself and is implying it being inferior or less accurate.
Feminism is not a modern western tradition, though. Feminism is merely about women wanting equal rights and we've had women wanting equal rights throughout the world. I didn't say that I agreed with their tradition, I didn't say anything of that sort. Just that there's criticism on him. There's no "orientalism" involved there. Plenty of Muslim scholars have questioned parts of the Hadith canon. It's a religious canon, it's not a historical canon, it's to be left to the religious scholars.
@@AlMuqaddimahYT"feminism is merely about women asking for equal rights" such a naive statement, not considering the genealogical progression of feminism. You have already accepted and internalized key tenets of modernity which you take at face value without any scrutiny. You said plenty of traditional scholars had criticized the hadith canon, quoting Albani and so. The reality is that only 26 chain if narrations are criticized by Imam Dar Al-Qutni and even less than 10 by Imam Al-Albani.
@@AlMuqaddimahYT Nobodies falling for the sly way you're introducing doubt to these sources. Your replies in this comment section are basically summed up by saying "I didn't say I agree with it, I just disregard the sources because of it". On this particular point, scholars criticise everything that's their job, without mentioning the specific criticisms you're doing your an argument a disservice and as for the point of feminists, I don't know why in the world you thought criticism from this strand of modernism brings any credibility to the argument which can essentially be summed up as "Feminists think Abu Hurayra is misogynist based on modern secular standards so we disregard/discredit his reports".
The feminist criticism is that abu hurayra's narrations seem particularly biased against women and the unlikelihood of him memorizing thousands of hadiths in the 3-4 years he knew the prophet (hardly just their criticism). The criticism is bias and the questionable time span, not that they "disagree with him therefore false". Bias is pointed out all the time by people studying historical text and isn't some gotcha. It's "orientalism" that's used maliciously here to give undeserved validity to texts that would be questionable in any other context. Basically someone shouting racism whenever he finds an opposing view point.
You bring up a great point that I myself have been trying to tackle. It seems that anytime we look back on our own history and attempt to be critical or logical, we instead are labeled as innovators who would distort the religion. This is far from the case for those who enjoy and love history. The goal is, as you said, to find a truth without mixing it with our religious sources, as that only discredits and muddies our theories and narration to those that are not of our faith. It is also for us to hold the Ummah, whether past or present, accountable in what was written. We are human and it is okay to look back and see whether certain people or events had an agenda to pursue. The Abbasid Revolution is a clear example of when the historical narrative was likely greatly shifted against the Umayyads, making it difficult for us to trust certain sources from that time. These things must be taken into account if we are to better understand ourselves and how we got here. To self-criticize only makes us stronger as a community and helps us refute those who would actively besmirch our religion and our history.
Honestly, id have no problem if this position you've taken was based on sound knowledge and research, but you don't seem to even understand the basic classifications and methodologies of the islamic historical process. Also, some of the reasoning that you provide is strangely illogical such as Shia perspectives somehow disqualifying the Sunni corpus as a reliable historical source! For that reason alone I will unsubscribe as it places doubt in my heart as to the veracity or reliability of all your content.
You brought up a bunch of basic considerations in history like exaggeration, lying, bias, and so on like it was something revelatory, implying Muslim scholars hadn't already taken these things into consideration. You present Sahih Bukhari as if it was a text compiled by some random guy that everyone just decided to accept as reliable for absolutely no reason whatsoever. Imam Bukhari's text is so widely accepted and praised exactly because its ahadith are meticulously filtered for authenticity. This is more than can be said about some Western academics who routinely make use of unreliable and unverified historical sources, while simultaneously acknowledging it. All you did was throw around concepts and terms in order to put down and belittle Muslim scholarship. This wasn't an academic or serious critique; it was a smear. Your problem with ahadith and Muslim scholars (actual Muslim scholars and hadith experts, not "Muslim" Javed's orientalist work published by Cambridge) is that ahadith attribute statements to the Prophet ﷺ that you simply don't like. You don't like what the authentic corpus says about homosexuality, hudood (punishments), marriage, and all those other things that are sensitive issues for you "liberal Muslims" that like to play loose and fast with the religion.
@@hamoodhabibiOTMI Your man literally attempts to make a historical critique of sahih hadith collections. The beliefs of Islam stem from the statements of the Prophet ﷺ, which are recorded as history. You don't even know what you're talking about.
I haven't watched the video yet, but please be careful and try to don't label our brother in faith as this or that. If you think he's somewhat mistaken about his view, then please make Dua for him.
@@ZZ-qd9zc Your "brother in faith" claimed that secular historians will deal with the subject matter in a fair manner and that he doesn't trust the "traditional" scholarly literature. He has more trust and respect for non-Muslims hell-bent on destroying Islam than he does for scholars of his "own" religion. I have 0 respect for people like this guy. May Allah ﷻ guide him or silence him and everyone like him for good so that the Muslim Ummah is saved from their brainrot.
The level of strictness involved in classifying a Hadith as Sahih is far greater than the scrutinization of any historical book, historical books don't need to undergo rigorous authenticity checks
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
🔔 Don't forget to like, comment, share and subscribe.
💵 Support Al Muqaddimah Financially (Recurring Payments): www.Patreon.com/AlMuqaddimah
💸 Support Al Muqaddimah Financially (One-Time Payment): www.Patreon.com/AlMuqaddimah
@@AlMuqaddimahYT stop begging here. Go on beg in your hometown like the rest of the paj i eets 💩💩💩
You might wanna pin this comment! Take care and stay safe, and I hope some day I can help financially, thank you for all your work.
shame on you brother
You are a real fool......
History is never infallible .....as they are accounts of individual having point of views & agendas may be........
Maximum history students become astray as they loose sense of reality.......
You are on the verge
Just to prove you wrong on 1 point, counting wounds on bodies ( number of lashes / cuts / stabs / missing bits) was an established custom among such warriors and there are many reports about this.
14:01 the Sahih Al-Bukhari is not considered authentic by Sunnis because of Imam Bukhari being a celebrated scholar, it is considered authentic because of the methodology he used to collect the Hadith. (The methodology which you haven’t explained. )
The Hadith books are considered more authentic than the books of Tarikh because of this method, but in your examples you seem to have mixed the books of Hadith and Tarikh.
Also, books like Sahih Bukhari don’t attempt to hide authentic reports of shortcomings of the Sahabah as you mentioned earlier and rather ironically are also quoted by the Shia because of the same reason.
Moreover, the scholars have been active from past few decades in revaluation of these works of Hadith and Tarikh using a process called Takhrij (تخریج) and critical additions of many books are available now.
Also, no matter how authentic a Hadith or Athar is, if it is about the beliefs and practices , it has to be qualified by the Quran.
The famous example of this is authentic Athar about Umar and Usman banning joining of Umrah and Hajj, which no companion of the prophet or later scholars accepted because there is a clear permission for it in Quran.
hadith books don't hide Muhammad's shortcoming either.
You are also making an assumption that secular historians consider Quran as word of God or Prophet being a messenger. The idea of hadith exists only because people have faith in Islam. Hadith narrators are evaluated based on how many times they prayed, fasted, performed a bidah or not, ate halal or not. All these criteria are religious in nature and means nothing to secular scholar
@@ami6447 The belief on whether the Quran is the word of Allah or Muhammad is the messenger of Allah comes after the fact not before.
Bukhari is corrupted too.
Who guarantees that Bukhari got all hadiths correctly? He got information from his contemporary mullas. What was the verification method except concurrence from multi sources. But how could be verbal traditions remain authrntic over 400 years. Even in most modern time no information can be preserved unless written on a safe paper and preserved.
The word you’re looking for at 6:17 for Hadith that are not about the prophet is آثار (Athaar). So these collections are usually called collections of Ahadith and Athar by Islamic scholars.
The people who wrote “history” actually had a lower bar for sources unlike Hadith which did. In fact writing a history without any authentication was the norm because they believed in documenting all they could since authenticity was never a condition.
Textual criticism in christianity began when the bible was first translated into european vernavular in the 16th century (was translated into Arabic in the 19th century), it reached a professional level around the 19-20th century and is still ongoing today, In Islam however it started in the first century. Unlike the Quran, the hadith are transmitted oral accounts which were written 1 century after they happened and even in the canonical collections of Bukhari and Muslim there are several narrations of the same hadith due to some people paraphrasing and others forgetting part of it. Most of the hadith are without context, this is not to take from the value of hadith as in practice it was the first serious endeavor of having authentication of the historical record. The hadith are transmitted by way of chains of narration, x heard from y who heard from z that .... took place, a study of who x, who y, and who z were and whether what they are saying is true by checking what others had said about them and whether they had indeed met those who they are purported to have taken the accounts from began and so the first "peer review" mechanism took place, all before the internet in the 2nd and 3rd centuries fo the hijra, which unlike the christian calendar has been continously kept, the current gregorian calendar for example was first instanced int he year 535 CE by Dionysius Exiguus, the 25th of December in addition for example being the pagan holdiay of the roman deirty 'Sol Invictus' is clearly shown in the "Chronograph of 354", the earliest christian calendar predating the current one, but I digress, the writing down of hadith was forbidden by the prophet himself for the aforementioned issue (people forgetting, paraphrasing, taking words out of context) only the Quran was ordered to have been written and linguistically they are too far apart, it is clear that the Matn of some hadith, the substance or the wording was altered as the language used seems to be more "modern" instead in instances. Arabic had not changed in any significant way since the Abbasids, 1200 years ago sound as "modern" as things written in the last 50 years. Arabic is the oldest continuously spoken language in the world, the only possible corollary, Chinese, has script which has no relation to the actual language hence why Japanese and old Vietnamese use it, event the script itself was only codified in the 1700s in the Kangxi emperor's dictionary. A miracle in plain sight
Hadith for example has several levels of correctness, from Hasan which means "well" to rejected as pertains to the Matn or the substance of the hadith itself, the "isnad" of the Hadith or the chains of transmission / citation also have varying levels from Marfu' meaning quoted without having actually met any of the people in the transmission chain or a second hand account or Mudalas meaning plagarised from another transmitter of hadith without citing and Marfud meaning outright rejected for various reasons,
There is another layer of complexity here called ilm-aa-rijal, the study of the bibliography of those in the chains of transmission themselves and their soundness whether objectively by crosschecking where they lived and whom they met or subjectively by seeing what their peers said about them regarding their character.
Those unaware of the aforementioned would not only have not been allowed to cite hadith it would have been a criminal offense and there are hadith which clearly contradict one another and one ought not be citing hadith without knowing all other hadith from the colossal hadith collections that were written, even the earliest hadith collection, Musannaf Abdel Razaq Al-Sanani ( 137-211H / 744- 827 CE) and Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaybah ( 159H-235H / 775-849 CE). for instance had over 53,000 hadith with their chains of transmissions included has yet to be translated into English . Yes, Bukhari and Muslim are taken the most correct as they had the most narrow criterion, but an enormous study is required before citing either one of them. Later scholars such an Al-Darqutni show that there were mistakes made. I say later here though he is still over a millennium old this seriousness of scholarship was the first endeavor of its kind in human history, what became today known as university degrees started with the institutions giving "ijaza" or certificate t transmit hadith and talk about it , indeed they are the origins of the University system we know today.
This scientific method of studying hadith and jurisprudence was developed and already in practice in the 2nd and third centuries of the hijra (around 750 CE) back when most of europe did not have a written script for their vernacular, enormous encyclopedia such as the 40 volume history of Al-Tabari which, averages 400 pages per volume (and is only one of his works) were written, the only corollary of which in the west would have been the "decline and Fall of The Roman Empire" by Edward Gibbons in the 1700s, considered a watershed, a monument of its time, with a span that would have hardly constituted a volume and a half of Al-Tabari's encyclopedia and written a millennium later.
Jabir Ibn Hayyan (101-199 H / 721-815 CE) the father of chemistry whose theories (distillation, measurement system, oxidaton, nature of substances, etc) remained dominant until the 18th century. and who was the first to elucidate the scientific method said: "The first thing that is required for anyone who seeks the knowledge of chemistry is that he should work with his hands and experiment, for he who does not work with his hands and does not experiment will not attain any degree of knowledge."
Ibn al-Haytham (4th century of Hijra), referred to as "the Physicist" in Europe is famous for the first comprehensive scientific book on optics, before his study of optics and perspective paintings were entirely 2 dimensional, a leap after his treatises and works were translated is visible in how paintings became three dimensional, He discovered integral calculus (physicist, mathematician and astronomer who discovered calculus, Newton often references Arabic in his writings for a reason), is even still argued with today the work "The Enigma of Reason" primarily deals with his arguments. regarding the scientific method he said "The duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and... attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency."
There are texts from the 800's CE debating whether, if one for example were to take a log of wood that was not theirs, make a column out of it and have it as a foundation of a house, later the original owner of the column comes back and demands the log to be retrieved into his custody and refuse monetary compensation ought the judge comply, tear down the structure and give him the log or ought he enforce a monetary compensation. this was 1200 years. Property rights were taken that seriously, you could not simply handwave it and enforce a monetary compensation as that property in question was not attained by proper channels, hence it' s ownership and how much ought be the compensation for it is judicated by its owner and no one else has the right to, not the governor or even the caliph. Stephen Langton, the writer of the Magna Carta (12th century, contemporary with the crusades for a reason) studied in the university of Paris which archives show had plenty of Arabic treatises in its procession, there can be no question about it being inspired by the "Sharia".
Both the renessiance and the european enlightenment were directly preceded by massive translation movements form Arabic (see the Republic of Letters by Alexander Bevilacqua, The House of Wisdom: How the Arabs Transformed Western Civilization By: Jonathan Lyons.
God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
In ancient times yes, nowdays? lol not at all.
@@americaeaustraliaepius4338dude Harvard university had a researcher falsify data about honesty, you all cry over your journalism being one sided and controlled by rich people, your scientific research are literally a reflection of their donors and you're chidding ancient times?
Sahih Bukhari was 600,000 Hadith and he threw out 99.7% of them as false.
The Romans Aztecs and Chinese had millions of first-hand accounts. Hadith is nothing but 4th-6th hand accounts.
Hadith are overwhelmingly authored by Israelis. The JEWISH TALMUD is the #1 source of Fabricated Hadith.
Hadithists made Prophet Muhammad a p*** hile, homosexual, war criminal so they could have excuses to do every evil.
@@ranro7371I ain’t reading that
I'm honestly saddened at the amount of people who are against scholarly analysis of their own religion/faith. Your channel has been instrumental in educating people on Islam's history, including me.
I think that's because modern Islamic identitarianism requires scholars to be language priests supporting a vision of Orthodoxy and not a critical academic.
Its not that people are against scholarly analysis of their own religion, the disagreement is about who and what is considered scholarly. Your framing is pretty loaded imo.
This basically says: "It's surprising the amount of Muslims that accept themselves as scholars of their own faith rather than relying on orientalist western 'scholars'".
Oh you mean 'scholarly analysis' by orientalism...
That's great to know .
By way go go to your home & have some help on scholarship before using the word first
@@ExposingHindutva101 there's no need for aggression on a RUclips Comment section. I was simply referring to the fact that a lot of people respond with aggression, anti-intellectualism, and all sorts of nonsense when confronted with facts that may contradict or elaborate on their beliefs, this applies to literally any field.
Majority of Sunni scholars agree that Sahih Bukhari is the most authentic text after the Quran. May Allah be pleased Muhammad Ibn Ismail Al Bukhari
There are a few things I learn from Majlis Qiraah Sama’ Hadith Imam Bukhari a few days in Malaysia. Imam Bukhari travels a lot to search hadiths and pray 2 rakaat ( istiqarah provbely ) for each Hadiths. So who are we to compare their commitment with us today?
nothing's comes after Quran kid
@@StraightforwardpkFalse. First comes obey Allah SWT and his messenger and the learned people
@@zakback9937 And by following the Quran you are obeying his messenger by accepting his message
@@StraightforwardpkThis is my viewpoint. To associate Hadith with Quran is like Ascribing a partner to God. There is Only One God. Not some Cocksucking Scholar who knows when the Prophet clipped his toenails and ate chicken and demands you fucking pay him respect because he knows such.
Ya Allah forgive me if I am in grave error, and guide me if I am in total error.
I find it concerning the amount of people not bothering to understand the view point, jumping to conclusions like accusing you of being a kafir and what not.
May Allah open their minds and guide the ummah into prosperity.
I literally said in the video that I'm not calling Bukhari inauthentic, just that its nature makes a specific group of people, including myself, disregard it for historical research. People are stupid, I guess.
@@AlMuqaddimahYTI think it's social conditioning, not stupidity. Our scholars are functionally priests who derive their authority from language expertise and not ordainment (whether we admit it or not) and the result seems to be a total capture of rhetorical device. Without a grasp of rhetoric, people can't distinguish between persuasive arguments and so "truth" becomes an identitarian tradition rather than an intellectual pursuit. IE "the ways of our forefathers." Then you ask "don't they use their reason?" and surah Ibrahim becomes quite clear. In my observation people who do this conflate worshipping Allah with worshipping a traditional perspective, and attempt to punish others for engaging in intellectual pursuit of the signs Allah has told us to consider because to engage in the language of description is to violate the identitarian dynamic. May Allah guide us all and have mercy on the ummah of the Prophet SAW.
@@AlMuqaddimahYT
Bukhari was a Zoro Hypocrite and his Book is a book of Blasphemous lies. Why are you afraid of telling the Truth
@@AlMuqaddimahYT
Well known Egyptian Scholar Dr. Hedayah said in a video that Bukhari was a PROJECT of Yahood
Book of Bukhari repeatedly insult last Prophet and defame and discredit Quran. My question is: Can a Muslim author do so????
I understand this brother wants to establish a channel that is based on the secular historical lens. It seems this is to broaden his appeal by trying to appeal to Muslims both Sunnis and Shia as well as non-Muslims.
However, one must remember if you use non-Muslim sources to retell Muslim historical events and leave out Muslim sources. They do have biases and inherent misconceptions, misunderstanding, islamophobia and islamic stereotypes.
Plus, the Western Historical Method has been developed in Western academia, which has a secular preference. Secularism has lots of inherent assumptions and prepsuspostions about Islam and religion in general as well as a eurocenteric way of viewing the world underpinned with Orientalist colonial mind set of other non-white non-westeren cultures, traditions and faiths.
So one must never assume that this method of viewing, understanding and retelling Islamic history is neutral, fair or just.
I've read secular books on Islamic history by authors who can be described as Islamphiles (e.g. Juan Cole) and they were still treated as "oriental" by Muslim reviewers. What most of these Muslims who complain constantly about "orientalism" and "anti-Muslim bias" really are mad about is that western academia is studying Islam without presupposing the metaphysical divinity of the faith like Muslims do.
Thing is this is impossible simply because western academia study all sorts of religious history so why Islam be the exception?
What's funny is that, Muslims do the same exact things in all the biases, misconceptions, misunderstandings and stereotypes you accuse the west of. It's common in the Islamic world when you pick up a history book studying Jewish or Christian history and origins written by Muslim historians to find them almost exclusively using Islamic material not Jewish or Christian material because for them the Qur'an and ahadith hold more truth than the Bible, church histories or even secular studies, so how do you -as a Muslim - deal with that? Are Muslims writing about the history of middle eastern religious groups who have been under their control engaging in their own inherent assumptions and presuppositions and viewing the world with their own version of Islamocenteric colonial mind? Is that a bad thing -as in the case of the west - or a good thing?
@dust001
Even if we assume that some of what you said is true, you can't deny the fact that they will still try to read Islamic history and revision it in a way that makes Western Civilization look historically superior.
Islamic books are also biased. You need to read both.
Wow you used all the buzzwords didn't you. Unfortunantely they only work on white people who have only had to deal with Muslims in the past 50 years or so. Try calling Hindus, Balkaners, non-Muslim people from Caucus, Armenians, and any of the native Middle Eastern non-Muslims who havent been completely cleansed and/or forced out yet as "Islamophobic". Try calling the non-Muslim South East Asians as Islamophobic. Read their histories that existed well before "Western Historical Method 🤓" and tell me it's "Islamophobic" you complete and utter coward. Just because Islam forced everyone with a brain into Europe does not mean history that is critical of Islam is "Eurocentric", as convenient as that may be for you. Maybe if Islam wanted a kind lens on it, it should have left some non-Muslims to exist peacefully and unoppressed within its territories.
@@Emir_969 Yes, you can deny that "Fact".You also should. That is an hypothesis of yours and must be shown in each individual case where you say that they are indeed applauding western civlisation or secularism as "Above" anyone else.
As a Swede, I have no interest in my country's domination of Finland historically aside from jokes between friends. I have an interest that people should live with increased well-being and being allowed to think freely about the world to further our understanding of it.
That example comes from numerous conversations I've had with this very kind of dismissive attitude, it is damaging to everyone, I'll dismiss your ideas on their own merits and you should dismiss my ideas on their own merits.
Speaking as a Christian, who has spent decades, trying to learn more about early Christian history, I appreciated your distinction between religious and the secular and traditional sources, and how frustrating it can be to try and sort between them. Particularly if you’re trying to explain the results of your research to someone who is not themselves a researcher. Christians often think that I’m an atheist because I question this or that second century tradition that is unsubstantiated by historical evidence, atheists either assume I am one of their own Because I am critical of this or that source, and they often suffer from the same assumption that Christians do: the idea that if one word is incorrect or metaphorical or whatever, then the entire thing is a lie, There is no God, and we should just write the whole thing off and go back to playing Warhammer 40K. :) And then, of course, you have to contend with the people who have done no research, have little or no understanding of Christianity, or history, or anything, jumping on board with their latest pop culture, conspiracy theories. Throw sectarian differences on top of that pile, as you expressed here, and it’s just a mess.
A friend of mine once said, “ really just scholarship is the loneliest hobby, because you simply cannot discuss it with Lehman unless you’re willing to put in hundreds of hours of bringing them up to speed. And if you try to discuss it with people who are already knowledgeable, they will automatically refute whatever you say based on their own frequently religious biases.”
It is all very frustrating, and I can only assume that anyone trying to do a reasonably objective study of the history of their own religious group faces similar obstacles. Just the same it is very nice to hear these frustrations articulated as well as you did here. Thank you for that.
You know that we don't have such problems, because our religion actually has technology, debates, heretics and points. Meanwhile Islam is just lol trust me bro, it's Poligamy time.
@@hgkghkhgkgh8378 Those problems still exist, just to a lesser extend. Take the term "arian" for example. If we are to believe christian sources, arianism, as formulated by arius, never died out and was found everywhere, throughout the centuries, for over a millenia. That wasn't the case at all. the so-called arians of the goths, were not arius-type arians. They believed that christ was divine and a small-g god (as can be seen by ulfilias formula). And that distinction has not been made until sometime late in the 20th century. So less than 50 years ago.
@@hgkghkhgkgh8378Don't be so condescending. There's serious Islamic scholars; I'm not a Muslim and disagree with a lot of the religion's fundamental values, but I recognize smart people when I see them. They work within the bounds of their culture.
@@hgkghkhgkgh8378 "lol trust me bro" is everything Christianity stands on, Paul never met Jesus AS physically, we don't know who the gospel writers are as they were confirmed to be anonymous, so in reality what do u have for eye witnesses for the ressurection of Jesus AS? They all come from the Bible, and using the Bible to prove the ressurection is circular reasoning
@ That’s a pretty insulting thing to say about Islam. I mean, I’m 100% a practicing, believing Christian, which means that I do not believe many of the things Muslims do, but Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are cousin faiths. Even though we disagree about who’s getting it right and who’s not, we are all worshiping God to the best of our understanding. I’m not a Muslim, I’m not a Jew, but both faiths absolutely positively deserve our respect. Don’t pick fights for no reason.
This is exactly what imam Tom discussed on blogging theology in his secularism playlist, your not looking at history, your just restating orientalist myths, you relies secularism is not a neutral viewpoint to render history do you?
@@000-t3c-i5u
The main issue I have with this channel is its assumption that interpreting Islamic history from a secular perspective using the historical-critical method is unbiased and neutral. A basic understanding of philosophy quickly reveals how flawed this claim is.
Let’s break down the historical critical Method.
The Neutrality Claim:
Historical criticism claims to approach historical events "objectively" or "neutrally," attempting to analyze what "actually happened" based on available evidence. This appears scientific and unbiased on the surface.
The Hidden Assumptions:
However, this approach typically embeds several unstated philosophical assumptions:
- Methodological naturalism (explaining events through natural rather than supernatural causes)
- Empiricism (privileging physical evidence over testimony or tradition)
- Materialist causation (events must have material rather than spiritual causes)
The Core Contradiction:
The key insight you're making is that these assumptions themselves represent a particular worldview. Someone who believes in:
- Divine intervention
- The reality of spiritual forces
- The possibility of miracles
- Non-material causation
is operating from an equally valid epistemological framework. The materialist framework isn't more "neutral" - it's just a different set of assumptions about reality.
The Subjectivity Problem:
This reveals a deeper issue: true neutrality in historical investigation is impossible because:
- Everyone approaches evidence with pre-existing frameworks
- Our understanding of what constitutes "evidence" is theory-laden
- The selection of what's relevant or irrelevant is influenced by our worldview
- The interpretation of causation depends on our metaphysical assumptions
@@000-t3c-i5u There's no irony in accepting non-muslim research, that's your projection. The problem is when a Muslim writes, it's apologetic. When an atheist writes about Islam, it's objective. Both have biases, both can be apologetic or both can be *relatively* neutral. Al Tabari, as an example of a medieval book, does dissect sources though, that's the issue. You fail to see that.
@@000-t3c-i5u I don't have a problem with that though. I don't know if post-structuralists are the originator of this thought, but that makes no difference to me. I always thought all sources are biased. We should be skeptical but the real hypocrisy is when effectively all Muslim scholarship is dismissed with a wave of a hand "oh it's just apologetics", but there's is not? I have to talk specifics to get this point across, here's one. Look at the story of Qira'at. Muslim sources are very transparent on the issue. Orientalists initially come trying to upend everything, only to now generally agree that they got it right. This example happens everywhere, I'd be happy to discuss a specific issue if you like.
hahah Tom... the guy who is happy with Hegseth and Huckabee hahaha
Muslim’s should not support the historical critical method as it is highly biased, very disappointed in this Chanel.
If Ḥadīth can't be used a historical source just because they aren't secular, then the non-Muslim sources of that time weren't secular either.
Edit: Change the thumbnail because it deems all Aḥādīth as "false traditions" which is not merely inaccurate but also dishonest on your part.
Secular history is constructed by contrasting opposing biases. We can and do use Muslim sources, but when it comes to theological claims, that falls under the study of theology, not history.
I don't personally believe in ancient mesopotamian religion, but if I did, you'd probably think I'm overreaching if I claim that Enuma Elish or the Epic of Gilgamesh are accurate historical accounts. These texts are extremely useful to show us what type of stories mesopotamian people were writing down, but not necessarily to reconstruct secular history.
Similarly, we should and do dismiss Christian accounts that demonize Muslims, and viceversa. It makes more sense to contrast different narratives, check the archaeological record and debate what likely happened. Which is what historians do.
@@MaryamMaqdisi When the Ḥadīth is authentic, you don't need to construct a narrative out of thin air by contrasting the different "secular" narratives.
Comparing the authenticity of Aḥādīth to that of ancient mesopotamian manuscripts or artifacts is blatantly inaccurate.
Nothing from secular history is authentic, because worship piece of rock or they are idolaters and christian jesus from iran, all lies. Only islamic history and monotheist history. Like American history is very authentic in its beginning , not when federal reserve christianity idolatry was installed as official religion fo America, then everything historical is LIES and LIES. But when America was monotheist like Islam, even though Americans didnt have same scrutiny as islamic scholars did in verifying narration, still American history is so accurate and correct and reflects truths of Quran. Islamic Sources are very objective. what the fck are u talking about? Secularist are liars. my whole life out to murder me like french, italian, jews, christians, pagans, hindus, asian communists. have to lie to why mass murdering torturing bankrupting enslaving people. Islamic sources like just look at Aisha رَضِيَ اللّهُ عَنْهُ the wife of Prophet ﷺ , she gives so many narration sthat shows a complete picture of each side and their point of view in conflict namely the conflict herself and father was involved with against Ali عَلَيْهِ ٱلسَّلَامُ . She رَضِيَ اللّهُ عَنْهُ said in hadith that ali عَلَيْهِ ٱلسَّلَامُ believed he thought he should of been caliphate, this is in Sahih muslim and sahih صحيح البخاري You don't get more objective than that. Sunni hadiths are so objective, always self incriminating, hadiths of arabs being evil and going to be extermianted is narrated by arabs. hadiths of persians and desi background being followers of anti christ and perishing are hadiths authenticated by persians and desis themselves, where do u get that kind of honesty from secularists or christians or jews or pagans? You don't , their religion is lie , or foundation is lie, so everything supporting it is full of lies.
@@MaryamMaqdisi so are you saying that theological claims can never be historically accurate?
@@SignsBehindScience how are they different at all?
Riwayyat is used the same way in Arabic. It means transmission.
Riwayyat=hadiths tales+Sunnah tales+Tafsir tales ==== All mere Gossipy folklore
@@abdar-rahman6965 The Socrates quote you have in your banner reached us through riwayyat "gossip" aswell.
@@hall511
That is historical quote/Rawaya and I do not build my faith on Rawayaat but on Book of God only. By the way, Plato wrote about Socrates, and Plato was a student of Socrates. Now, I ask you: was any Hadith-compiler a student of the Prophet? No. Book of Bukhari was concocted by a Persian 220 years after the death of Rasool
Yea the word he was looking for but didn’t find was probably athar.
@@abdar-rahman6965how do you know he was his student ? Moreover this common ignorance regarding how bukhari is compiled is present in many , even if we had no bukhari still the hadiths are there in other books , first hadith book was 30 years after the prophet , bukhari is the authentic collection
First of all, I can see how many of the commenters only saw the thumbnail and the title and decided to leave a comment. Second, I didn't say anything about Hadiths that hasn't been said by people more qualified than myself. People like Albani have directly questioned Sahih al-Bukhari. I didn't say that I agree with him or anything. I merely said that there's so many questions raised on that book that it, as a collection, can not be used directly. Individual Hadiths are used, for sure. I realize that so much of Sunni Islam is built on Hadiths that even a perceived attack on them warrant such a vigilant response, for no reason. If you don't understand the point of the video, then I really don't know what to do.
P.S. Please read Edward Said's Orientalism before calling something Orientalist. :)
Please don’t select such a thumbnail next time. I do partly agree with you but making a blanket statement like false hadiths even if to lure viewers in is essentially not ethical
Just to prove you wrong on 1 point, counting wounds on bodies ( number of lashes / cuts / stabs / missing bits) was an established custom among such warriors and there are many reports about this.
Your research comes with weak evidence to support what you are saying.
Albani criticized a few Hadiths in Bukhari but took the rest and followed same methodology as him. Albani is the one who should be questioned for that not Albukhari.
No evidence supports contradictions in Bukhari Hadith!!
Shia disagreement about Bukhari is because of their belief that contradicts all the books of Hadith. They even believe Quran is not authentic??
You haven't provided a single source to what you are saying?? You can't just pick Hadith you like and leave the other.
Less Knowledge is dangerous. As you said about taking things collectively to establish an understanding is important. One with the hunger of knowledge would never hate the secular historians techniques of establishing history. You are young and smart, you must have read lot of books but still its not collective.
Your albani argument proofs your ignorance on this matter so clearly, he is a muhadith who is job is to critically analyse ahadith and their chains… like many before did .. and out of 100k plus ahadith he found a few to be weak according to his view …. That doesn’t mean that he doesn’t regard sahih bukhari as one the most authentic books ever compiled…
Your arguments are largely from an orientalist perspective. @7:00 your sunni-shia argument is basically “well 1 large group of people dont accept Sahih al Bukhari, so can we really rely on it??” And the answer is yes we can. Every generation, scholars have checked and verified the books of hadiths and their contents. It is impossible for us to have gotten this very serious aspect of Islam wrong for 1400 years and only now in the last century did our orientalist saviors emerge to save us from our own ignorance
Typical of hadith rejectors. You people rely on modern secular historians rather than the scholars of Islam (people who devoted their lives to studying the final religion of Allah ﷻ )
@@zoheezus those who reject hadith or question its authenticity typically misunderstand or undervalue this preservation system. They might focus too much on the possibility of error or corruption, but they don't give enough weight to the lengths scholars went to safeguard the sunnah. The preservation was so thorough that even weak or fabricated narrations were identified, recorded, and excluded from core collections.
If anything this video just exposed himself that he do in fact have some hidden agenda behind his videos .. God has promised us he will expose the munafiq and here it is in full display.
It is still a religious book, to you it is history. Christians would argue the Bible is history.
The critique of Orientalism comes from an academic perspective that has only been possible since the rise of philosophical modernity. Thinkers like al-Afghani and Muhammad Abduh weren't simply allowed to say "we have done things like this for 1400 years, and now here are these newcomers who orientalize us." They had to develop independent criteria for the validity of truth-claims, which is the same thing that Ghazali does in the 'Ihya Ulum ad-Din, and that Ibn Rushd does in the Decisive Treatise. In other words, having *both* Islamic and "extra-Islamic" (secular) grounds for epistemology and logic was historically seen as compatible and even preferable for many of the greatest minds of the Golden Age and of Pan-Islamism. It's not "self-orientalizing" to accept non-revelatory sources and criteria of truth. Taqwa does not make 2+2=5.
One particular comment I'd just like to make as a historian (albeit one focused on history that is not Islamic, mine is a cultural history of immigration and imperialism, and right now I'm doing research into Japanese history) is just how much debates can change even year by year
Relatively few fields are ever static, and those that are usually lack sources to spur debate, or the archaeology just hasn't happened yet. Reading through the histories of a field like mine comes a history of histories onto itself, and this video demonstrates that perfectly.
Thank you for this video, since work like yours helps keep non-academic historical debate alive and in peoples' minds, and that is always important
the amount of racism, denialism and just personal insults in this comment section is crazy
Syawish's video is a typical piece of orientalist denialism.
@@thesalafislav Also internalized racism
@@immortalpickle3104 He said non-Muslim, secular historians will analyze the evidence without bias. Lol
Racism wasn't the only thing he internalized.
@@thesalafislav Ridiculous to think that the majority of them wouldn't be biased, even implicitly (its ridiculous to even compare Christian or Shia tradition to Sunni tradition). Or wouldn't have proper education, in either Arabic or in hadith sciences. Especially not being close to the level of our hadith scholars lol
i dont see any?
Okay brother, I respectfully disagree with some of your talk points, especially when you place secularism on a pedestal on attaining truth.
Yes, al bukhari is more a religious book, since it isn't meant to tell the history of a certain era, rather many of the acts and sayings of the Prophet and his companions. But if you take the methods he used to make sure that those hadeeths are authentic, it is far greater and more reliable than any historical book written at the time or even in that millenia. What stops any secular historian from lying or if the historian himself isn't lying, what stops the people and sources they get it from to be reliable and trustworthy? Like how many historical "facts" are just a result of misinformation/ something someone said taken at face value without the source and background cheks of the original author of said fact, sometimes the orignal author is even just forgotten. The idea is that secular scholars of a few centuries ago didn't have the level reliability that Al-bukhari had, even shia sources can't really claim to have chains of narrations that go back to the time of the prophet, and many of them are just taken at face value.
In islam a pious man is less likey to lie, and even if he was to lie, Al bukhari wouldn't take people's words at face value, he would learn about the people he is taking the narrations from, he would make sure their memory is strong and they are trusted and truthful people in their communities... so just because some western Liberal feminists, and some secular oriantalist "historians" have issues with Al Bukhari doesn't mean their criticism is right. They have the right to criticis, but they don't actually criticise his methods or his actual work, only the things they don't like and don't believe in... so their criticism is more biased than the thing they are criticising...
The whole idea is that yes, there are islamic historians that are unreliable, but when you compare methods and the means so many historians and hadeeth writers took to make sure what they were writing was factual and true, and you would compare it to the same historians from different areas at the time, you'd see a stark difference.
And as you said current secular historians only have their standards as a result of islamic and muslim standards in conveying truth.
💯
Exactly but secular slave Muqaddimah won't respond to this.
Finally someone points out that Islamic Hadith are far better preserved than secular-washed history.
current secular historians only have their standards as a result of islamic and muslim standards in conveying truth.
Not really. Now, The contentious "Team Christian" in me wants to say that secular historians standards come from the Christians, but I believe I must abandon this too to what I think is the actual reality... Which is that a long development running in parallel to either religion resulted in the standards the secular historians now have.
1) Older scholars wanted to discover reality through Philosophy and the tales of their ancestors, but then discovered deficiencies in this. There was always something that made the old approach complicated like:
a) lying and disagreement over the course of events (if two people are said to be wrong, the possibility remains that both really are).
b) Related to that, a creative retelling of reality which misses a literal truth (Like saying, The Republicans were totally wiped out. Yet, they're present for the next election).
c) Physical evidence in contrast with histories passed down from ones elders. (Like saying the Hebrews conquered Canaan, its a claim that's difficult to prove even if you accept it, because conquest has a tendency to destroy evidence).
d) Plain old credibility issues. For a long time, historical and scientific study simply involved referencing the classics and ancient writings, but never questioning or cross-examining them. Instead just revering them for their age.
2) Lets run a thought experiment together: You believe in miracles, yes? I do. But, the question here isn't about the reality of miracles, but secular institutions. Why they behave as they do, and have developed their own standards over time:
a) Lets say a Pastor or Imam gained a million dollars out of nowhere, and said it was a miracle. Now, this may be true. Nothing is impossible with God, and these are honest men, I assume. But, the IRS won't be nearly as charitable about that. Would you think more or less of the IRS if they simply accepted that this million dollar gain by these Men of the Cloth was miraculous, without checking and investigating at all?
b) Unrelated - Lets say a million dollars disappeared from a bank. Maybe you own it and other money is held in it. Maybe you're a client and your money is saved there. The bank claims, "This was the work of Devils or Jinn". Are you confident your clients would accept that? Would you feel that this bank was trustworthy of your funds?
Exactly didn't knew this muqadama guy was such a fool ! A wolf in sheep's clothing
What he meant is he considers them unauthentic for historical research. A good scholar leaves his beliefs outside when he enters the study room.
let him be clear upon his own terms he uses & the so called scholarly analysis ----
And let him abandon the limitless nonsense written in the name of history .... the so called secular authentic history.
Nope. A scholar stops being one if he thinks his beliefs aren't good enough for scholarly study.
@AshrafAnam What if your beliefs have no historical or scientific basis?
@@theindianpaladin
The amount of historical data we have no tradition on the face of the earth has that .
@@daftyute
One of the biggest straw Manning I have ever heard.
Did you ever understood what he meant ❓
And who thinks a scholar must put aside his beliefs aside before doing scholarly research then it's obvious -- either his beliefs are irrational like the trinity or he is not a scholar himself.
Making the distinction between historicity and religious readings is a good move: it shows you're thinking carefully about your sources and makes your channel stand out as a reliable one. It's hard on RUclips to get academic history of Islam. There's a gulf of understanding between the west and Islam that is manifesting in rather dangerous ways at the moment, so your channel is timely and valuable. Plus the hard work you put into these videos. You're doing the right thing, mate.
I'm not a Muslim, so I can't say whether any of this is disrespectful or anything like that. What I can say, though, is I know quite a few Muslims who have complained to me that these sorts of secular historical reviews from Islamic perspectives are very hard to come by. Obviously, some people will be upset, but I think there are others who are equally happy such a source exists. It's not just about accuracy, or being more correct, but it helps to understand and connect more deeply with religious heritage.
Or at least, that's how I have heard it. Maybe I happen to just know outliers. But there's definitely people out there who value this sort of thing.
And, if I can put my own two cents in the matter (which may not be warranted), I'm of the opinion that if these sorts of secular overviews arent done by Muslims, then non Muslims will have a monopoly on the narrative and history-telling of Islamic history from secular sources, which would be a far greater shame. All too often I hear people complain that Islam is told from non Islamic perspectives. This is true, and a valid criticism. But if people shy away from these areas of thought, it's the only remaining alternative.
The problem is, it’s not about secular vs non-secular, it’s about historical analysis and facts.
The rigorous criticism of hadeeth, in terms of both content and chains of narration, was done by early Islamic historians like Bukhari and Muslim. They looked through something like 1 million chains of narration, analyzed each link in the chain of narration ad infinitum - the biographies of each narrator, what their neighbors said about them, political inclinations, everything - and graded each chain that way.
There’s a lot more to it, but what I’m saying is that by simply “rejecting” the Hadeeth categorically - it really doesn’t make any logical sense. In that vein, you should also reject history itself, which is far less rigorously authenticated than Hadeeth.
If you want to be academic, be academic. But don’t half-ass it as a self-taught RUclipsr.
@3thmnify I don't think he was discounting it's validity entirely, I think his point was that, due to it's nature, it can't be treated the same way we would a historical newspaper, shell midden or whatever else. That doesn't make it an invalid source or him even correct necessarily, but I do think it's a noteworthy difference. As a Muslim, I imagine this is likely more difficult since he has the option of determining which aspects are "true" for such sources (difficult to do even ignoring faith), or by distinguishing between the two kinds of source entirely. I'm not saying that's the best compromise of the two necessarily, but I don't think it's unreasonable or unacademic.
I think your channel is a precious gem. I don’t know many channels like yours, especially with your quality and presentation. I hope to watch many more videos here. I don’t come here to learn religion, but to learn history.
@surahalbaqaraha191yeah anyone or anything that doesn’t agree with you word by word according to your own worldview are all “Evil” and you are an “Saint”
“Secular historians are unbiased and therefore their statements must be taken as fact, and not questioned. Meanwhile religious historians are biased and can’t be trusted. By the way, what is a chain of narration, anyway?” 🤡
@@3thmnifyThis comment. 😂😂😂
His whole video is *BIAS* against “Hadith” by trying to sound academic, while calling it “False Tradition” with his clickbaity oh-so-controversial thumbnail.
@@AyneEverlastaside from the thumbnail being clickbait nothing said in this video is biased against islam he even explicitly said that he doesn’t reject hadith as a religious text and historical contexts need further academic reading, all of which is objectively true
@ [9:09] - [9:30] “hadiths have a large Corpus of material about these narrators including the biographies and genealogies of many of them however a lot of that too is based on *hearsay and unreliable older Traditions* . What method did the compiler of the hadiths use to separate the truth from the embellishments?”
This is a clear excerpt from his video for all to see that he consider *Hadith unreliable, heresy, and NOT TRUE* implying that our Islamic Practice of Sunnah and Prophetic Tradition is based on events that, not only are historically inaccurate, but also did not happen in history and were mere heresy; his logic applies generally on *BOTH* whether in Religious or Historical context.
Not to mention, *HE DID NOT EXPLAIN WITH DETAILS THE RIGOROUS METHODOLOGY OF MUSLIM SCHOLARS OF COLLECTING HADITH, CATEGORISING, GRADING AND VERIFYING IT* , except shooting some examples here and there, which is regarded nothing more than a *RED HERRING.*
All while he took a great length - if not most of his video - to explain the “Western” Historic Method and the whole history behind it, which *DOES NOT COUNT AS “OBJECTIVE” ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON* at all, and therefore it’s *BIASED.*
The "authenticity" of Sahih al-Bukhari, as well as the other collections termed "Sahih", is self referential. That is to say, the author states that every hadith included in the collection passes his crieria for authenticity. Each compiler has slightly different criteria. If two hadith contradict each other, this does not impact the grading of either as "sahih" because the relevant criteria do not consider the /matn/, or the text or meaning of the hadith, but only consider the /isnad/ or the chain of transmission.
@@Rudolfvirchoww I think you made this example up since Quran was not recorded in the Prophet's lifetime so no Quran eating goat could have crossed the Prophet's path. However, if such an account had an isnad that passed the test of Sahih for whichever compiler, that hadith would be "Sahih" following the relevant standard. This is what is meant by the statement, there is no examination of the text (textual criticism), only of the isnad, the chain of transmission.
@@MCJSA The goat eating the passages of the Quran is a well know hadith. Evangelical Christians love to point it out.
@@drmodestoesq OK. What is the reference then? Evangelical Christians don't count.
It's a false hadith...bte,Quran is not only written in papers but also memorized by the companions of our prophet@@drmodestoesq
@@deceiver-paul Malik's chain of narrators was considered the most authentic and called Silsilat al-Dhahab or "The Golden Chain of Narrators" by notable hadith scholars including Muhammad al-Bukhari.
Someone doesn't know Harf Al Qamari and Harf Ash Shamsi
How do you know the Quran was reliably narrated to us?
Once you find the answer to that question, you understand why you can’t simply categorically reject Hadith as being unreliable.
The foundation of all historical knowledge is narrations, aural or written. If you reject Hadith, which is the most rigorously authenticated and analyzed source of biography in history, you might as well reject history itself.
I don’t think you understand what history is as an academic study…
he made video pn who wrote Alquran. Go browse his videos. very informative and clear
أَفَلَا یَتَدَبَّرُونَ ٱلۡقُرۡءَانَۚ وَلَوۡ كَانَ مِنۡ عِندِ غَیۡرِ
ٱللَّهِ لَوَجَدُوا۟ فِیهِ ٱخۡتِلَـٰفࣰا كَثِیرࣰا﴿ ٨٢ ﴾
• Fadel Soliman:
Do they not ponder the Recital[1]? For had it been from any other than Allah, they would have found in it much discrepancy.
An-Nisāʾ, Ayah 82
well said!
@@Jesterisimwe do from an Islamic stand point not from the 21st century stand point that changes every decade
Textual criticism in christianity began when the bible was first translated into european vernavular in the 16th century (was translated into Arabic in the 19th century), it reached a professional level around the 19-20th century and is still ongoing today, In Islam however it started in the first century. Unlike the Quran, the hadith are transmitted oral accounts which were written 1 century after they happened and even in the canonical collections of Bukhari and Muslim there are several narrations of the same hadith due to some people paraphrasing and others forgetting part of it. Most of the hadith are without context, this is not to take from the value of hadith as in practice it was the first serious endeavor of having authentication of the historical record. The hadith are transmitted by way of chains of narration, x heard from y who heard from z that .... took place, a study of who x, who y, and who z were and whether what they are saying is true by checking what others had said about them and whether they had indeed met those who they are purported to have taken the accounts from began and so the first "peer review" mechanism took place, all before the internet in the 2nd and 3rd centuries fo the hijra, which unlike the christian calendar has been continously kept, the current gregorian calendar for example was first instanced int he year 535 CE by Dionysius Exiguus, the 25th of December in addition for example being the pagan holdiay of the roman deirty 'Sol Invictus' is clearly shown in the "Chronograph of 354", the earliest christian calendar predating the current one, but I digress, the writing down of hadith was forbidden by the prophet himself for the aforementioned issue (people forgetting, paraphrasing, taking words out of context) only the Quran was ordered to have been written and linguistically they are too far apart, it is clear that the Matn of some hadith, the substance or the wording was altered as the language used seems to be more "modern" instead in instances. Arabic had not changed in any significant way since the Abbasids, 1200 years ago sound as "modern" as things written in the last 50 years. Arabic is the oldest continuously spoken language in the world, the only possible corollary, Chinese, has script which has no relation to the actual language hence why Japanese and old Vietnamese use it, event the script itself was only codified in the 1700s in the Kangxi emperor's dictionary. A miracle in plain sight
Hadith for example has several levels of correctness, from Hasan which means "well" to rejected as pertains to the Matn or the substance of the hadith itself, the "isnad" of the Hadith or the chains of transmission / citation also have varying levels from Marfu' meaning quoted without having actually met any of the people in the transmission chain or a second hand account or Mudalas meaning plagarised from another transmitter of hadith without citing and Marfud meaning outright rejected for various reasons,
There is another layer of complexity here called ilm-aa-rijal, the study of the bibliography of those in the chains of transmission themselves and their soundness whether objectively by crosschecking where they lived and whom they met or subjectively by seeing what their peers said about them regarding their character.
Those unaware of the aforementioned would not only have not been allowed to cite hadith it would have been a criminal offense and there are hadith which clearly contradict one another and one ought not be citing hadith without knowing all other hadith from the colossal hadith collections that were written, even the earliest hadith collection, Musannaf Abdel Razaq Al-Sanani ( 137-211H / 744- 827 CE) and Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaybah ( 159H-235H / 775-849 CE). for instance had over 53,000 hadith with their chains of transmissions included has yet to be translated into English . Yes, Bukhari and Muslim are taken the most correct as they had the most narrow criterion, but an enormous study is required before citing either one of them. Later scholars such an Al-Darqutni show that there were mistakes made. I say later here though he is still over a millennium old this seriousness of scholarship was the first endeavor of its kind in human history, what became today known as university degrees started with the institutions giving "ijaza" or certificate t transmit hadith and talk about it , indeed they are the origins of the University system we know today.
This scientific method of studying hadith and jurisprudence was developed and already in practice in the 2nd and third centuries of the hijra (around 750 CE) back when most of europe did not have a written script for their vernacular, enormous encyclopedia such as the 40 volume history of Al-Tabari which, averages 400 pages per volume (and is only one of his works) were written, the only corollary of which in the west would have been the "decline and Fall of The Roman Empire" by Edward Gibbons in the 1700s, considered a watershed, a monument of its time, with a span that would have hardly constituted a volume and a half of Al-Tabari's encyclopedia and written a millennium later.
Jabir Ibn Hayyan (101-199 H / 721-815 CE) the father of chemistry whose theories (distillation, measurement system, oxidaton, nature of substances, etc) remained dominant until the 18th century. and who was the first to elucidate the scientific method said: "The first thing that is required for anyone who seeks the knowledge of chemistry is that he should work with his hands and experiment, for he who does not work with his hands and does not experiment will not attain any degree of knowledge."
Ibn al-Haytham (4th century of Hijra), referred to as "the Physicist" in Europe is famous for the first comprehensive scientific book on optics, before his study of optics and perspective paintings were entirely 2 dimensional, a leap after his treatises and works were translated is visible in how paintings became three dimensional, He discovered integral calculus (physicist, mathematician and astronomer who discovered calculus, Newton often references Arabic in his writings for a reason), is even still argued with today the work "The Enigma of Reason" primarily deals with his arguments. regarding the scientific method he said "The duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and... attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency."
There are texts from the 800's CE debating whether, if one for example were to take a log of wood that was not theirs, make a column out of it and have it as a foundation of a house, later the original owner of the column comes back and demands the log to be retrieved into his custody and refuse monetary compensation ought the judge comply, tear down the structure and give him the log or ought he enforce a monetary compensation. this was 1200 years. Property rights were taken that seriously, you could not simply handwave it and enforce a monetary compensation as that property in question was not attained by proper channels, hence it' s ownership and how much ought be the compensation for it is judicated by its owner and no one else has the right to, not the governor or even the caliph. Stephen Langton, the writer of the Magna Carta (12th century, contemporary with the crusades for a reason) studied in the university of Paris which archives show had plenty of Arabic treatises in its procession, there can be no question about it being inspired by the "Sharia".
Both the renessiance and the european enlightenment were directly preceded by massive translation movements form Arabic (see the Republic of Letters by Alexander Bevilacqua, The House of Wisdom: How the Arabs Transformed Western Civilization By: Jonathan Lyons.
God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
Amazing
y’all did not watch the video😂
Could you please explain what you mean by 'secular source'?
If you mean the western historians, are they really secular and what source are they referring to when they write regarding history?
I think he means that they just aren't religious. Like sahih al-Bukhari is a meant religious book, but tarikh Ibn Khaldun is meant as a history book.
Historians try to correct for biases, for example they normally look at a Christian source making outlandish claims about Islam and think, right, they're ideologically motivated, we can't take this at face value. Same thing with Muslim sources. Some claims are much easier to defend than others, and using a multitude of sources, archaeology and other data scholars can get a good idea of what's likely correct, but as the video puts it, it is a field of educated guesses rather than established facts.
@@MaryamMaqdisi if Ḥadīth aren't a historical source then there is no historical source. They are literally pinnacle of authentic historiography.
@@MaryamMaqdisiif you don't use Ḥadīth as a historical source just because they aren't a secular source, then the non-Muslim sources of that time aren't secular either.
@000-t3c-i5u what do you mean by the _"main body of hadiths"_ being _"very late"_
Thanks! Especially for making it clear that one can be a believer, without thinking that every part of one's tradition is of equal value. I do think that the idea of truth, or at least a single truth, is not very helpful. But maybe that's just me.
22:18 methods like this are also used in Hadith authentication. The Hadith scholar don’t only use Riwayat (the chain of report) but also Dirayat which means analyzing the content of a Hadith to see whether it makes any sense or not.
Also, the cautious behaviors of Islamic scholars towards modern historiography is not without merit and it is caused by the so called orientalists from whom even the modern historians distant themselves. Also, people who do see modern historiography from the other side, do see a tendency of the modern historians of often saying the opposite of what has been established, just to sound sensational. The “oh actually it was like this”. However, in recent years historians are more mindful cautious of this bias.
Dirayah is mentioned in Usool al Hadith, but it is rarely employed. When it comes to Imam Bukhari or others from Hambali school, riwayah takes precedence over dirayah if not completely ignored. Dirayah involves use of aql which is considered deviance as per Hambalis. Bukhari's collection is considered sahih because of the strong chains and not because of any other criteria. Hanafis use several Hadith which they consider to be authentic though Bukhari considered those inauthentic. Hanafis and Malikis were more open to use of other daeef hadiths because the strength of the chain was not the only citerion for them. However, over centuries the Ahlul Hadith/Hambali position came to represent the orthodox position.
Exactly! These comments are just displaying their ignorance. However, in my opinion the Matn needs to take higher priority.
@@arifshoeb6177there is no hadith that is considered authentic without deep analysis
Christian church fathers used to "see if it made sense" and all they did was to remove the importance of women apostoles and of social justice in Christianity and focus instead on silly concepts like that you're saved if you just believe that Jesus was God.
"Seeing if it makes sense" is nothing but a way to impress your own human failures into the religion.
@@arifshoeb6177 Sounds super mature of you!
There are many Hadiths that are weak but still considered relevant because they align with the Quran and Sahih Hadith, both of which are established as reliable and serve as the gold standard in Islamic teachings.
while there are weak Hadiths that are used for encouragement to do good deeds, they aren’t automatically classified as Hasan or Sahih just because the content “feels Islamic” or aligns with established beliefs. A weak Hadith’s status remains as it is unless there is stronger evidence to support its authenticity.
I agree with Al Muqaddimah that people are biased. The number of people who are insulting him rather than having a civil discussion is proof of his point.
Al Muqaddimah is biased
Nobody is insulting him . He can't take criticism because I don't know maybe he is biased.
Ah yes, critique his lies is “insult.” What a cowardly way to protect your biased friend
'Otherwise we end up with a solely Sunni history,' given how much has been spent on pushing Salafism I think that sums up the issue nicely.
Gibberish
Saying "salafism" is just proving your ignorance, if you don't realise that there is no understanding of the Qurʾān and Sunnah without the Salaf then then you are severely misguided.
@AZ-1003 you're pretty misguided if you think that's what I meant by Salafism.
@@mrmr446 The only people who use salafism are non-Muslim propaganda pushers or ikhwanis who think Muhammad ibn AbdulWahhab brought something new by teaching tawheed and abolishing shrines, let me guess, you hate when people tell you that the Muslim ruler must be obeyed and you think concerts in Saudi are reason enough to make takfir on those in authority? What other possible meaning could be intended by such a westernised word? Please, do tell.
@@AZ-1003 'a ruler must be obeyed?' How many Saudi kings drank and gambled? An easy pathway to tyranny demanding absolute obedience of any ruler, Muslim or not. Not in favour declaring anyone takfir but I do remember living in Saudi when the regime ramped up the Dawa and I know they have destroyed a lot of history.
Why is a secular source inherently more acceptable?
No one said it is.
Secular sources tend to be more acceptable because secular historians tend to account for the biases in the sources, whereas non-secular historians do not tend to account for the biases in the sources. For example, a non-secular historian like a Muslim historian will be hesitant to say or attribute anything bad about a revered figure like a companion of the prophet, whereas a secular historian won't be reluctant to say or attribute anything bad to the companion of the prophet.
@@aliashrafmasrur8339 Evidence?
@@akeel6328 "trust me bro" lol
@@aliashrafmasrur8339 but that is false, many hadiths are used by Islam haters against those figures yet the scholars kept them
love your channel!!!! keep making videos like these. I love learning about how different islamic history is than what we get taught at schools
Respect to you, Syawish, for making videos on this kind of topic knowing that some (close-minded) viewers will react poorly to them...
This was very educational and the nuanced way you approach these topics, is always a pleasure to listen to. Keep up the great videos!
It wasn't though it basically was we have to be pro secular western academics and anti Islamic sources because "some feminists and other groups don't like certain sources in Islam"?
Sahih Bukhari was 600,000 Hadith and he threw out 99.7% of them as false.
The Romans Aztecs and Chinese had millions of first-hand accounts. Hadith is nothing but 4th-6th hand accounts.
Hadith are overwhelmingly authored by Israelis. The JEWISH TALMUD is the #1 source of Fabricated Hadith.
Hadithists made Prophet Muhammad a p*** hile, homosexual, war criminal so they could have excuses to do every evil.
I love how this channel always attracts islamophobes or racists, only to disappoint them. 😂
This is the exactly what they like in titles, but what they hate in content.
Thank you Syawish
There are some Muslim dumbasses in the comments who're saying they've unsubscribed because of the title and thumbnail. It's a double edged sword
😅😅😅😅
i know right, i love it.
I've been reading a lot of the comments here and most of them are angry muslims tho
@_-ghostfps-_8651 ya, many are either making good points, or haven't even watched the video
So we have (ilm ur-rijal)(the science of men), which is an Islamic field of study concerned with examining the narrators of hadith in detail, including their biographies, to establish the authenticity of the hadith.
Thus, we have the biographies of the narrators, including their public image, for thousands of ahadith to determine which ahadith are authentic and which narrators are trustworthy.
We also have (isnād)(chain of narration), which mentions every narrators of a certain hadith, who narrated to who, so on and so forth, until the hadith gets recorded by reliable scholars. We don't accept missing links in chains or a hadith passing from a liar to someone else.
This process of verifying ahadith has been conducted for centuries, making the ahadith more reliable than most historical texts.
Not using ahadith in your videos because of "unreliability" is humorous. Even if their purpose is religious in nature, they still record important history.
Not to mention historical sources of pre and early Islamic Arabia can only be found in ahadith or written by scholars who might have also compiled ahadith, but other than that ahadith collections don't record anything else about future events. So how else will you study pre-Islamic Arabia? Or Early Muslim battles?
And as for non-religious Muslims sources why would you ignore them in favour of modern secular sources, why not mention Muslim and non Muslim sources together? Why do you favour one over the other?
I can just imagine your level of panic after watching Farid’s video
can you shaer? not sure what you are talking bout ahah :p
@@arifshoeb6177 Rejecting historical sources for wishy washy reasons is not "thinking for yourself".
@@jallaltouil1570there is chanel call farid respond he just refuted him
@@arifshoeb6177 Tell me, would you reject the entirety of what the Church fathers said because they're religious sources and would have biases?
@@arifshoeb6177 It's the same concept, sorry you're not able to draw analogies, so let me explain. In the modern study of the historicity of the early Church and Christianity, historians will use the writings of early Church fathers in order to piece together what went on (using Ireneus, Polycarp, Ignatius, Papius, etc.).
These people were all officials in the Church, and thus would obviously have their biases, however due to them being some of the most well recorded people, they are often a main source of information.
So if you were in the place of modern historians, you would say to reject all these sources because they're religious rather than historical, but that's simply not how it works.
I would not have a problem if Muqaddimah simply said he doesn't take hadiths at face value, but outright dismissing them as a non-historical source due to biases is completely unacceptable, and something neither he nor anyone else would do for any other history.
Brother, as soon as you started going on about knowledge being a human right and "we need a revolution by the proletariat right now" I went to jump for the subscribe button to find I already am subscribed... I may be subscribed to too many channels, not that that's a bad thing. So I hit the like button instead.
We may not need a revolution per se, but we need more teachers and learners. Keep making learning fun, keep passing it on! We have to pass it on to keep it.
Oh really....
Learning is just a fun to you ? Oh my God !
It tells enough.....
@@ExposingHindutva101 Not sure what that's getting at. But I don't find learning to be a chore or bother or painful. If you do or think that it should be, cool. I've tried beating knowledge into people, it just left me with too many bodies to hide. lol
are you a muslim commie?
That made me grin, saying that in the most serious tone lmao
@@chrispy1398🤦🤣🤣🤣 what do you mean you don't know what he is getting at!!? He is shaming you for daring to have fun while learning!! Don't you know how offensive that is! Now get in the Ice bucket full of needles and you better not start learning until I see some tears!! 👏chop chop 👏
Trying to have fun while learning...😒 The nerve of some people.....😜
I hope I don't have to say (JK) 🤣
There is an exaggerated importance for Hadith from Bukhari because it suits a sectarian narrative of Islam that was supported by the political elite at the time of the compilation of Hadith.
This was further cemented by fiqh, which was sourced out of the same Hadith sources.
So much of what is stated as a religious decree has basically been sourced out of books from such a contentious and turbulent time in Islamic History, which raises so many questions about all non-quranic fundamentals.
Islam is not a rabbinical religion. There is no reason to accept anything from anyone as a given, no interpretation of a scholar, or even any text other than the Quran. To a Muslim, there is no text that can't be questioned for its words or authenticity other than the Quran.
Why should Muslims be bound by the understanding at a given time in Islamic history, which was also influenced by the politics of its time. It's noteworthy that most compilations of Hadith were done in periods of history when the Ummah was fragmented with many ideological ‘fitnas’.
Unlike the Quran, there is no universally accepted book or collection of Hadith by the Muslim Ummah as a Whole, if a section of Sunnis have Bukhari or al Muwataa' , the ibadis don't and if the Shia have Al Kafi the Sunnis don't accept it. But if someone considers the other side not Muslim enough, that would still not negate that all 114 surahs of the Quran are the same for all of them.
That alone is the biggest argument against the claim that the same people that brought the Quran are the same people that brought Hadith, since there was no narration that needed the scrutiny given to Hadith for the authentication.
Despite this, here are a few basic arguments against the ‘ like the Quran’ idea repeated by all traditionalists:
First argument, There is no Daeef Quranic verse, the Quran as the recitation known to us was protected in its full form through the multitude of narrations it came with, and Allah has guaranteed it's protection in his holy book, and we can see this through the millions that have memorized it,
This is an article of faith to believe in, the same cannot be said for Hadith, which despite being conflated by ‘traditionalists’ with obeying the prophet is not the same, as people that refute the Hadith believe that the prophet didn't say the Hadith not that it's his command but it should be disobeyed.
The Quran, with all it's commands, is universal to all Muslims in its full form, saying otherwise would mean casting doubt on its preservation going against a direct pledge of Allah of protecting it.
There is no pledge from Allah of protecting Hadith.
Even the Shias, that don't accept a majority of the Sahaba or the narrators recognized by Bukhari yet they didn't get a different narration of the 114 surahs, (I am not talking about attempts at additions but the full 114)
Second argument, the Quran was in fact revealed to the prophet before it was recited to the companions and narrators, there is proof of this is in (20:114) ‘Do not rush to recite ˹a revelation of˺ the Quran’
This shows precisely why the Quran’s preservation would have a much higher standard than anything that would be said on the spot that could have been picked up by narrators, even if it was the same narrators.
The prophet reviewed what was written/memorized during his lifetime and repeated it word for word & verse for verse as recitations in prayers. The same cannot be said for the Hadith.
Third Argument, It is plausible and even highly likely that during the time of the prophet, the quran was not preserved only in recitation as most ‘scholars of the traditions’ believe, but rather in text form too. We should agree there were multiple scribes at a given time transcripting the recitations. The only thing that happened in the time of the caliphs that followed was a compilation.
Fourth Argument, The early manuscripts like the Birmingham manuscript of the Quran can be found. What early manuscripts of the Hadith are there? Is there any method of authentication other than rules of the invented ‘science' for authentication. If the’ like the Quran’ idea truly stands, was this same ‘science’ needed for the quran?? That would be blasphemous to even consider, wouldn't it?
Fifth Argument, more like a rebuttal to a common argument made against people that believe there Hadith isn't as binding as the Quran,
How would we know how to pray( for example),
This is a lot simpler than most people make it out to be,
If you are a true Hadith ‘science’ believer you would easily find that many of the methods and practices of prayer are all coming to us from Aahaad Hadith this is simply because the prophet taught many people individually, but even the people that don't accept those Hadith or it's narrators still know how to pray in a very similar fashion to the Sunnis like the Ibadis and Shia.
In addition to that, even the Hadith on how to pray is literally saying “pray as you have seen me pray” which is the physical practice of motions in prayer that narrators saw not directions dictated by the prophet to be passed down as the rules of prayer, if Hadith was truly to be taken as it is being prescribed as an absolutely necessary way to understanding the Quran, the minimum would have been a sequential step by step guide as a Sahih Hadees that has zero refutes by Muslim scholars like the verses of the Quran.
Sixth Argument, If Islamic history is truly dissected when it comes to the rules of the Hadith narration and the choice of narrators, a “science” that was developed 100s of year after the prophet, we can easily find how this entire ‘Hadith science’ was used as a political tool to pick and choose what was considered acceptable and preservable.
There are many examples of this, even in events that took place around the compilation and even in some cases ‘editing’. Yet these rules are taken as a given even thought even if we take the immediate generation that followed the prophet they couldn't even agree on a fixed definition of who a Sahabi was and the conditions they set were different that grades and categories were created in later generations.
So taking fixed rules and definitions from generations 100s of years after, is simply irrelevant to Muslims that are now many generations after the ones that set the rule, it's only paving the way for creating a monotone single understanding of the Quran and religion as a whole stuck in the Islamic era the books and it's rules are from.
There is a danger of raising Hadith beyond it's natural level as an advisory/complimentary guide to the Quran, where it creates new concepts that Quran didn't mention creating a whole branch of understanding that totally deviates from a direct understanding of the Qurans words as recited.
We as Muslims, should agree that first way to test of any prophetic text is to compare it's message against the Quran, if it goes against a clear verse before even looking at the source, but unfortunately even within Sunni schools of thought there are many concepts taken out of Hadith that don't exist in the Quran and are imposed as an understanding of the Quran despite being literally contradictory.
An easy clearcut example of this can be found in a common ‘Scholarly’ Sunni understanding ‘A believer can go to hell for his sins before going to heaven’ this clearly contradicts (101:6-11) ‘So as for those whose scale is heavy ˹with good deeds..’ Which suggests that the aggregate of deeds good and bad decides if they will be in a life of bliss or in the abyss, which the following verse are directly pointing to
This concept is even refuted directly in the Quran in (2:80), where Allah asks the Jews that make the claim that fire will only touch them for a number of days, if they took a pledge from Allah. Followed by (2:81): “But no! Those who commit evil and are engrossed in sin will be the residents of the Fire. They will be there forever.”
And it is even repeated in (3:24) with stronger words: “This is because they say, “The Fire will not touch us except for a few days.” They have been deceived in their faith by their wishful lying.”
There are many examples of this, but it shouldn't be hard to see what the verse in the Quran is saying. Other debatable concepts like the Punishment of the grave are in murky waters.
I personally think it's not even worth a discussion, the traditionalist school in general, uses scare tactics when it comes to Hadith, they say not obeying the Hadith is disobeying the Prophet, but it's really not the same, we don't really know if the prophet said it, We are expected to trust people that are considered to have the knowledge to an invented ‘science’ based on rules that didn't come to us even from the immediate generation after the prophet.
As for the Quran, it is an article of faith to believe in it and that Allah preserved it. The text books of the Hadith are not direct sayings of the prophet they are merely narrations of what the prophet could have said on a chain of memories up until it was complied, without even an analysis of any other influences or even memory lapses, example we can find in many Hadith where even the narrator is trying to choose which word the prophet might have said without having the ability to choose the exact word that could have been used, which is nothing like the Quran.
The ‘Like the Quran' argument is a blasphemous way of using ‘scholarly’ interpretation as an enforcer in Islam to push it into the same rabbinic method followed by the people of the book, Which the Quran warned us from doing.
The Quran is supreme by far and out of this whole elm of Hadith there is nothing certain enough to be considered binding beyond a max of 300 Hadith at best with a real authenticity chain and even that could be debated. Everything else is advisory.
I am a bit surprised that the story about the letter from Prophet Muhammad to Imperator Heraclius is not in this video. After all, no ones know for sure that did he really receive such a letter or not. And if the Imperator did receive the letter from the Prophet, what is his actual reaction to it?
Personally, I believed it is something in-between. After all, the letter is real. But aside from that, no ones know for sure what really happened back then.
My theory, by the way, is that the Byzantine Romans have no clue why the Muslims invaded. As in, The Muslims say that the Ghassanid client Kingdom started this by killing a missionary of Islam. This may be true. But, at the same time, the facts of this may have never reached the knowledge of the Emperor. As far as he and the rest of the Empire were concerned and could see, a ton of Arabs just decided to attack northwards just because.
@@jasonbelstone3427 Because of what?
@@lerneanlion "Just because".
Its a phrase used to mean "No reason given", or "Just because they wanted to do that", or "For fun", or "done simply because they could do it".
@@lerneanlion They saw weakness in the Byzantines and decided to exploit it for territorial gain. Nothing incomprehensible about that.
@@jasonbelstone3427contemporary Christian sources do not even describe the conquests as religious. They describe the Arabs as “Ishmaelites”, “Tayyaye” and “Saracen”, all of which means Arab. There’s very little reference to Islam or Muslims in the Coptic and Syriac sources like John of Nikiu and John bar Penkaye; it seems that Christians understood them as godless heathens that God sent to punish them. So yeah, you’re correct.
1:36 Dome of the rock , Jerusalem Occupied Palestine
Massive Respect bruh ✋🏽
Allah says he gave Israel to the Jews and no other nation. How else would it be possible for Israel to exist despite the opposition of 1.5 billion Muslims.
@@drmodestoesqThere is nothing divine about creation of the state of Israel. In short WW2, money, British and zionism.
Always love watching your videos!
in Türkiye we also use rivayet, but I am not sure if usage is same
Great account and comparison of the modern historical method and its application to different historical contexts! I cannot help but hope, considering your background (no pun intended) that you'd make a video on Jadididsm in the Russians Empire and during the Communist Revolution.
Shükran for your informative work. You approach may upset a lot of pitchfork villagers, but the majority of Muslims can see your engaging and respectful approach in popularizing the topic of Islam snd bringing it to the masses in a positive and productive light.
Just saw Farid's reaction video and he has absolutely demolished your arguments.
Idk who that is but I'll check it out. Thanks.
@@AlMuqaddimahYT You should have a livestream with him discussing this topic rather than staying in your echo chambers
ruclips.net/user/liveYhoGlTNLOsQ?si=_1WR524lfQRlRS3R
@@AlMuqaddimahYTFarid responds is the channel name
@@arifshoeb6177 correction: 'fake humbleness' he uses LIBERAL and secular point of view to paint a narrative on RELIGIOUS places and people .. being 'fake humble' is to paint himself as a scholar lol if u can't see the agenda while he blatantly tell it to your face then there's something wrong with you.
@@arifshoeb6177slapped by truth is better than kissed by lies/ignorance.
Your work is appreciated and needed!
I don’t mind that secularist, try to explain or analyze something, under their own perspective, but we can be sure that in the Muslim case they try to dismiss our sources while telling us to accept theirs, y personally read both, and I realize that their point of view is not universal truth, as well of our point of view might not be enough for secularist, and it’s ok. The point is, I’m not learning Islam from a non Islamic, and I’m not learning about secularism from a conservative, I’m Muslim and I take Muslim sources to learn, that’s it.
please don’t use the term “islamist”. its a wesstern zioss coined term.
@ I already edited brother.
Learning Islam and learning history are entirely different things. He criticizes using Hadith el bukhari as a historical text uncritically, as a religious text other standards apply.
@عبدالرحمنعبدالله-ز4م And? Do Muslims really lack the self awareness to recognize they have strong biases in their own records just like literally everyone else? Especially in their religious traditions?
So you choose sources that 'so-and-so' said over texts and sources that have been deeply scrutinised in each of its steps of transmission and preservation?
I understand the arguments against using it as “the” source and taking it at face value. But isn’t completely disregarding hadith also throwing away good information? Isn’t taking it as “a” source with right amount skepticism it deserves a better approach than throwing it away wholesale?
It’s truly disheartening to see how closed-minded and brainwashed most Muslims have become. I really appreciate your perspective and the way you articulate your points in your videos. So much so that I want to share this with everyone I know. I hope it can help open minds, encourage understanding, and foster love between people despite their differences. I truly think this is the best video you’ve ever made up to this point. Please ignore all the noise and keep enlightening us! Your work is thorough and impactful in an extremely important way. Thank you so much! Your brother from Calgary.
Sahih Bukhari was 600,000 Hadith and he threw out 99.7% of them as false.
The Romans Aztecs and Chinese had millions of first-hand accounts. Hadith is nothing but 4th-6th hand accounts.
Hadith are overwhelmingly authored by Israelis. The JEWISH TALMUD is the #1 source of Fabricated Hadith.
Hadithists made Prophet Muhammad a p*** hile, homosexual, war criminal so they could have excuses to do every evil.
Cope and seethe
The most relible methodology of passing on quotes, events and knowledge aka hadith is not reliable but random sources of quotes, event and knowledge which we have built the early history on is reliable because western academia said so. You wouldn't take a hadith with a strong chain that goes back to the Prophet(pbuh) but you would take a random rock with some carvings that takes about an event. What is the difference between the two? One is accepted by the West as a source other isn't. Go make tawba, think like a Muslim, act like a Muslim. Unsubscribed.
Saying "prophet Muhammad" without sending salutations upon him is miserly. Peace and blessings upon him.
One of the telling signs of a jahil
The peoppe of his time literally did the same they called him nabi or rasul they did not add any pbuh infront. He is doing the same prophet is the same as nabi he os basically saying "nabi muhammad" any further salutations such as saw are not needed
@eshaal1239 How dare you speak about this religion and its people without knowledge. It was narrated from al-Husayn ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “The miser is the one in whose presence I am mentioned and he does not send blessings upon me.” Narrated and classed as hasan by at-Tirmidhi (3546); classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Sunan at-Tirmidhi.
May Allāh deal with you for speaking about His Messenger ﷺ without knowledge.
What do you mean by "Al-Bukhari's work is religious in nature, not historical?"
Imam al Bukhari collected historical events (sayings and actions) of the Prophet (Peace be upon Him) from trustworthy companions using very strict criteria. "This is what the Prophet (Peace be upon him) said and this is what he did and here is my evidence."
If you want to know what really happened during the Prophet's time with so much accuracy, you can't ignore Bukhari. You can disagree with the authenticity of some Hadith but ignoring Bukhari altogether is just plain ignorance.
Your statement also assumes that since Bukhari was religious in nature, it can't be an accurate historical account. I don't know where you came up with this logic. Bukhari was just collecting information from companions who met the Prophet (peace be upon him) or had information linking to the Prophet (peace be upon him). And since we're obliged as Muslims to take whatever the Prophet conveys, then yes it also becomes religious in nature.
The "strict criteria" was things like never missing a prayer and paying his zakat, and he used centuries old records and oral traditions to "verify" that about long dead narrators in his chains. You can't even verify this stuff in modern times let alone back then. It's not a criteria a modern historian would take very seriously.
Muslim and Bukhari did the best they could with what they had at the time, but we're not obligated to pretend their logic is flawless.
@@tesso.6193 sorry to say but your comment displays ignorance on the subject matter.
One, your assumption of someone practising their religion would make his account untrustworthy? Is that your argument? Shouldn't it be the opposite?
Would you rather trust someone who doesn't believe in God or the hereafter to tell you the truth or someone who knows there's accountability in the hereafter if he/she lies?
Two, you said he used centuries-old records? Where do you even come up with this?
Here was his 4 Main Key Criteria for compiling Sahih Hadith
1. Integrity of the Narrators (Adalah):
The narrators must be known for their integrity and moral uprightness. This criterion was assessed through their daily behaviour and character, as even minor indiscretions could disqualify them from being considered trustworthy. This is called Ilm-Al rijal, "The knowledge about the men."
He had to know who the narrators where before even paying attention to their narration.
And yes religious people tend to be more trustworthy than non-religious people.
2. Knowledge and Memory:
Narrators needed to possess a profound understanding of Islamic teachings and a strong memory. Their ability to accurately memorize and convey hadith was crucial, with scholars providing assessments of their capabilities.
3. Complete Chain of Narration (Isnad):
A hadith must have a complete chain of narrators without any missing links. Each narrator in the chain was required to have met the others, ensuring continuity and reliability in transmission.
4. Meeting of Consecutive Narrators:
It was essential that consecutive narrators in the chain had personal interactions, which helped eliminate uncertainties regarding the authenticity of the transmission. This specific requirement distinguished Bukhari's methodology from that of other scholars, such as Imam Muslim.
I advice you to watch Farid's reaction of this video here: ruclips.net/video/YhoGlTNLOsQ/видео.html
@@dr.saidsaid I must saw I love how much intelligence is revealed by claiming my comment displays ignorance, then pulling a complete strawman from your imagination and arguing against it.
When did I say being religious makes one untrustworthy? Complete desperation to play victim me thinks. In one or two comments you'll be shouting "orientalism" at the clouds.
Neither being religious nor non-religious makes one more inherently trustworthy. But practicing Islam according to hadith logic is the criteria, which isn't valid by modern standards.
For instance, we do no treat contemporary non-muslim sources as inherently invalid unlike hadith ""science"". Nor do we judge by what *people* say someone's character (read: visible religious behaviour) is. Their political and economic position is a far far better indicator of bias than alleged piety.
"religious people tend to be more trustworthy than non-religious people" is something valid only in an alternate dimension or the imagination of bigots because in real life, some of the cruelest most fascistic and corrupt people tend to be religious.
You're against the video's argument not because you have something intelligent to add, but because you're religiously biased but demand the world treat your religious bias as a perfect objective standard. You demand undeserved validity for arguments convincing only to people who hold your religious bigotry.
Bro you're inviting angry comments with that Thumbnail and Tittle😭
The real elephant sized room you didn’t mention: if Shi’a don’t take hadiths from companions like Uthman, then why do they take his compilation of the Quran? Doesn’t that defeat the point you’re trying to make? Just because Shi’a don’t agree doesn’t mean their stance is correct to disagree
Shias do take objections with the Uthmani Mashaf. They believe that he left out parts of it. Anyhow, the point wasn't that. The point was that al-Bukhari's work is religious in nature, not historical. If we take it into account, like you said, Shia sources don't agree with it and we'll have to leave those aside. I'm not raising a question on al-Bukhari. I'm just saying that a specific group of people, including myself, don't use it for historical research.
@@AlMuqaddimahYTI wouldn’t use it for historical research either to present to a non-Muslim audience. So my disagreement is not total. Specifically because I wouldn’t expect a non-Muslim to accept Muslim sources. However, there is great authenticity to bukhari with regards to his methodology. With regards to Uthman’s mushaf and the Shi’a, the Quran says it is complete and unchanged, so the Shi’a who don’t fully accept it are irrational.
Take that up with a Shia, lol. But yeah, I wasn't calling Bukhari inauthentic. Just that for the purpose of my research, I disregard it for the given reasons.
@@AlMuqaddimahYT No problem. I just thought the shia/sunni comparison would mislead people into thinking that just because the two groups disagree that they're both equally incorrect in this matter. In truth, only one is incorrect.
I think this way that you trying to do is Ibn Kaldon way but it dont workl@AlMuqaddimahYT like that you need a ground to stand on
So Shia is not a good ground bc they have no Quran or hadith that they pass down and if you look in any thing in there you can disprove it
And they were literally just few men in most of them history.
But you can ask awar enemy like Jew or shrstns
But the the new few week sect
U consdr there point? That is not good for me
I use to think the same way when I was a young teenage confused in modernity until I started to take the path of study seriously and got introduced to some of the greatest muslim scholars who are also great historian the like of Dr Umar Faruq Abdallah who is a master of modern history and their methodology....I know how it feel brothers. You try to make sense of islam in front of your computer withtout any real master able to answer your questions and take you by the hand and you've been breathing the air of modernity since so young that it is almost impossible to see it as an "un-neutral" construct and you come across all those modern books presenting Islamic scholars of pre-modernity as these "naive" religious scholars relying on "piety" without any real sources to counter these arguments because you did not have access to the grest masters of the islamic tradition (who most of them are not translated in english). Brother, from the depth of my heart: If you search for Allah, He will open your heart to the path of deep knowledge and you will laugh while remebering this video in the future....Trust me.
The example of Sayidna Abu Hurayra (may Allah be pleased with him) as being critisized by modern male/female scholars as a proof of Sunnis not agreeing on Sahih Al Bukhari is just TOO SYMBOLIC of the mind set I'm talking about. I know because I went though that while a young man trying to make sense of islam "on my own". No Sunnis disagreed on Him before colonization. He is critisized by "MODERN MUSLIMS" who have been completeley drowned by modern paradigms (which they don't even study nor understand) from their youngest age and are incapable of understanding: what is modernity and why it is ontologically inconsistent and flawed. Because of that, they are trying to "adapt" islam to the modern paradigm. As an example. According to the modern paradigm, the only moral framwork is liberalism that declares that the individual should be completely free to do what he wants without harming others. Because of that, the idea that a Muslim father could marry his daughter without her daughter's permission is considerered immoral by modernity...Of course, these "modern" muslims are then trying to desperately find a way to say that all these scholars (ex: in the Maliki or Shafii Madhab) were immoral and that they "misunderstood islam" (while most those modern critic never even studied a book on logic!) but the truth is that they don't have really analysed the ontological roots of this "liberal ideas" and the truth is that modernity have absolutely no capacity at all in affirming it. It is a a purely subjective framework that has no basis but it has been taken for granted by the whole world (muslims included) because those who propagated it WON THE MILITARY FIGHT against all the non-modern civilisations. As the last Caliph of the Ottomans, Shaykh Mustafa Sabri, who engaged in the critique on modern ontology said: "They mistook a martial victory for an intellectual victory".
The Resume my brother is that the reason you adopted this point of view is because you adopted the "modern paradigm" without having studied it's critique and your main goal right now should not be focusing on history (even though it is important) but your main goal should be studying islamic philosophy from the point of view of muslim Scholars who engaged in the critique of modernity. This will open you the doors to understand why modern historians have a limited paradigm and why the traditionnal islamic paradigm (including hadiths science) is holistic and coherent. I can help you with connecting you with such great Scholars if you want (please send me an email: sami.maaroufi.333@gmail.com). I highly recommend you to connect with the teachings of great muslims scholars who are mastering the modern history framework like Khalid Yahya Blankinship or Dr Umar Faruq Abdallah, Tim Winter and others. Even non-muslim Scholars who rejects modernity and affirm islamic Worldview like Dr Wael Hallaq might be of great benefit in this journey. Again, focus your attention on modernity and it's critique before engaging in a subject that implies that modernity is right (like here in the question of oral narrations from the point of view of modern history). I wish you the best brother. May Allah bless you always!
Great video. An interesting tidbit: Buddhism also actively encourages people to question it, to never accept anything at face value but meditate on it and intellectually analyze it first. Informed allegiance over tradition. Sadly, most do not actually do so nowadays due to traditionalism.
That's probably why India's Ambedkar and his Dalit acolytes converted to Buddhism instead of Sikhism or Islam.
Just 'meditating' on something in your own head is not enough either because your head is a limited space. You gotta go out there, discuss it with people and test it against an objective reality.
"That's a bit complicated." Ah yes, the classic historian at a party response
How can you discredit Abu hurayra's narrations simply because he some of what he narrates hurt some overly emotional feminists' feelings as if they look at history in a objective way. Bit disingenuous that
Very interesting analysis! Thank you.
These comments prove again why our countries are not moving forward. Instead of being critical of narrations and writings, take every script seriously and make takfir on anyone who wants to be historically accurate
Are you Shia?
@@alexssander118Yes Alhamdulillah Akhbari Shitte
Aren't you shias who run to make takfir on he rashidun caliphs?!
And jumping to say "why our countries" is very generalised, and shows your tight mentality. There's no one silver bullet reason or answer whatsoever, just like there's no single one way muslims can rise.
economical and scientifical development = rejecting traditional sources regarding what happened 100 years after the hijrah.
Yup, there you go
@@Ilt08 as an akhbari shii, i call upon you to be critical on your narrations. Do you know about the babs? That supposedly communicated with the mahdi? Doesnt really hold up to scrutiny
@AlMuqaddimahYT
Please don't be disheartened by the 'traditionalist' comments. There is a huge need in Muslim communities for free thinkers like you. We are all learning here and having perspective, especially when it comes to history, for a more nuanced discussion, critique of sources is absolutely necessary, including what people consider fundamental to their belief.
Traditionalists love to place Hadith as a second to the Quran and use scare tatics to say denial of Hadith is a denial of a command of the prophet.
Thats why they go up in arms about your thumbnail, Please don't change it.
Alas, had you shown this loyalty that you shown to Western Academicia (which is nothing but filled with bias n filth) to Allah n his Rasool.
@abdulbasith5152
You might like your horse blinders on, I prefer having a wider perspective and I am happy to find like minded people like in this video.
Muslim History unfortunately is full of politically motived 'religious' factions, if anything the original difference between Sunnis and Shia starts with a political dispute.
These strands of Islam that we see today are all mutations of those early corruptions on both sides. And the mutations we see are all based on interpretations or selective references to 'prophetic' sayings.
The exaggerated affinity is just a hooliganist approach to something that actually deserves an academic analysis.
@MehmoodEqbal I am Sorry, I assumed you to be a Muslim and hence made the Comment. But I did not know you are an athiest. From an Athiestic perspective ya sure you can have these delusions n doubts about everything except your intellect which you worship as your God but from a perspective of a believer we adhere to what Allah has sent through his Messenger. Deny any part of it is an act of Kufr or renders one disbeliever. But Since you already don't been to be inside the Circle of Islam I suggest you to read about Islam, prophet, and ponder the purpose of this life. And Insha Allah you will be guided. No hatred just a Naseehat!
@@MehmoodEqbal I am Sorry, I was thinking that you were a Muslim and hence replied that way. I did not knew you were an athiest, one who worships his fallible intellect as his God. So I understand that you are bound to have this athiestic doubts n delusions. But for us Muslims we believe in whatever Allah n his Rasool has said, rejecting any part of it is Kufr/renders one a disbeliever. But I understand that argument wouldn't suffice for you coz you clearly don't appear to be in the Islamic ring. So for you, I suggest you to read about Islam, ponder the purpose of Life and hopefully Allah will guide you. Insha Allah.
@abdulbasith5152
Your opinion of what makes a Muslim is irrelevant, it's laughable at best.
The Takfiri approach is all that represents you and your beliefs.
You are all the same. Listen to a few "scholars" and parrot the same opinions, and if your Imam or "Rabbi" is being disagreed with then your arguments would only be questioning the other sides creed and Iman.
No difference between you lot and the people of the book: "They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of Allah" (9:31)
24:35 bro is the absolute goat
Absolute murtad
The Qur'an and authentic hadiths have higher standards of reliability compared to any classical secular history. Would love to see this guy discuss with Muhammad Ali the Muslim Lantern on this issue.
Could you provide an example? (Genuinely curious )
Farid would be the best
@@ezrafriesner8370 look up ilm rijal, it's a part of hadith sciences. Watch Sheikh uthman ibn farooq, farid responds, Muhammad ali explain why islamic testimonies standards of hadith are far superior than any other classical history.
Farid Responds casually destroyed you
You mean Gangu Teli ?😂
This was poorly done. I understand the desire to be nuanced but false equivalencies and multiple statements that are either inaccurate, exaggerated, or falsely implied isn’t what I’ve come to hope for from this channel.
If you actually wanted to produce good content on the concerns you have about the traditional methodologies - you should’ve had an interview with somebody that has a background in Ilm al Hadith. Would’ve been so much better than just listing out your own misunderstandings on the issue…
With all due respect Muqaddimah you heavily rely on western studies on Islam and you are not even well versed in Arabic and can't access the original sources. So let's not be disingenuous and say this chamnel is scholarly its not though is it
Edit: the way he speaks about Hadith tradition makes me cringe this is why a little bit of knowledge is dangerous, just like the other comment said this channel should be renamed to *Al-Orientalism* 🤷🏾♂️
its sad to see muslim who didnt understand basic arabic or go through traditional muslim education, bragging about muslim achievement in education like ibn khaldun
Allah yahdeena wa yahdeekum - Allah guide us and guide you Ameen Ya Rabb
Him rejecting Hadiths as a source because they aren't secular. I accept it. But non muslim historians have also said that the hadith science and the way of their preservation is the best that has been done in history.
Rejecting hadith just cause they are of a certain religion is absurd instead he should ,most probably he knows that how hadiths have been recorded. Rejecting them even though knowing it is ridiculous.
Aslam O Alikum Warhamatullahi Wabarakatuho, I saw your comment and was really curious for the Non-Muslim Historians saying hadith preservation is best to be done in history, can you give me the references and sources of this information, Jazak Allah khair Akhi!
@@zambagosibexone4735
Anti-Islam "EXPERT" Getting Frustrated
ruclips.net/video/r16uHLQPzeU/видео.htmlsi=wPD-y5D0qecNA42K
Yes it’s like rejecting the date is 2024 because the Catholic Church created the Gregorian calendar.
@@al-Huwariyun Islam is more about common logic (btw Rasool Allah S.A.W never used Islamic Calender)
I couldn't find a single non-Muslim historian that ever spoke favourably (for Muslims) about anything related to the compilation of Hadith.
In fact, it's quite the opposite, its looked at in the context of a 'politically motivated ideologic purge' in the few commentaries that even cared to mention this 'science'.
So, really curious to know, Which non-Muslim historians have said 'best' - 'preservation' about the hadith 'science'?
AL-Muqaddimah needs a name change, here's a proposal AL-Orientalism.
Critically analysing your own faith doesn’t make you an orientalist
"Critically analysing" by saying "AL Tabari". Someone critically analysed by reading transliteration.
Bru 😂
@@ezrafriesner8370this "Muqaddimah" guy can't even access the original sources in Arabic and has to heavily rely on western orientalist sources. So his channel should be renamed to "Al-Orientalism" 😂
@@arifshoeb6177how can you reject something when you don't even understand the source language?
I cannot begin to express how important it is to have more Muslims like you, who both have faith but also reason. You are my window into a rational Muslim world and history. I really appreciate your treatment of this topic and how well-reasoned it is. Whether it is right or wrong, is something everyone clearly has an opinion about--and as a non-Muslim, I am not going to be approaching this like them. What I respect is that you have a well considered and well-explained stand, and one that rings true to me as far as my knowledge goes.
He's not a Muslim
Even when I was Muslim, I saw an obvious flaw in hadith methodology. One of the criteria that scholars used to verify a hadith was that everyone in the chain of narration had to be Muslim. So that completely disregards a whole bunch of potentially significant information. But then you also realise that they have different ideas of who is a Muslim. Scholar A might think Jamal is a Muslim but scholar B thinks Jamal is a heretic and thus a disbeliever so he disregards that hadith. Another criterion is that each person in the chain has to be 'of good character'. I think the problem is pretty clear now
There isn't a religion that relies on outside sources regarding their practices and beliefs, at least knowingly. Your critique is irrational.
Secondly, narrators of hadith of Ahl sunnah didn't disagree on who wasn't a muslim and who was. You're making up a non existent scenarion in the field of hadith.
Murtads as usual have no clue what they're talking about.
Keep coping and seething, murtad 😂
Cope harder
I love how the intro is lowkey giving Crash Course vibes😁
A very good video, made from a rational thought process. Kudos man! Much needed.
I would like to say that the point you made in 15th minute goes both ways. Secularists would not even consider prophetic hadiths to be historically reliable or trustworthy because of their own bias( which is disbelief in God and prophets). They'd twist meanings of texts or would call them forgeries because they don't believe in prophethood of Muhammed(s .a .w) .
Just like Sinai 361 in 19th minute, the vast majority of secularists don't believe that it is an evidence for Moses's(a.s) existence because ....they themselves don't believe that he ever existеd
Unfortunately all scholars do have a bias, but Quranic scholarship is pretty tame, since scholars don't really entertain whether something supernatural happened or not, they just focus on the things we can actually infer, for historians whether the Qur'an is the word of God isn't as important as knowing whether Muhammad and his followers thought it was. We can leave the question of God, scripture and so on to theologians. History is about us humans.
Also, many scholars are Muslims themselves, like Dr. Javad T. Hashmi. So the point isn't to be unbiased, but to gather enough people with different biases so they can keep each other in check while doing research.
People just do not care to watch the video and try to ubderstand his reasoning. All they care about it that he is not supporting hadiths here and hence they have to just go against him when he is totally reasonable in his views.
It's difficult to get the historic method across to a lot of Christians as well. Bart Ehrman has said, "History is not the past. History is what you can show."
stop comparing christianity to islam. big differences!
@@muslimresponse103 I'm not comparing Christianity to Islam. I'm making a statement about how some Christians have difficulty understanding and accepting the historic method. There is a big difference between that and comparing Christianity to Islam.
So glad I found your channel
09:00 so what abu hanifa said was correct. we do not take words from people just because they are pious.
I read an article in high school and then again for a college class about the historical method which brought up the example of a late 19th century French historian who was an advocate for the idea of "objective" history. However, it is very clear in hindsight how his interpretations of history were informed by his own biases as a result of the society he lived in. Specifically, he argued for the continuity of pre-germanic institutions in France after the fall of the western Roman empire. It is easy to surmise why a laye 19th century Frenchman would wish to downplay the role that germanic speaking peoples had in the origin of French civilization. Sadly the facts of history don't "speak for themselves". They have to be exposited by biased human researchers
And again, Farid has given an adequate refutation to your point without appealing to religion, just pure history.
lol imagine thinking that clown can refute anything, a wannabe neophite that lacks academic education and is too stupid to say there's no evidence of the supposed spliting of the moon because everyone was sleeping at night hahahahahaha
It is clear that most of the negative commenters did not watch the video and/or misunderstood it's point.
There is historical truth and religious truth. You can use a hadith for either it's religious injunction or its historical utility. Syawish is not invalidating all Hadith as historical sources, he is just distinguishing their use for trying to be a better muslim, and their use to figure out what actually happened in the early Islamic era.
Critics of Syawish are re-hashing purist litmus tests to argue that he is not a "correct Muslim" or a "kaffir". The problem with this approach, as with all fundamentalist beliefs (whether Muslim or not), is that Muslims do not agree themselves on who a "correct" Muslim is. If they did, why would there be Shias? Why would there be four different Madhabs? Why would Salafists movements by fighting each other in places like Afghanistan.
Syawish's title is just a clickbait that all RUclipsrs need to do to please the almighty algorithim (Peace be Upon Zuckerberg). It does not mean, however, that he is a bad muslim, or a biased historian. All approaches to history may be biased, but at least the historical method trys to fight that bias. And it succeeds much more often than its opponents.
Syawish, great video as always!
I was trained as an Islamic scholar but also I’m a history aficionado. This video is spot on!!! One of the best videos I’ve watched.
Muqaddimah challenge you to debate muslim lantern.
This is very good video, thank you so much.
Love the topic, and my rule of thumb is if a Hadith, words of man, does not align the Qur'an, the definitive word of God, then it must be questioned and doubted on. However if they truly do align with the Qur'an then we can safely say they are truly Sahi.
Al Bukhari was a central asiatic man of persian culture who lived hundreds of miles away from the places the things he's narrating happened and two centuries after the stuff he is claiming was said.
I loved this video, I think you did an amazing job explaining everything (but, also can see how those who were raised in a tradition with no separation between historic and religious scholarship might not be willing to hear what you're saying), but it did make me feel sad thinking about how many frustrating comments you must get all the time... So I just wanted to comment and say I always appreciate your thoughtful, thorough research, as well as your well-articulated insights into the internal social, political, and sectarian tensions and debates within the Muslim world
Thank you. This video was an attempt to tell people that there's various criteria for looking at history, one that include traditions and ones that don't, but people aren't willing to listen, I guess.
@@AlMuqaddimahYTNo, its just that you people are BLINDED by SECULAR LIBERAL IGNORANCE and are pushing illogical and irrational ramblings and rants in guise of Academic Discourse.
This tactic is typical for Liberal lapdogs like you ,you lied abt quran, prophet,hadith,islam as a whole and non existent lgbt*"
in Caliphates.
What people need to understand is that faith and religious sentiments are different from actual history. There have been things that occurred throughout Muslim history that we simply don't want to accept just because they do not align with our beliefs. I think he is trying to portray this point because if he picks up the source or argument of one Muslim group, then the other sect will come up with a rebuttal. Instead, he tries to find a neutral source with no inclination toward any religious group, and that's a fair way to assess the history IMO.
Do not unsubscribe from this brother
His whole channel is a larp. If he wants to be secular and against religion then his channel should reflect that. Have a regular name, don't have this Arabic calligraphy stuff. He makes himself out like he and his channel is Mr. Muslim and then he exposes himself in 4k.
I did. Chubs is a clown
The traditions you've been taught to clutch onto dearly as your fathers and teachers have been taught to clutch are demonstrably, historiologically unsound, and you have difficulty coping with it, so you call those who present a sounder position "larps" (whatever in the world that means in this case) as an anemic means of discrediting them, but had you the actual knowledge necessary to engage, you would have actually engaged, and you evidently couldn't.
And when it is said to them: “Follow what God has sent down,” they say: *_“Nay, we will follow that upon which we found our fathers,” - even though their fathers did not reason, nor were they guided?_*
(2:170)
And if thou obey *_most of those upon the earth,_* they will lead thee *_astray_* from the path of God; they follow only assumption, and they are *_only guessing._*
(6:116)
Those are the proofs of God; We recite them to thee in truth. Then *_in what narration after God and His proofs will they believe?_*
(45:6)
And whoso *_judges not by what God has sent down,_* it is they who are the *_hypocrites._*
(5:44)
@@محمدالامريكي-ج9م exactly
@@محمدالامريكي-ج9م Is arabic calligraphy only for muslims?
I think you should make a video that explains your personnal religious belief to shut the controversies as your vids are really good and a good source for muslims also
From a 'western' academic perspective surely criticising hadith is part of the game, but some of the points you raised are not really accurate in my opinion. You mentioned feminists not agreeing with Abu Huraira's transmissions, but since when is a modern western tradition like feminism a criterium for the historicity of narrations? This in itself is problematic as this is a form of 'orientalism'. Also the fact that reports might be contradictory or not agreed upon is only more reason for historians to include them and point out the different viewpoints. You also didnt touch upon the fact that hadith studies is a field in and of itself in the islamic sciences with many different standards and methodologies being applied. To leave out that field as orientalist scholars in the past have done by dismissing it on grounds that it is biased, is a biased claim itself and is implying it being inferior or less accurate.
Feminism is not a modern western tradition, though. Feminism is merely about women wanting equal rights and we've had women wanting equal rights throughout the world. I didn't say that I agreed with their tradition, I didn't say anything of that sort. Just that there's criticism on him. There's no "orientalism" involved there. Plenty of Muslim scholars have questioned parts of the Hadith canon. It's a religious canon, it's not a historical canon, it's to be left to the religious scholars.
@@AlMuqaddimahYT"feminism is merely about women asking for equal rights" such a naive statement, not considering the genealogical progression of feminism. You have already accepted and internalized key tenets of modernity which you take at face value without any scrutiny. You said plenty of traditional scholars had criticized the hadith canon, quoting Albani and so. The reality is that only 26 chain if narrations are criticized by Imam Dar Al-Qutni and even less than 10 by Imam Al-Albani.
@@AlMuqaddimahYT Nobodies falling for the sly way you're introducing doubt to these sources. Your replies in this comment section are basically summed up by saying "I didn't say I agree with it, I just disregard the sources because of it". On this particular point, scholars criticise everything that's their job, without mentioning the specific criticisms you're doing your an argument a disservice and as for the point of feminists, I don't know why in the world you thought criticism from this strand of modernism brings any credibility to the argument which can essentially be summed up as "Feminists think Abu Hurayra is misogynist based on modern secular standards so we disregard/discredit his reports".
The feminist criticism is that abu hurayra's narrations seem particularly biased against women and the unlikelihood of him memorizing thousands of hadiths in the 3-4 years he knew the prophet (hardly just their criticism).
The criticism is bias and the questionable time span, not that they "disagree with him therefore false". Bias is pointed out all the time by people studying historical text and isn't some gotcha. It's "orientalism" that's used maliciously here to give undeserved validity to texts that would be questionable in any other context. Basically someone shouting racism whenever he finds an opposing view point.
You bring up a great point that I myself have been trying to tackle. It seems that anytime we look back on our own history and attempt to be critical or logical, we instead are labeled as innovators who would distort the religion. This is far from the case for those who enjoy and love history. The goal is, as you said, to find a truth without mixing it with our religious sources, as that only discredits and muddies our theories and narration to those that are not of our faith. It is also for us to hold the Ummah, whether past or present, accountable in what was written. We are human and it is okay to look back and see whether certain people or events had an agenda to pursue. The Abbasid Revolution is a clear example of when the historical narrative was likely greatly shifted against the Umayyads, making it difficult for us to trust certain sources from that time. These things must be taken into account if we are to better understand ourselves and how we got here. To self-criticize only makes us stronger as a community and helps us refute those who would actively besmirch our religion and our history.
Honestly, id have no problem if this position you've taken was based on sound knowledge and research, but you don't seem to even understand the basic classifications and methodologies of the islamic historical process. Also, some of the reasoning that you provide is strangely illogical such as Shia perspectives somehow disqualifying the Sunni corpus as a reliable historical source! For that reason alone I will unsubscribe as it places doubt in my heart as to the veracity or reliability of all your content.
Fantastic video
You brought up a bunch of basic considerations in history like exaggeration, lying, bias, and so on like it was something revelatory, implying Muslim scholars hadn't already taken these things into consideration.
You present Sahih Bukhari as if it was a text compiled by some random guy that everyone just decided to accept as reliable for absolutely no reason whatsoever. Imam Bukhari's text is so widely accepted and praised exactly because its ahadith are meticulously filtered for authenticity. This is more than can be said about some Western academics who routinely make use of unreliable and unverified historical sources, while simultaneously acknowledging it. All you did was throw around concepts and terms in order to put down and belittle Muslim scholarship. This wasn't an academic or serious critique; it was a smear.
Your problem with ahadith and Muslim scholars (actual Muslim scholars and hadith experts, not "Muslim" Javed's orientalist work published by Cambridge) is that ahadith attribute statements to the Prophet ﷺ that you simply don't like. You don't like what the authentic corpus says about homosexuality, hudood (punishments), marriage, and all those other things that are sensitive issues for you "liberal Muslims" that like to play loose and fast with the religion.
literally nothing to do with what he says this is not a theology channel but a historical one
@@hamoodhabibiOTMI Your man literally attempts to make a historical critique of sahih hadith collections. The beliefs of Islam stem from the statements of the Prophet ﷺ, which are recorded as history. You don't even know what you're talking about.
I haven't watched the video yet, but please be careful and try to don't label our brother in faith as this or that. If you think he's somewhat mistaken about his view, then please make Dua for him.
@@ZZ-qd9zc Your "brother in faith" claimed that secular historians will deal with the subject matter in a fair manner and that he doesn't trust the "traditional" scholarly literature. He has more trust and respect for non-Muslims hell-bent on destroying Islam than he does for scholars of his "own" religion. I have 0 respect for people like this guy.
May Allah ﷻ guide him or silence him and everyone like him for good so that the Muslim Ummah is saved from their brainrot.
@@thesalafislav Ameen
25:25 "the only favors i get are from video game companies"
i had a flash nightmare of a raid shadow legend ad roll on your channel
shias shouldn't be taken seriously
The level of strictness involved in classifying a Hadith as Sahih is far greater than the scrutinization of any historical book, historical books don't need to undergo rigorous authenticity checks