Hello, friends. Dr. Shadee ElMasry is incredibly popular and even had a team of students fly out for the debate, which is impressive and shows the dedication of his students to him. However, it is unfortunate that they are spamming the UA-cam comments. This is, of course, not to be unexpected. I had the same thing happen with Robert Spencer's followers after I debated him. Spencer has 20x as many followers as Dr. Elmasry. Thankfully, truth is not based on popularity. In any case, all I ask is that you maintain a minimum level of courtesy in the comments. Thank you.
Just in case you didn’t know the Shahada including Muhammad Rasulallah is in the Quran. So how can you say it was decades after the Quran when it’s in the Quran? 😂
Spamming? Having back and forth conversations isn’t necessarily a bad thing. P.S. Enjoy your 5 seconds of fame as this is probably the most interaction you’ll be getting for a while.
1:51:27 Jawad scored an own goal. "Ibrahim was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but he was one inclining toward truth, a Muslim [submitting to Allah]. And he was not of the polytheists." So it's clear that Jews and Christians aren't Muslims.
That's a refutation of religious exclusivism actually. People are claiming that he belongs to x or y but God is saying no, he was someone who surrendered which is what Muslim is.
@@DrJavadTHashmi Muslims are those that follow the last message and messenger because the previous dispensations have been abrogated. The only Muslims are the followers of Quran and Sunna and the rightly guided Muslims are the majority group: the Sunnis. This is crystal clear. You're trying to include non Muslims as being part of the Muslims because you worry that nice people might go to hell shows that you just don't trust Allah to do the right thing, that you are right and know better than what our beloved prophet saws thought us. The tradition is correct no matter how much you dislike it. It will stand until the Last Day and your work will be erased from memory like a sand castle. You will need to answer to your Maker for trying to change His word. That's even if you don't truly believe in the depth of your heart because Believing means submitting and you clearly are a rebel. May Allah guide you and forgive you because you are truly on a wrong path.
Translation: “I knew which position to support before watching this debate. And I came out the same way, because it felt good” Let’s try to be more open-minded and actually consider what the other side was saying. Dr. Hashmi brought 10x as many verses & facts. Much of what Dr. Elmasry brought was assumption and appeal to tradition-which Jews & Christians also do (and which the Qur’an ironically condemns as a warning to us) If you can’t deal with Qur’an 3:113-115, 2:62, 5:69, and ESPECIALLY Sūrah 5:48 (among many others)-then you aren’t dealing honestly with the Qur’an. They are crystal clear. And our traditions have contradicted them, just as they contradict many other things clearly stated in the Qur’an. Salam.
So Javed's argument essentially boils down to: "It is ok to recognize the prophet Mohammed and still be jewish christian" Imagine God telling you "the scriptures have been corrupted, here is my final messenger, follow him" and your reply is "no thanks God, I'm good, what I have right here is enough to please you" what arrogance
But that isn't what God says ... so stop "imagining" for God. What says is the opposite, He tells them to establish the Torah and Injeel and if they DON'T then they are kaafireen. Because what they have is also from God. You seem to imagine it isn't.
@@omarabbasi2682 The same that were present in the Qur'an's time. God called them Torah and Injeel ... did God use the wrong names? Besides ... I doubt we'd agree on what they even are. The Injeel was not a "scripture" for example ... it was a teaching ... 'Isa wasn't given a worded scripture
Dr. Hashmi’s arguments were excellent and rational, Dr. Shadee’s points were more subjective, he lacks knowledge of Abrahamic sources and early Israelite theology, pseudepigrapha, apocalyptic literature, discrepancies in manuscripts that perhaps he doesn’t know about either. These things believe it or not are quite important, so any dogmatic claim that any institution makes is merely flimsy and subjective. Salam.
@@bhavinmehta1490 we don't need orientalists tools which are just recently came into existence whose findings are itself philosophical and not authentic for the approval of our transmitted authentic knowledge.... Thanks have a great day..
@@bhavinmehta1490 well said Bhavin, I am a muslim and I concur with you, though according to Dr. Shadee, I might be entering a completely new religion 🙂
Seeing all the comments here, even the Muslims living centuries ago were more curious and open to discussion than the Muslims of today. May Allah guide us away from being insecure about our faith, hopefully i will live to see a day where we can have full discussion about every aspect of our religion.
@@MiloBoz The Hadith are full of innovations. Quran says only 4 foods are prohibited. Hadith says a dozen or more. The Qur’an says don’t trust in intercessors, and unrepented major sins will be punished; the Hadith says the Prophet will be our intercessor for major sins. The Quran says it is the best & only Hadith, and there is nothing like it (Q 30:23 & 52:34); the Hadith says the Prophet allegedly claimed to be given the Qur’an and “something like it”. And the list goes on and on and on. Quran has very merciful laws, whereas Hadith is filled with harsh punishments that even contradict the Qur’an (such as lashing versus stoning, etc). It’s no wonder why so many people are apostating from Islam. I hate to see it, but unless we go back to the Qur’an there will be no change. ‘And the messenger will say: “My Lord! My people have abandoned the Qur’an!”’ (Qur’an 25:30)
It's only because of the generous academic spirit of many early Muslim ulema who transmitted opinions they didn't agree with that we are able to continue their legacy and question their conclusions.
@@paulthomas281 that is an idiotic and ignorant comment by every measure. Tell us Mr Thomas: what is a traditional Muslim Alim and how are they anti-human. Otherwise, retract your statement
@@paulthomas281 no one cares about your opinion. Are you the same Islamophobic guy who copy pastes some nasty comments against Islam under every other Islamic video?
When I first read the Quran 8 years ago I was astonished by so many of these verses that open the gates for potential salvation of those "who believe in God and do righteous deeds". A worldview that finally made sense - and so I embraced Islam, only to find out later, much to my irritation, the unexplicable insistence of the majority of muslims that infact it is only Muslims that go to heaven. Not only is that view in direct contradiction of the worldview that the Quran plainly illustrates to the unbiased reader, but it is a view completely detached from the reality on the ground, beyond scripture. Furthermore it robs Islam from its greatest strength and would inevitably lead to deep social fracture..
Javad Hashmi, thank you sooooo much. You just make sense to me. I’m afraid though the exclusivists are just too scared to face up to the truths and doubts you’ve articulated.
You must lack critical thinking.... clearly his reasoning was fallacious and appeal to traditional transmission which has been proven without a doubt over and over to be unreliable. The only evidence he put forth from the quran relied heavily on taking the verse out of context.
@@noorahamid3376 forget transmission, what about interpretation? All of a sudden some random western fool got it right? Please stop with this sophistry
@@omarabbasi2682 loll how did they get to their interpretations, if you read their own books you would see them citing transmitted information or tradition as precedent for abbrogation and interpretation. Also, it is clear that some of their interpretations and reasons for revelation were ahistorical, contradictory and incoherent from not only a large amount of physical evidence that prove that the narratives are not reflective of the actual context but also other historical evidence so at some stage we've got to stop idealising their understanding and be as critical as we are to other religions and actually be in search of truth and not just ohh they live 200 years closer to the prophet so they know more and they're just as smart etc This is just fallacious reasoning and does not count as good evidence at all. If people want to argue for earlier scholars' conclusions then they really have to prove how their methodology is sound and how it accounts and regulates for bias, reliability, contradiction to physical evidence, it's weakness and strength etc. Then we can compare that methodology with the methodology of historical, critical scholarship and find out which is more reliable.
Assalam-o-Aleykum, As someone who doesn't like to be labeled (modernist, sufi, literalist), I commend these two men, who are both (I think so) Muslims. There will always be debates and disagreements. However, from my experience, the important thing is to see what brings us together before seeing what divides us. Having said that, it was a really nice debate. It comes from a man like me, who was more educated in a literalist setting (Salafi, Ahl-e Sunnah), who was drawn to mysticism (Sufi) and who admired the thinking skills of the academics of the West (modernists & liberals). I'm not taking a position, but I take that there was a debate, an interesting debate, with two speakers, two charismatic scholars and also a sympathetic and professional moderator. As we say, Masha'Allah. May peace & blessings of Allah, al-Azeem, be upon you, dear reader.
Well sister it is necessary or duty that Rightly guided scholars ulema rebuke and defeat the misguidance of Astray people. As-selam alaykum warahmatullai wabarakatuhu
I'm 75% into the debate, but i feel a deadlock has occurred. The intellectual exerter, Hashmi, coming at the question from a real world contemporary problem-solving perspective i believe, runs up against the bulwark of Islamic traditionalism, with no intellectual commitment except to reproducing a received wisdom. The responses from Almasri were all stereotypical and clearly not meant to intellectually rebuff Hashmi. Rather, they were intended more as posturing to the blind believers in the fan club gallery. Case in point: Almasri early on advances the stale argument that early Muslim scholars knew better, brushing aside and ignoring two hunded years of religious and political strife amongst those scholars and the central impact this might have had on core doctrines. When Hashni cleverly retorts by asking why Muslims do not afford Christians that same privelege - i.e. of uncritically accepting the doctrines of early Christian scholars - Almasri has no response. At that moment already the debate was over and settled in Hashmi's favour. Sadly though, Alazhari radiates a certain arrogance borne from complacency, laziness and his uncritical faithfulness to his religious indoctrination. The type of arrogance which the Prophet Muhammad himself painfully experienced from the Jews of Medina, who until their death, could not concede that anyone but a Talmudist could access truth. The irony is that, these uncritical defenders of extra-Quranic doctrines and traditions have genuinely run out of space in the Arab world, which is trapped in a painful political malaise borne from religious parochialism. They now gain a modicum of celebracy at western post modern identity driven institutions. Much like a homeless peasant on the streets of Rome, vaingloriously pretending to be an heir to mighty Rome and threatening an imminent return of Caesar! The dogs will bark but the caravan of intellectual emancipation must proceed. Thanks for the debate :) May Allah guide. Anwar Shaik Doctor of Education
@@ashaqhussain6902 he too is misguided just like the one he is admiring. He is the one who hates our master Abu Huraira R.A. These people, from our point of view, are a lost cause. Don't waste your time. Only Allah can guide.
Spot on. وَمَنْ يَبْتَغِ غَيْرَ الْإِسْلَامِ دِينًا فَلَنْ يُقْبَلَ مِنْهُ وَهُوَ فِي الْآخِرَةِ مِنَ الْخَاسِرِينَ And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, then it will never be accepted from him. And he will be amongst the losers in the hereafter. (Surah Ali Imran, 85).
Just finished watching it. I enjoyed it very much. I thought you both acquited yourselves well. It was dignified and respectful and you both presented your cases well.
Yes and Allah presents His case here... وَمَنْ يَبْتَغِ غَيْرَ الْإِسْلَامِ دِينًا فَلَنْ يُقْبَلَ مِنْهُ وَهُوَ فِي الْآخِرَةِ مِنَ الْخَاسِرِينَ And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, then it will never be accepted from him. And he will be amongst the losers in the hereafter. (Surah Ali Imran, 85).
Whenever you see someone doing a lot of stretching to try to convince people of his beliefs, run the other way. I'd say you should present yourself as having a PhD in the art of stretching rather than whatever you said you do. May Allah guide you or stop you from being a means of corruption, "Hashmi".
Dr. Javad was also wrong at 1:50:00, he cited that the chapter speaks about how "You will find the closest to the believers...are the Christians". True. But the verse also says that the most in enmity are the Jews and Polytheists. Now, if you're using this as evidence for a Pan-Abrahamic brotherhood, then how do you reconcile that the Jews are being likened to the polytheists? The verses only praises them AFTER they believe what was revealed to The Messenger? Overall, I don't find this thesis compelling.
Just watch the moderator’s smirk at 1:45:42 when Dr Shadee says “You pointed me to this verse, it wasn’t even a part of my argument.” Even he knows Dr Shadee just scored the FIFA World Cup final winning goal in the last seconds equivalent with that statement after quoting the verses that followed the one verse (5:69) Dr Hashmi is using 😂
He absolutely crumbled after that... "No Christian today says that God is the Messiah, No Christian today says Third of the Three" What is the worst part about this is that he said that this understanding makes the Quran look like it was written by an idiot. :0 Speechless
@@ryangyllenhammer He’s one of the cursed by Allah I’m afraid to say. The amount of times as Shaykh Elmasry mentions he blasphemes Muslims and even Christians is astounding to me. He doesn’t even know what he’s arguing.
@@ryangyllenhammer The Quran was not written by a single person but rather it is a collection of sayings by various people written, compiled, modified and then printed in book form. One of the reasons it has repetitions, contradictions and inconsistencies. It seems that the Quran wasn't thoroughly checked and proofread for its linguistics, dialect, diacritical markings, accuracy, timeline, narratives, headings and titles, contents, consistency, etc. and written down haphazardly and hurriedly to become the "best hadith", called it Allah's words and named it Quran.
وَمَنْ يَبْتَغِ غَيْرَ الْإِسْلَامِ دِينًا فَلَنْ يُقْبَلَ مِنْهُ وَهُوَ فِي الْآخِرَةِ مِنَ الْخَاسِرِينَ And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, then it will never be accepted from him. And he will be amongst the losers in the hereafter. (Surah Ali Imran, 85).
Dr. Shadee's Statement at 2:03:25 really is a synopsys of the whole debate I think. He a priori Rejects an argument if it leads to a conclusion that his traditionalist concious feels uncomfortable with. There is an utter unwillingness on his part to even read Donners work (or any work comong from western historical scholarship) if he feels his views will be questioned. Secondly it is very dubious that he would a priori reject archelogical evidenece that posesses inscriptions of the early shahada and simply brush it off by saying "the Religion has reached us via transmission" without speciffying what he means by transmission. What he means is oral transmission. Its very strange standard for evidence that he would prefer oral transmission of information over artefacts that can be reliable dated back to classical times.
@@fatimatuzzahra4036 Please don't try to take down the Quran to preserve Hadith. The Quran was committed to writing very early on, which was not the case with the Hadith. The two are totally different.
Standard neo-traditionalist approach. They need to confirm their ideology. They believe they're starting off correct so they don't need to learn anything, only refute everyone else.
Alright, for the sake of argument let's grant the proponents of the historicocritical their conclusions as far as ahadeeth go. Dr.Hashmi talked about "backcasting" anxieties relevant to the time of the people who built the hadith "sciences" but the problem is proponents of that method do the exact same thing, until recently introduced methods almost everyone who happened upon the religious sources missed the conveniently pluralistic, entirely compatible with modern definitions of Human rights, women's rights, democratic Islam that was occulted all along. I mean, again if we take your conclusions and accept that the hadith corpus was "backcast" anxiety then based on that critera alone, your conclusions fit the bill as well. I think that your theories might find much credit until this is adressed, i think it just might seem dishonest to most people regardless of your intentions.
What so he said the verses with obey the prophet is “oh you believe” is in the audience to already believing Muslims but also considers the “believers to include Jews and Christian’s . Which is it sir?
Shadee was representing the Null. The alternative hypothesis was Hashimi's. The latter had to present the case that is significant enough to deny the null..... A null which has been established for millennia. Hashimi's argument rests upon first creating doubt about this "establishment" so as to further solidify the potentiality of their being an alternative hypothesis to begin with. I.e., for people to question the very "established fact." Relying upon this, he pushes his case forward to provide, what is in his mind, the "right way"... as opposed to the "wrong" and "traditional" way of nearly every single reputable scholar leading up to today since the time of Muhammad ﷺ . Throughout the debate, "traditional" and "orthodoxy" which are inherently orientalist terms, are used by Hashimi in a derogatory manner. And this isn't necessarily his fault. These terms by their essence emerged so as to be derogatory and pejorative terms. They are colloquially synonymous with those who are "backwards." You will often find such words used in narratives that contain odium-drenched vituperations against groups that are demonized in the media. (Of course they're going to be derogatory seeing as this is the 21st century, he's a liberal, the debate is taking place in a post-modern and secular/liberal country, and "orthodoxy" is seen as something regressive.) Truly, it's not "orthodoxy." We don't need liberal, secular, scholars to define Islam. One is either Muslim or is not Muslim. Simple as that. But of course, the usage of such terms will remain because it delineates the difference between those that follow the "backwards, traditional" way and those that are the "enlightened" ones who are upon the "liberal, open-minded, all-accepting" way. The "otherizing" of a group and/ or groups, happens in all domains. What we merely saw here is this very concept. One that establishes a line and an "us vs them" dynamic. What it is however, is Islam vs "neo-Islam" or, at least the attempt at solidifying this "neo-Islam." Similarly with Christianity we saw the cheap liberal revisions they have done with their books, you best believe people will try the same with Islamic books. Ultimately this is Islam vs. non-Islam. Haqq vs falsehood. With all due respect, wa alikom al salam.
Very Solid take, Masha'Allah. What I have observed about all this "Academic Enlightenment" where even "Revisionist School" born; which is just a super Skeptic school of thought about Islamic History; is that it COMPLETELY FAILED TO DO THE THING TO ISLAM WHICH THEY DID TO CHRISTIANITY and Other Religions.(mainly Christianity) Alhamdulillah, Islam won and Insha'Allah, soon, we WILL SEE THAT what they consider as "Islamic Tradition" will become the UNDISPUTED/UNDOUBTED HISTORY even through secular lenses, Insha'Allah. Just wait and watch.
@@lucashughes8063 world wide tradition. The presumption that it was colluded upon out of fear of losing it is a fallacy and has no historical backing whatsoever. That was one of Javads weakest points
@@ryangyllenhammer Spot-on. Thanks for explaining to our jahil guest. Edit: Also note the palpable irony of Javad's conspiracy not having historical backing; even though he claimed he was approaching the topic from a historical-critical method.
@@ryangyllenhammer I don't see how "worldwide tradition" is any different than "tradition". It could be solar-system-wide tradition... It's still just that. Something outside Scripture.
I have just one question. 1. You will use non islamic early sources. 2. You will NOT use Hadeeth because it is not reliable. How anyone can say this as a muslim to prove anything for Islam side? In which universe we live? May Allah guide you. It is illogical how you even started with your rules for debates. Illogical 1/1
If you really want to learn more about the unrealiability of hadith, The Impactful Scholar has a fantastic interview with Dr. Joshua Little that goes through 21 points of why hadith should be assumed to be false unless there is a good reason not to.
@@kschacherer92 Dude you as him lack logic and honesty. Without these 2. I can consider u both mentally unstable or paid hadeeth rejectors who accept nonmuslim sources and rejects muslim sources. Which is illogical and some agenda is behind it.
@@techutopiareviews I wish you wouldn't assume i'm bad faith when you don't know a single thing about me. Again, if you are curious, feel free to watch the video. If not, no big deal! was just a suggestion. Long life and good health to you friend.
Hey Dr. Hashmi, is it true that Ahmad Jallad is a Muslim? You mentioned it around the 2:00:20 mark (and I believe you), but I’m just curious how you know? Thanks. Salam.
Dr Javad please do an after debate thoughts video. I feel like your position was convincing but the back and forth with the specific iyats needs contextualising and explaining eg them being in the Ummah, what is Kufr, what is m(M)uslim, i(I)slam
At one point in the debate you said it was possible that the quran is telling us that the people of the book maybe had to believe in the prophet ﷺ then went on to claim that they didn't have to. If they don't have to then my question would be as Dr shadee said: #1what do they have to believe in exactly for them to be considered righteous? #2 do the people of the book have to believe in the quran at all? And if they do then wouldn't that mean that they have to believe in the prophet ﷺ since he is the one who brought the book and also because the quran itself tells them to believe in him in many places like surah 3:31? If they don't have to believe in him then why does the quran tells them in many places that they have to do so like in surah 3:31 and in other places like surah bayyinah, the verses about the unlettered prophet in the torah and gospel that they have to believe? This view of yours is really strange to me personally and seems to be going against the quran itself and all of Islamic history.
Unfortunately he can’t answer this question without his argument falling into pieces. Surah Bayyinah verse 6 makes it clear that there are disbelievers within Jews and Christian’s. Now we know that being called a Jew and Christian presupposes that you believe in god, what is it that makes them disbelievers then, specifically from the people of the book? The answer is their disbelief in the prophet Muhammad ﷺ, which proves that you MUST believe in the prophet Muhammad ﷺ to be admitted into heaven.
@@omarabbasi2682 I wouldn't say that the word "Kafaro" means disbelievers. But I think Kufr, means more "to not care"/"carelessness". Basically, Kafir, is someone who does believe in God, but does not care.
@@omarabbasi2682 why does the verse say those who disbelieve from amongst the people of the book. So why is it classifying them into two groups when by their very nature jews and Christian's are disbelievers Where's the logic ?
I emailed you this a while back now but received no response, so hoping you answer it here as it seems to be problematic for your claims 1. Surah 98 this chapter begins by referring to the people of scripture as kafirun. why? if the "min" is used to mean only some of them, and not all, then how can that explanation apply the mushrikoon, as the "min" also applies to them in this ayah, hence it is in the genitive case due to the effect of this preposition: thus it is mushrikeen and not mushrikoon in this ayah. And unless you are saying that some mushriks can be muslim (in your and Fred's understanding) and others kafirs, then it makes little sense to claim this to explain this ayah here for the ahl al kitab. It makes more sense that kafir is the broad category containing many subcategories, and the subcategories here are the polytheists and people of previous scriptures. It grammatically would be like saying, of the global population, it is the french and the english that are most haughty. this would mean every french and english person in comparison to others, not some amongst them. so how do you explain this surah calling the people of scripture kafir? 2. Jesus pbuh the christians at the time of the Prophet pbuh and today ascribe divinity to christ, as co-equal and co-eternal with God the father. do you claim that the Quran is calling these people muslim, and that they have salvation? if tauhid is the most fundamental element in the Quran, or as Fazlur Rahman called it, the master truth, then how can this contradictory belief to it be reconciled with it?
Salam, A main question is that if someone complies with some matters of faith/iman and does not fullfill the others, should he then be considered as a kafir/rejector as a whole or just in the vacant points? Is the iman in Allah swt and the last day really a summary of all articles of faith as dr. shadee stated or are they an independent extension?
If someone rejects what is known in the religion by necessity (ma'lum min al-din bi al-darura), this is disbelief. Iman in Allah and the Last day includes what was specified in other ayat and ahadith... It is absolutely known in religion by necessity that belief in the Prophet ﷺ after hearing about his message is a condition to enter Jannah. If someone don't acknowledge this now... he/she will see it clearly upon the Sirat. We ask Allah to guide those trying to convince us of their doubts and to give us all afiya and salaama
@@ryangyllenhammer That statement is a creation of sectarian scholars. It has zero Qur'anic backing and each sect then gets to decide "what is known of religion by necessity" and include into that category, if they so choose, their own sectarian peculiarities ... whether that be that Sahaba are all righteous, or 12 Imams of Ahlul Bayt, or only Muslims go to Jannah, etc
On Judgment Day Allah has scales, your good is weighed against your bad. It is that simple, though one sin, deliberate murder of a person enjoying saftey, is irrevocably weighty, while others that would condemn can be relieved by tawbah (murder, zina, etc)
@@QuranicIslam @Qur'anic Islam first point: when discussing a topic you must agree on a definition. The Quran and Prophet ﷺ have clearly defined Islam for us. a definition has essential components to the thing being defined. When defining Islam, belief in the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ is undoubtably a essential component to the religion. Therefore, when you negate what is an essential component to the definition, you negate the entire concept. Hence negating belief in the Prophet ﷺ is negating belief in Islam. This is logic
Javad reminds me of the Protestants and Wahabis where anyone goes to the scripture devoid of scholarly structure and tradition. The excuse is “the scripture” or “Quran is clear” according to what they themselves interpret as being “clear” or “obvious”.
So ... the fact that the Qur'an itself says it is clear and also easy for dhikr means nothing To you? Why are you making it seem as if the claim of "clarity" is Dr. Javad's own invention? Btw ... the Protestants are closer to Islam (they at least don't worship Mary) and the Wahhabis only claimed to do that when in reality their understand was all centred on ibn Taymiyyah as even the brother of Muhammad bin AbdulWahhab noted in his book refuting his brother
And the twisting of the old books is not twisting of the word, it is the twisting of the definition of the word like "Son of God" can be twisted to mean something else. It means "The one with brings God's message", "The one cared by God", but the intepretation went "God is an entity, who has a child" etc which was basically incorporating the Roman Theology into the Jewish Theology. So many wars took place btw the Romans+Jews. Read about Jewish Wars and how it changed things. Hopefully you are reading all this, I am here to help, I have a bank of knowledge which is available for your disposal.
Dr. Hashmi never said don't follow the prophet Mohamed. I believe he's saying that there has been miss interpretation from the early teachings of the Koran and the prophet. Some of his examples sound convincing.
"Ibrahim was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but he was one inclining toward truth, a Muslim [submitting to Allah]. And he was not of the polytheists." 3:67
Great debate. Thank you. Islam is not in need of Western academics and historians. Why would Muslims accept the conclusions of academics but reject the Sayings of Muhammad? Allah Bless Him and Give Him Peace.
@@ahxmadnur Isclamic scholarship and scholars are perfectly capable of using this method, and have historically. Dr. Hashmi even explains this: 1:05:10
Western academics are going to take over from the mullahs and fix all the nonsense inserted by the Muslim rabbis. You don’t need to follow it but you can’t stop it either.
So modern scholarship counts a lot to other scriptures but not the Islamic traditionalist position. On his point about following the "newest prophet/messenger on the block", why are the jews to whom iesa came with a new message/injil (the Quran claims he made somethings halal which used to be haram) never once in the Quran told to judge by the injil but to stick to the old taurat
Dr Hashimi you accept the preservation of the Quran but do not accept the Hadith that were preserved by the same people from the early generation to the preceding ones..? Your denying of the core of Islam; rasoolullah (SAW) and your claim to represent the message of the Quran seems truly bizarre.. subhanAllah
Pretty clear issue. Allah says: "Whoever seeks a way other than Islam,1 it will never be accepted from them, and in the Hereafter they will be among the losers."
@@proofy25 how is Ibrahim muslim if Islam meant the belief in God AND Muhammad (SAWS) as his Prophet? Islam in the Quran means believing in God and obeying him, period.
12:42 Dr. Hashmi reiterates the debate topic "Is (I)slam the only path to salvation?" 12:58: Dr. Hashmi describes his speciality in Quranic studies as a historian of religion and his methodology in using the historical critical method to conclude that (I)slam as it appears today was not the predominant view in early Islamic history. 13:05: Dr. Hashmi outlines his (early historical) sources: 1. the Quran, 2. the Constitution of Medina, 3. physical evidence, and 4. Early contemporaneous Non-(M)uslim sources 13:33: Dr. Hashmi does not use sources manufactured much later that were back-projected to the original community: 1. Hadith, 2. Sira, 3. Tafsir, 4. Asbaab al-Nuzuul and/or 5. Views attributed to early (M)uslim communities. 14:08: Historians of religion agree that it would be anachronistic to attribute the term 'religion', to early Islam. Religions, in their earliest forms, did not demarcate exclusive spaces and language as religious. This is essentially what institutionalized religion seeks to accomplish much later as part of its identity building efforts which is then back projected as the religion's origin story/myth. 14:35: Islam takes on a different meaning in the Quran than how it is used today to refer to the institutionalized religion, (I)slam. 14:50: "So what does the word Islam mean in the Quran?” 1. In its literal and/or existential meaning, a Muslim is a submitter (to God). Islam is submission (to God). Wholehearted and conditional and exclusive self-abandonment in an absolute devotion to God. 2. Its universal meaning, absolute devotion of one’s worship to God. A committed monotheism of the primordial timeless religion with God. 3. Particularized meaning, Islam as an institutionalized religion with a beginning and affirming Muhammad as the religion’s prophet. This meaning is not found in the Quran 15:54: According to Fred Donner (Muhammad and the Believers 2012), the term Muslim appears only 75 times in the Quran. The word mu’min (believer) appears ~1000 times. Through this logic, the prophet’s community were initially called Mu’minun (believers) instead of muslimun/(M)Muslims. To Donner, a Muslim is a committed Monotheist and Islam is committed monotheism by committing oneself to God’s will (this corresponds to definitions 1 and 2 above). Muhammad’s community were pluralistic in faith, consisted of Jews/Christians/Monotheist(ic) 16:38 Pan-Abrahamic Thesis is widely recognized (this includes in western Quranic studies) when studying Classical Islam 16:48 To clarify the terms above, “Mu’min,” has been narrowed/particularized/excluded to a believer of God and Muhammad and following Quranic law. Muslim, generally, is any submitting Monotheist to God even as they follow their own scriptures and religious laws. 17:13 Who will receive salvation? Verses 46:13-14 (those whose submit…) and 2:62 (those who believe … Jews and Christians and Sabeans .. those who believe in God). Does not say Islam, Christianity and/or Judaism. 18:48: Quran indicates the one true religion, as opposed to idolatry is God’s timeless religion in verses 42:13 and 46:9. 19:14 Different names for this one true religion in the Quran 19:35 Quranic verses using “Muslim” imply the entire universe submits to God 20:52 Quranic verses which criticize religious chauvinism/exclusivism/sectarianism 21:04: Restating debate question: Are only Muslims following the Upright Religion? 21:10 No, according to Verse 98:5-7. 21:30 According to Joseph Lumbard, “al-Islam (is the primordial form and) refers to the universal pre-sectarian submission to God which is the quintessence of all virtuous religions. It is the attitude of submission that is believed to be inherent in true faith.” 21:46 The Quran makes clear of one true religion. The religion has manifested itself over time through sub-religions and/or different codes of holy laws and religious paths. The Quran endorses divinely ordained religious diversity in Verses 5:48, 22:34, 22:67 23:18 According to Fred Donner, the Torah was viewed by the believers as one addition or avatar of God’s law with the Quran being another edition or avatar of God’s law 23:33 Quranic verses using “Islam”as submission/absolute devotion to God but is used by religion exclusivists to imply its particularized meaning as the institutionalized religion we see today. (Verses 3:19, 3:85, 5:3) 24:08 Alternative reading of verse 3:19 through Ibn Masood’s codex also opposes religion exclusivism and particularity 24:30 Alternative reading of verse 5:3 implies not religion but rather religious worship ie. The absolute devotion of your worship to God 25:06: What does the Quran say on the People of the Book/ahl al-kitaab (the Jews and the Christians)? According to Fred Donner, general verses regarding the ahl al-kitaab are positive. Verses which have negative overtones almost always makes sure to say “a group among” the ahl al-kitaab (verses 3:100, 3:113-115). The Quran is concerned with individual behavior and avoiding blanket statements by passing judgement on entire groups. 26:18 This group among the ahl al-kitaab are critiqued for not following their own scriptures, the Torah and the Gospel (verse 3:93, 5:44, 5:47, 5:66, 5:68) 27:20 According to verse 5:48, the Quran does not abrogate past scriptures. The Quran came to confirm and protect these texts 27:25 Who then were classified as the original community of Mu’minum/Muslimun (submitting monotheists)? Mu’minun were those who believed Muhammad as their prophet and followed Quranic law. Muslimun can include Jews and Christians if they submit to God religiously and and to Muhamad from a social and political perspective and followed their own scriptures and religious laws. All of these groups could secure salvation 28:12 Verse 3:80 calls Christians Muslimun (and criticizes them for deifying Jesus) 28:30 Kafirs/Idolators in the Quran refer to idol worshippers and pagans 28:45 No compulsion for conversion (3:64) 28:55 The Quran allowed the early community to intermarriage and social intercourse (sharing food) since all groups are believers (verse 5:5). Verse 2:221 forbids marriage with idolators because of their impure beliefs. The Quran allows for a self-defense war to defend monasteries, churches and synagogues (verse 22:40) No mention of idol worshipping temples 30:00 Review of early historical sources. 1. Constitution of Medina ratified between Muhammad and the believers/mu’minun and submitters/muslimun. Both groups are named as one ummah 30:28: Ummah now is used in a completely exclusively to imply the Muslim Ummah. This goes against the Constitution of Medina 30:46 2. Contemporaneous non-Muslim historical sources reveal that even after the Prophet’s death, Jews and Christians identified as Muslims. In early Syriac sources, Jews and Christians were members of the early movement of Islam even after the prophets death 31:05: (Repressed) Early Islamic sources call Jews and Christians as belonging to the community of Muhammad 31:20 An Exclusivists’ reading is contradictory to the Quran 32:00 The Quran condemns Muslim ‘safe sect’ mentality 33:00 The Quran condemns Jewish and Christian’ exclusivist mentality (verse 5:18) 33:18 Does Heaven Belong to Your Religion (verses 2:94 … 57:29) 34:34 What direction did the Islamic tradition take verses which express religious plurality? 35:11 Late exclusivist view found in Hadiths which contradict the Quran. The Quran says there will be no intercession on that Day. One’s fate will be based by individual faith and virtue. 35:42 The Quranic view on salvation (Verse 49:13) 36:25 Final thoughts: “Muslimun is an existential state inside the heart. God judges you based on that, your faith, and your virtue.”
This is seemingly the youtube channel of Dr. Hashmi, but the video chapter annotations are mixing up Dr Hashmi with Dr. Elmasri. Obviously Dr Hashmi knows his own name, which leads me to believe that whoever is editting/publishing for him on his channel has no interest in what he is saying or in him to begin with, which is understandable given the absurdity of his arguments.
Javad, you were in your comfort zone and had prepared notes. Shadee didn’t come prepared and was winging it despite saying he watched all your videos on UA-cam. Maybe he wasn’t used to this setting?
😆 😆 😆 @1:57:53 Dr Shadee lost it! It was all too much for him, he got overwhelmed with what he had never thought of! What's next? He says ... Is Judaism still from Moses!?? Made me think of one to throw in; the Qur'an never says the Torah was given to Moses. In fact the word "Torah" and "Musa" do not appear in the same verse together anywhere in the Qur'an How's that for what's next? 😆 ... I actually feel for his confusion here
That's not confusion. It was actually an excellent point made by Dr. Shadee. If it's all about inscriptions or any of the Archaeological/Documentary evidence then where are the inscriptions about Musa AS, Ibrahim AS, Haroon AS, Nooh AS, Sulaiman AS, Idrees AS, Other Prophets AS? Your belief is based on the Rock Inscriptions? Just tell me.
@@maximus320 You are mixing things. Firstly, I just found his perplexed rant there funny. Secondly, no it's not all about inscriptions, etc ... but when such things are found and they don't match the oral narratives, then it opens up questions. Thirdly, our faith in the Messengers rests on the Qur'an (if that wasn't obvious!)
@@first9_yt Answer; not the Torah This comes back to understanding what "Kitab" means. It doesn't mean book/scripture. Hence verses like the Jews and Christians both recite THE Kitab. The channel "learn Quranic Arabic" has an excellent video on it. Bottom line is what Musa was given became part of the Torah, but it wasn't the Torah. You can throw as much a fit as you want, but ultimately you should accept that God chooses the right words ... and in the WHOLE Qur'an, in the numerous places where revelation to Musa is mentioned, not once does it say "Torah". That should mean something to you if you are serious about the Qur'an and serious about God's Words and serious about pondering them. So you tell me ... why isn't the "Torah" mentioned with Musa even though it is mentioned with later Israelite Prophets? Do you have reasonable answer? Other than what I mentioned? Here is another thing that would make Shadee lose it I think; not once in the Qur'an does Allah say He loves the "believers". I have a video on my channel going through all the verses.
@@QuranicIslam "Kitaab doesn't mean book/ Scripture" 🤣🤣🤣 What are you on?🤦🏻♂️🤣 Here look what Allah Says. "He has sent down upon you, [O Muḥammad], the *Book* in truth, confirming what was before it. And He revealed the Torah and the Gospel (3:3) Before, as guidance for the people. And He revealed the Criterion [i.e., the Qur’ān]. Indeed, those who disbelieve in the verses of Allāh will have a severe punishment, and Allāh is Exalted in Might, the Owner of Retribution.(3:4) "And [recall] when We gave Moses the Scripture and criterion1 that perhaps you would be guided." 2:53 "The month of Ramaḍān [is that] in which was revealed the Qur’ān, a guidance for the people and clear proofs of guidance and criterion" 2:185 So Allah calls The Quran and previous Scriptures as Book and He ﷻ calls both Quran and Torah as "Furqan" and Heﷻcalls Yahoodi and Nasara as "People of the Book" but you say that Book doesn't mean Scripture. Aren't you afraid of Allahﷻ? Now look how these verses expose you and prove that you don't even know well enough about Quran. "Indeed, We sent down the Torah, in which was guidance and light. The prophets who submitted [to God] judged by it for the Jews, as did the rabbis and scholars by that with which they were entrusted of the Scripture of God, and they were witnesses thereto." 5:44 Wasn't Moses Prophet Himself? Your analogy shatters in the verse itself😂 But I have a final nail in the coffin for you. Quran 5:44 "Indeed, We sent down the Torah, in which was *guidance and light*." Quran 6:91 Say, "Who revealed the Scripture that Moses brought as *light and guidance* to the people? You [Jews] make it into pages, disclosing [some of] it and concealing much. So it is clear that the Guidance and the Light given to Musa AS is Tawraat itself, Subhan'Allah!!! But I have more for you. "And We gave Moses the Scripture and made it a guidance for the Children of Israel that you not take other than Me as Disposer of affairs" 17:2 "And We had already given Moses and Aaron the criterion and a light and a reminder1 for the righteous." 21:48 "And We certainly gave Moses the Scripture that perhaps they1 would be guided." 23:49 "And We certainly gave Moses the Scripture, so do not be in doubt over his meeting.1 And We made it guidance for the Children of Israel." 32:23 Which "kitaab" was guidance for children of Israel? "And We had certainly given moses guidance, and We caused the Children of Israel to inherit the Scripture" 40:53 Which "Kitaab" did Bani Israeel inherit? "And We had already given moses the Scripture, but it came under disagreement." 41:45 Which "Kitaab" did come under disagreement by the Jews? You, under your another comment section said that you are not a Hadith Rejector but you only don't accept nonsense. "I mean I don't accept the nonsensical hadith that contradict the Quran." So now tell me about this hadith. Sahih al-Bukhari 4476 "Go to Moses, the slave to whom Allah spoke (directly) and gave him the Torah." So now, do you accept this Hadith or again say that this Hadith in your analogy "Contradicts the Quran and is Nonsensical."
This is a weak argument. First off, I specifically stated that one can still use Ḥadīth from a religious perspective and I have spoken about this frequently in the past. Second off, and even so, the details of prayer come from lived tradition (Sunna) more so than mere reports, which are often conflicting and contradictory. Stated another way: If you gave the Ḥadīth collections to someone who has never prayed before and does not know how to do it, that person could spend their entire life combing through those books and still not figure out how to do it, especially given all the conflicting information found therein.
@@DrJavadTHashmi I’m not saying this as a trolling argument Dr Javad I’m actually curious do you or do you not. If not that’s fine I’m not gonna call you a kafir or something *I’m not a salafi or those Neo salafis btw haha* and I agree if a lay person did go through the detailed descriptions of the prophets prayer it would take a lifetime and it does seem confusing. Also your first presentation I agreed with about 70% of what was presented but the other 30% I have issues with. Alhamdulillah it was good a debate and we Muslims worldwide need to know and be acclimated with the western scholarship tradition of Islam 👍🏾
@@abdulrahmanabdulkadri4825 If I ignored all the comments, then I would be criticized for this. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. This sums up the conservative traditionalist dogmatist attitude.
@@MohamedShou I have prayed regularly since I was 12 years old. Not only this but I am likely more religiously practicing than many of the akh-right bros who oppose me. Not that it is any of your business.
Even though i like some of javad's Ideas on certain issues, but this one I'm disappointed, Dr. Shadee speaks more logical and it's so dumb to reject all of this transmitter for the sake of what you believe in, it's really illogical.
I felt the opposite for the same reason; Dr. Shadee seemed the illogical one because he rejects all scholarship in lieu of the tradition of transmission, seemingly for the sake of maintaining what he believes in. Like he started by completely dismissing all of Dr. Hashmi's points out of pocket because they come from Western scholars and critical methods, then makes the completely illogical fallacy of claiming that Islamic scholars closer to the time of the prophet would be better interpretters. If he had any specific issue with the modern scholars' understanding of Arabic and reading of the sources, he should say that, rather than simply saying it's possible and therefore none should be considered. Similar logic of doubt applies to early Islamic scholars: that they are motivated (likely subconsciously in most cases) to twist interpretations to server their own sectarian needs/beliefs, rather than be impartial and objective - but I believer that to be far more likely than modern scholars simply not understanding Arabic, even though it isn't their first language (the Arabic at the time of the Prophet and Quran is not Dr. Shadee's first language either, anyways).
Dr Javad destroyed himself at 1:55:45. He wants everyone to explain their own religion but then wants modernists to interpret Islam and not let traditional Islam explain itself. #specialpleading #doublestandards #hypocrite.
Absurd strawman I responded to already. I never claimed that Christians have the ultimate say on a historical question about Jesus. In fact, I said the opposite. Rather, what they get to explain for themselves is how they currently believe. This has nothing to do with historical claims, which are the kennel of historians. Sorry, easy to talk big in the UA-cam comments, but Dr. Elmasry had his chance in conversation with me.
@@DrJavadTHashmi So the christian scholars in history aren’t classified as historical? You were trying to appease the Christian audience but exposed your dishonesty, be honest. Look at 1:56:11 to 1:56:25. Ironically you’re the one getting fine points wrong and “butchering the religion” while claiming people outside the Christian faith are doing that to Christianity.
Dr. Javed, do you believe that Christians today who believe Jesus was "fully God and Fully Human simultaneously" on earth will attain salvation according to the Quran????
Jesus the son of Mary already answers that question in the Qur’an: “I only told them what You commanded me: ‘that you shall worship God, my Lord and your Lord’… *If You punish them, they are Your servants. But if You forgive them, then You are the Mighty and Wise.”* (Qur’an 5:117-118)
Abu Bakr and Omar also show no interest in saving Christians....one says: don't bother the monks, the other they will take the church away from you...I would be happy if you give your opinion on whether I'm right
Dr Shadee won this debate by a landslide. Hashmi conceded the debate on many occasions (1:37:00 & 1:37:47). At 2:18:47 he states that the interlocutors stance (which he is quite literally trying to disprove) is a perfectly acceptable belief. So now the question is, what was the point of even showing up to the debate? If you believe the opposing stance is perfectly fine then why argue against it? This shows how flawed Hashmis epistemology is ONCE AGAIN. 1. Hashmi violated debate rules by using Tafsir (from an irrelevant academic) AND Hadith to try and push his argument. If Dr Shadee were to use Tafsir or Hadith he could have ended the debate in a few seconds. 2. Hashmi is unable to respond to the point regarding Surah Bayyina verse 1 & 6 which talks about disbelievers from the people of the book. When we talk about the people of the book it is presupposed that they believe in god, so what is it that makes them disbelievers Hashmi? The answer is their disbelief in this new messenger ﷺ and his message. You won’t address this though since it refutes your entire argument. These are just two points that are enough to show that Hashmi lost this debate (not to mention he conceded). Hashmi also demands for archaeological evidence only when it suits his stance which is unreasonable, another flaw in his epistemology. Overall Hashmis epistemology is severely broken and is filled with double standards and logical fallacies. If this is the level of what Harvard is producing then I must say I’m disappointed.
@ra c when it talks about the “people of the book” it’s already presupposed that they have some sort of monotheistic belief, otherwise Allah would simply group them in with the pagans (which is also mentioned separately as mushrikeen). Since they are already people of the book, being a disbeliever would mean that there is something exterior (aka rejecting the prophet ﷺ). If we go with the idea that it is referring to them following the injeel and Torah which are now corrupted, Allah would not tell them to follow a corrupted message, rather it is clear that Allah is telling them to adopt the uncorrupted message and to follow the prophet ﷺ as a messenger (4:59 is key). Also, what is the purpose of revealing the Quran if it wasn’t meant to be followed?
@ra c We have to realize the context. The Quran is now speaking about the Jews and Christian’s at the time of the prophet ﷺ, as well as after him. This implies that their disbelief is rooted in the final message. As for the interpretation that Allah is telling them to follow their old scriptures, I believe that according to Hashmis criteria this would not be the apparent meaning but it would be a jump in logic, because it doesn’t say “partial believers of the book” but it’s clear in saying “disbelievers from the people of the book”. General disbelief is just disbelief. If Hashmi wants to argue that they are rejecting parts of the book then this is clearly not the apparent meaning and would go against the criteria laid out by him in the debate.
1:01:52 This was very unnecessary and classless but it seemed to have gone under the radar. He called him a qawaad which means pimp in a very derogatory way. Even if there is a huge disagreement, we shouldn’t resort to this way of speaking. Also talking like you are respectful, smiling and sneaking in a insult like that is actually weasel behavior.
If you reject the Beloved of the Creator, why would you expect His Mercy. The whole narrative of humanity is for the Beloved. Reject Him and you reject his intercession on that Day. Reject his intercession, then good luck in being accepted by the measure of your own deeds. The only salvation is through him, Sallalahu aleyhiwasalam..the most praised one.
The Quran was transmitted by the same companions that transmitted the ahadith. If you deem the hadith unreliable, then you should also deem the Quran unreliable. But you also said the Quran is reliable, due and not restricted to existing manuscripts. Therefore there is no logical reason to doubt the reliability of the ahadith. Not to mention the preservation of ahadith is the most reliable source of history in the world, due to its thorough methodology. If you deem it unreliable, you might as well throw all history into the bin. Obviously western academia will never admit to its authenticity, so I can't understand one you could go into a debate on this by reliying on it.
Salam brother. Imagine if you were sitting in the Masjid on Jum’ah and the Imām stood up on the pulpit, and said “My brothers and sisters! Listen to me when I say this! EVERYONE who believes in God, and believes in Judgement Day, and does good, will in the end GO TO HEAVEN! Yes, EVEN if they are Jews, or Christians, or another monotheistic faith! They have NOTHING to fear!”…..You would probably gasp at his ‘shocking’ words, and get angry that such a misguided and liberal Imām has infiltrated your place of worship. Yet, your very Lord & Creator said those very words over 1,400 years ago in the Holy Qur’an, in Sūrah Al-Baqarah 2:62, as well as Sūrah Al-Mā’ida 5:69. So why don’t you also get upset or angry there? Because, you have sadly convinced yourself to stretch, twist, and re-interpret those crystal clear words of your Lord, in order to fit it in with your childhood-raised tradition & sectarian lens that has been handed to you. Therefore you mold and squeeze God’s revelations into your tradition & creed, rather than molding and squeezing your traditional creed into God’s word-as you in fact ought to do. So indeed: May Allah (SWT) guide us all to the truth-which means guiding us all to first & foremost accepting His words & message as revealed in His Book for WHAT THEY ARE, and not twisting them around for the sake of our sectarian creeds and traditions, which would not even EXIST in the first place, were it not for Him having sent His Book to guide us in the first place. So God, please give us the strength to read, to have an open heart, and to accept your clear Kalām and beautiful teachings for what they are. Ameen.
@@celestialknight2339 Walaikum Asalam, sorry but I’d rather stick to 1400 years of scholarly work and the tradition over what some westerner liberal thinkers say about my faith. Let’s both make sincere dua to Allah when we’re alone to guide us to that which is best.
@@Cassim125 don’t be ridiculous. It’s very clear that those whom heard the message are destined for the hell fire. Salvation can however come to those who haven’t heard. Simple.
I’m glad it happened. Would like to see more of this. Islams golden age was defined by this sort of healthy debate and discussion within our tradition.
Javad main argument is if the christians scholars of the past are wrong then so are the muslim scholars. and then calls it special pleading if we try to merit each person in their own paradigm
Salam, if 49:13 says, "Oh Humankind, we created you from Male & Female", What does this say about "Jesus" then. Was Jesus excluded from this sentence or was Jesus of a Father & Mother.
"Indeed, the example of Jesus in the sight of Allah is like that of Adam. He created him from dust, then said to him, “Be!” And he was!" (Q 3:59) .... Like Adam a.s., Jesus a.s. is an exception...
Two points; 1. the quality of the disbeliever versus the quality of the believer is what the Quran condemns as it pertains to the Jews and Christians in 7th century Arabia. 2. Muslims need to be shown how the historical critical method is applied to all forms of history and that Masry is special pleading when he avoids it. So much more could be said but I’ll leave it at that. I’ve waited my entire life for a debate on this topic between Muslims. Glad to see it happen.
If a person doesn't believe in the Qur'an or in the Prophethood of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam), that makes the person an outright kaafir (this is aside from the shirk and other forms of kufr the Jews and Christians ascribe to God).
Beliefs are only relevant if they have consequences; the spirit of believing in the Quran or the Prophet is that it leads to transformed behavior and thinking; taqwah, tazkiyah and ihsan are the goals not dogma and tribal identity. Any Christian, Muslim or Hindu could be living a lifestyle and performing practices that are making them God conscious and maintaining discipline over the nafs and it’s desires. No point in believing that a Prophet talked to God, only point is if that Prophet leads to the individual transformation of the soul. I would say transformation of the soul and spirituality are universal, the fitra is universal, salvation ought to be universal.
Well there is so much i wanna say, but i cant due to YT’s limit, so apologies. 1st off it was a heated debate, but interesting nonetheless. In my opinion Dr.Javad’s not using hadith is problematic when it comes to historical critical method (HCM). Why? Well, he gleefully stated that Muslims love to use it when we use it against Christianity with the renowned Sheikh Arman (Bart Ehrman), have to admit i am a big fan of him & Dr. James Tabor, but when it comes to our tradition we try to shy away from it due to “special pleading”. What? Does Dr. Hashmi not know the uloom and sciences of hadith that characterize supposed eyewitness testimonies of the Prophet by his companions? Does he not know the Islamic tradition relies heavier and primarily on oral tradition which is memorized and scrutinized via grading and criticism? Oh yes! Sorry, he decided not to use hadith due to inference of bias Im guessing? News flash, using the Quran also is inferring bias to prove a point. But lets use Javad’s argument as he stated Muslims like to use HCM only with Christianity. Well, biblical and historical scholars when they look at Christianity, like Ehrman, they look at primarily at the Gospels. Guess what? the gospels are sayings of Jesus, from supposed eye witness accounts of his life, sayings and teachings, written by anonymous authors, incorrectly attributed to his disciples. In other words, the gospels are literally hadith and seerah of Jesus falsely attributed to his disciples that were discovered 40- 80 years after his departure. Oh, but that's okay to use for Christianity when it comes to HCM, but not to Islam? Honestly, that seems hypocritical and dishonest to me. If we can use that method with Christianity, then for the purpose of being objective and unbiased, we too must use the same methods for Islam surely. The hadith provide context of the exegesis and explanations of the Quran, they provide the historical and circumstancial context of the revelations. You can't t have one without the other, doing so otherwise would be historically and critically dishonest. Sure you can grade it authentic or inauthentic, fabricated etc by Muslim, and non-Muslim, or historical scholars alike, but you can't just dismiss them entirely, especially if thats what they rely on when it comes to Christianity. Thats the first problem i have with it, more in the further replies.
Secondly, there is a stark difference between the historical documentation of Islam and historical Christianity. In christianity, the earliest manuscript we have is of Mark, anywhere from 150-250 AD. There is such a gap in time after Jesus's departur and the "gospels" coming around. Plus, the main writings we have are of Paul who was very much against the teaching of James and the Church in Jerusalem. The most important is we dont have the divinely revealed Injeel, all we have are letters by Paul who made Jesus into a God and negated the Torah. In christianity, a lot of its history has been suppressed by unknown groups, groups in power, etc, it is pretty evident, no need to go into it further. So one can see why Ehrman who was a devout Christian later became agnostic/atheist when the historical transmission of early Christianity was so weak. Islam on the other hand has primarily rigorous oral tradition and then textual tradition that is graded on its chain of narrators. One of the earliest mufassireen was Ibn Abbas, who was the cousin of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) who wrote the earliest exegesis of the Quran to my knowledge. His sahabas were with him, they memorized the Quran, and also narrated his sayings and his life, not to mention his beloved wife Aisha. May Allah be pleased with them all. In fact, it is with in the Islamic tradition where there is critcism of the compliation of the Quran, some quite critical, but it is within the tradtion. Heck Islamophobes especially the notorious Sam shamoun regularly use them to discredit the Quran, yet if looked critically, all the evidence is provided there proving the historicity and preservation of the Quran, let alone aqeedah or this supposed shahadah being different initially (only place i could find it was from Sam Shamoun anti-Islam website, Dr. Javad Hashmi never provided evidence of which scholars had this view.) If anything, seeing the preservation, orally and written, would make one see how robust the difference is between Islam and Christianity. So you are comparing two different preservations. So from a Western and Christian perspective i can see why one would become so critical of Christianity and possibly negatively affect their faith or trust in it, and then apply that lense and rubric to Islam and other religions. Sure, you can if you want to, go for it, do it, to be critically honest, but you can clearly see the stark difference in the preservation of the two. It makes sense why historical christian scholars would approach any religion with much suspicion but you are comparing two different animals here. But still do it, in order to be honest with yourself. And then critically analize all the hadith and tafseer to see what seems authentic, and what does not and then come to your conclusion. Therefore dont discount the hadith in the name of critical honesty when what you’re doing is quite the opposite with Christianity. Anyways will continue soon with the 3rd part iA
1:57:00 first of all, it seems highly unlikely that the second half of the shahadah didn't exist for the first 70 years (!!!!), as the adhaan itself contains a variant of the shahadah, as Dr Masri said. But even if this were true, (and i don't think it is), what sort of a debating strategy is it to admit something like that - you'll never convince anyone with a claim like that, except the most extreme sceptic out there. This was an own goal, and Dr Hashmi never recovered after this point. Shadee won this debate not out of his own wits, but because Hashmi didn't know when to stop dropping skeptical trivia.
@@omarabbasi2682 um, you can believe the second part, without mandating its utterance. And even Dr Hashmi isn't saying that the Prophet's person isn't important - he is merely saying that it is not mandated to recognize him to enter Islam or rather the community of believers (for these Jews and Christians). I don't agree with him. But at least we should characterize it fairly.
Dr Javad had the better argument and was consistent in his position, I feel that debates with traditionalists seem to be more about them using rhetoric rather than engaging. It's clear at the end Dr Elmasry used the whole "they're trying to destroy Islam" line, which is very common when traditionalists debate people with different opinions. Even though I'm still on the fence about this issue, I do think Dr Javad made a very convincing argument and Dr Elmasry didn't really respond to his points. I do like how Dr Javad called out the double standard of Muslims using the historical critical method when it comes to Christianity which is very common to the extent that they would use Richard Carrier who argues Jesus did not even exist but when it comes to the historical critical method, they call it liberal nonsense if it applies to Islam. It's also interesting how this is seen as a non-Muslim endeavour when, in reality, a lot of the points that were raised came from Muslims. I'm pretty sure it was people like Chiragh Ali and Sir Syed who made a lot of the arguments before the orientalists did.
Thank you for the thoughtful comment. Yes you are right about Cheragh Ali and Sir Sayyid. I am very inspired by both but I feel a special bond with Cheragh Ali.
@@DrJavadTHashmi Yes ofcourse you're only inspired by kuffars and murtads more than any believer, rather you are very suspicious of those who have taqwa! May Allah guide you and destroy your misguidance,,.!
Q 4:150: "Surely those who deny Allah and His messengers and wish to make a distinction between Allah and His messengers, saying, “We believe in some and disbelieve in others,” desiring to forge a compromise" Q 4:151: "they are indeed the true disbelievers. And We have prepared for the disbelievers a humiliating punishment." This is clear to me stating the need to believe in the prophet PBUH
As I have already stated, the People of the Book had to affirm the Prophet Muhammad in some capacity, perhaps even as a prophet. Yet, they could still follow their own religious laws and scriptures. This is apparent from the verse that precedes the ones you cited, i.e. 4:136.
@@DrJavadTHashmi Q 4:136:"O believers! Have faith in Allah, His Messenger, the Book He has revealed to His Messenger, and the Scriptures He revealed before. Indeed, whoever denies Allah, His angels, His Books, His messengers, and the Last Day has clearly gone far astray." it's not clear to me from this that it says they can follow their own religious laws.
Dr Elmasry needs to learn human psychology so he can understand why nuances exist- and basic things like stresses in society unconsciously impacting scholarly analyses at their time. They are human after-all. His arguments were at times uncomfortable to listen to, and his demeanor patronizing. Unfortunate. He did not address the sound and straight proofs/ points that Dr. Hashmi made, and instead resorted to fear mongering to persuad the audience/fellow Muslims. I agree that he came with his preconceived theology and therefore it felt like he wasn’t listening to-or purposefully ignoring Dr Hashmi’s points. Excellent concluding summary from Dr Hashmi. And not suprisingly, Dr ElMasry didn’t address any of the evidences, but resorted again to his tactic of promoting fear and shame- understandably causing viewers to become closed off to logic and wisdom (we all want to be good Muslims after all!). Even going as far as to say Dr. Hashmi is promoting a new religion! Absolute shame. May Allah cleanse our community from this unkind, unconscious, weak approach to our beautiful and perfect faith, which is preventing the UMMAH from forming again. May Allah lift the veil and envelop our minds, hearts and souls with His light, love, and wisdom- so we can know The Truth and truly be God-conscious, pure, and morally upright individuals. Which is the way of the believers. Dr. Hashmi without a question “won” this debate, and I applaud him for his respectful demeanor through out. Jazakallahu kheirun for your efforts, and may Allah increase you (and us all) in knowledge, wisdom, and peace.
My deepest gratitude to Dr. Shadee and Dr. Hashimi! A great and powerful debate! May Allah bless you! Looking at the majority of comments, religious bigotry is very apparent from my muslim brothers… we should be better than this
@@AD-lk9re a kafir is a disbeliever and the Quran has stated this quite clearly. if somebody has rejected the only truth then they have rejected it no in between.
@@AD-lk9re I think you might have missed the point of Jawad's (really Donner's) argument. If you disagree with something, InshaAllah you still understand what you're disagreeing with. He's saying that the early ummah (based on the Quran and historical documents like the constitution of Medina, as well as other sources like non Muslim contemporaneos and eyewitness accounts of early Islam) was divided into two sections: Mu'minun (believers) which was made up of people following the Quran (what we now call Muslims), and Muslimun (submitters) who were made up of other monotheists who accepted the prophet as a political leader (the ahlul Kitab). I don't agree with this point or the point on hadith rejection but I have faith that my correligionists have the ability to understand what they knee-jerk reaction reject.
@@S3Abbas splitting hairs. His argument is so random and offputting to muslims that it doesnt matter if he was calling christians muslimun or muminoon. Hes wrong either way.
@@AD-lk9re I know that you think that but the whole point that they're making that you're missing is that there were two tiers to early Islam and the early Muslim ummah, a more general and a more specific and that's based off of how they are reading verses. You might as well get used to splitting hairs when it comes to Quranic studies, Islamic or Western, in particular, and when it comes to philology in general. It's based off of close readings of texts with unbiased questions, in theory, in mind (critical) and using knowledge of history as it's understood in the secular world, for better or worse how they approach every religion, using every available piece of data, from receipts to inscriptions (historical) as their methodology. To react like this, by getting scared and not even understanding what they're saying makes Islam look as feeble as Christianity or Judaism can look when some of their followers are presented with scholarship about the Bible. Beat them at their own game if you disagree or stop having these knee-jerk reactions which make us look non-serious and try to understand what it is that you find so objectionable.
I know-the truth hurts, doesn’t it? Sūrah 5:69 is a game-changer indeed. But Alhamdulillah we should fit our beliefs into the Qur’an-not fit the Qur’an into our traditional beliefs. Hope you would agree. Salam.
I listened to the debate, and have come to the conclusion that at a few points in the debate, the speakers were talking past one another. The capital “M” Muslim vs. a non Muslim submitter from a “أهل الكتاب" faith, I believe to be essentially correct because in the end Allah is the ONLY judge of a person’s eternal fate and any number of factors may play into why or why not a person accepts Islam. But having said that, people have an obligation to seek the truth and only Allah who knows about all these factors that play into this can be the ultimate judge. الله اعلم. But this has always been known in Islam to my understanding. Where I think that Dr. Javad’s thesis fails is that he overemphasizes and makes a whole proposition of this point whereas this is the most weak and dangerous place to be on judgement judgment day. The danger of Dr. Javads position is that, as Dr. Almasry points out, --its logical conclusion seems to be an entirely different faith- something akin to “Abrahameya” faith and I will not go there and accept that because it makes adhering to the Sunnah and the transmitted tradition optional- which to me is clearly a Western, secular, objective. I did not embrace the faith of Islam to be drawn into some Western inspired quagmire of a watered down faith- so I would have to conclude that I stand with Dr. Almasry. I honestly believe that the war on Islam is precisely because faithful Muslims will not embrace this Orientalist, deconstructionist paradigm which would enable a secularist system to undermine the power and relevance of our Islamic faith. The Quran urges the various communities to compete in doing good. I will rest on that, and allow Allah to be the final judge trusting that Allah is true to his attributes of being الرحمان و الرحيم.
it might be more of "Golly, how do I communicate with a guy who just confessed that he rejects opinions without even reading them first" Thats the point when you know, its not about evidence, its about tribal/cultural loyalties. Another absurdity is how Shadee thinks "Western" is synonymous with "non-muslim"
Alhamdulillah much needed debate, many Muslims believe in what Dr javad is saying but they keep silent due to the backlash of the Muslim community, Allah knows best.
Assalamualaykum guys. Dr Shadee's starting arguments were weak. The historical critical method does not presuppose that those who wrote hadiths were liars, rather we do not have good reasons to believe them because of political movement in that area, spills about which is filled in tafseer and hadiths. If the historical critical method can give us the theology of real Jesus A.S then this method can very well either prove the reliabilty of hadith or the forgeries.
@DrJavadTHashmi Apologies, around 1:48:47 On the topic of Byzantine Christian imperial theology, that the Quran is engaging with and critiquing this. Then you mention a Christian theologian that reads the Quranic critique of the theology and agrees with it. But didn't say his name. Thank you.
I think Dr Hashmi is being misunderstood. If I am not mistaken, I believe that the core point of his argument is that the foundational message of Islam is anti-sectarianism. It makes sense if someone allows themselves to read the Qur'an in a non institutionalized way. For example verses from the Qur'an criticize Christians and Jews for both thinking that their religions or groups are saved, when in actuality belonging to a certain sect isn't what saves us but rather our good deeds/demeanor and belief in God.
No one is making the argument that belonging to some sort of "saved-sect" is the answer to all of life's questions. This is actually a common trope and a misconception presented particularly by those who have an attraction to thinking that is in tandem with perennialism. This would be particularly by those who are repelled by, what they deem to be, modern exclusivism and fundamentalism. This attraction is in the idea that somehow all religions are pointing to a transcendence, a core, some shared universality if you will. This is cute and all, to the new-age goons who want to hold hands and sing "Kumbaya," even though it has no grounding in reality. The difficulty in such a notion is that religions are naturally mutually exclusive in some of their fundamental truth claims. Buddhists and Christians cannot BOTH be right, Christians have a personal God. Islam and Judaism will assert that God is One, Unique, and that there is no internal differential in the Divine Nature.... whereas the Christian would say that to be INCORRECT, and that the Divine Nature is characterized by a Triune deity. Christianity and Judaism cannot both be right. .........Anyways I digress, and probably no one cares and no one is even reading this. My closing remark would be to reiterate that Islam, since it's onset holds that it is the final and true religion as ordained by the last and final, holy Prophet of God. One who is indeed God's true prophet to the world and this time....and that his way is an all embracing, inclusive, and diverse way. The Quran and the Prophet is at the heart of all scholars past and present, who have done their due-diligence. Whether they were Sufis like Rumi and Ibn Arabi, all the way to any most recent extensions of the Islamic tradition, all hold these notions to be true and that Islam is the correct way...as is detailed in the Holy Quran. Ibn Arabi even himself has sometimes harsh words to say about Christian doctrines, like the doctrine of the Trinity. He would have been the LAST person to say that all the metaphysics of the worlds religions are simultaneously true, he believed his system was right. Period. (Anything beneficial in my comment is from The Most High, and any mistakes are from myself wa alikom salam)
@@AwaisAhmedPodcast Interestingly enough, when one says the Shahadah (Attestation of the Islamic faith), and they affirm the final Prophet Muhammad ﷺ , they are ultimately also affirming all the prophets leading up to and coming before the final: Muhammad ﷺ . I.e., By affirming Muhammad ﷺ , you are also affirming the belief in all of the other prophets that were sent by God. Edit: typo in "Shahadah."
@@immasavagebro2845 Did you make that biased comment because of your biased view as well? Although I don't agree with the delivery of OP, I felt the obligation to point out that we all have biases.
@@snakejuce we'll go down a path of calling out each others biases infinitely. Subjectivities don't imply that nothing objective can be said. What I maybe should've said was that OP was a dishonest analyst.
Mashallah ... It was the moderator of all people who put his finger on the crucial point that "believing in the Messenger" isn't about believing in his *being* a Messenger, but rather in having faith in what he teaches and brings
@@shafeydanish When he says; God is One And you accept it, then that's faith in the message. Just like now you can convince someone else of all the teachings of Islam, and they could accept them all, without teaching them that Muhammad was a Messenger. What's illogical about that? Muslims do it all the time when they argue for anything in Islam; hijab, no alcohol, charity, that God exists, etc ... Don't tell me everything in Islam has only one reason; Muhammad is God's Messenger ? No. There are real reasons why God commands and prohibits certain things. Anyone can accept them and see that they are good and true, even without believing that Muhammad got them from God. Sorry ... but we have very different backgrounds in this. For me Dr Shadee practically said nothing of importance and was completely unconvincing. All he has was special pleading and "follow the forefathers", something the Qur'an criticizes again and again ... this blindness to evidence which he admits to. That it doesn't matter what evidence anyone brings ... we won't read it because we "know" the conclusion is wrong.
@@QuranicIslam "Follow the FOREFATHERS" Following the Mushrik Forefathers like Mushrik Quresh of Mecca did and Following the Salaf, who were the friends of Allah; these are two EXTREMELY DIFFERENT THINGS. One were following their Forefathers to Jahannam and Alhamdulillah we are Following our Spiritual Forefathers to Jannah. I would have quoted some Hadiths but since you are just another Hadith Rejecter I will just quote Quran. "Guide us to the straight path - The path of those upon whom You have bestowed favor, not of those who have earned [Your] anger or of those who are astray." Quran 1: 6-7
@@first9_yt I'm not a Hadith rejector, just not a nonsense acceptor. And the verse you quoted is supposed to prove what exactly? ... That you should follow your forefathers? Wrong. This is Fatiha ... Surely you can understand it better than that!
@@DrJavadTHashmi Islam is exclusive by its very premise lol. (Quran 3:19) The true religion with Allah is Islam.16 The People of the Book adopted many different ways rather than follow the true way of Islam even after the knowledge of truth had reached them, and this merely to commit excesses against one another.17 Let him who refuses to follow the ordinances and directives of Allah know that Allah is swift in His reckoning.
@@SaceedAbul As I already said in the debate, al-Islam refers to the primordial generously tolerant religion, as indicated by the Quranic variant of the very verse you cite.
@@DrJavadTHashmi may Allah swt guide if you think you’ve proven your position in the argument. Inshallah you’ll understand Islam and the shahada the way the Sahaba understood it. And not the way the colonial powers of European “intellectuals” have tried to shape it to be understood. Ie for their own benefit and not the benefit of the Muslims. One day the colonizers will not only leave the lands of the Muslims. But their minds of some of the ones they still occupy.
Leaving the debaters and their arguments aside (which of them I hink Dr. Shadee has the higher ground) the moderator looks like a very sympathetic and nice guy. I just want to point out how wholesome he looks all the while just sitting there and listening to Dr. Shadee. Kudos to those of you who organised the debate for bringing such a source of joy and happiness. Some of the most visually rich and spiritful sceneriers I have witnessed in my life were made possible with the inclusion of Dr. Krarus or Krauss, Crows idk. Thank all of you and dear moderator especially. Assalamu Alaikum!
I think he failed in the moment he wouldn't admit Christians believe Jesus is God. He didn't want to help one defeat the other but he looked like he was helping Javad.
Very disappointed by Dr. ElMasry's first talking point. Dr. Hashmi's proper citation of where he got his ideas from does not make it tasfir and therefore disqualified from consideration. This came off as a very slimy and disingenuous way to avoid addressing the arguments and score points with the audience. The alternative, by implication, is to avoid mentioning tasfir each scholar can only base their arguments off of their own, entirely original readings of the Quran? And presumably they have to avoid reading any other scholarship on the topics, both Western and Islamic? What a ridiculous argument to make. I refuse to believe someone holding a doctorate would make it sincerely. And then rephrasing "hadiths are unreliable" to "hadiths are Muslim lies." Just a frankly unbelievable amount of poisoning of the well right from get-go. Not sure I can continue watching the rest of the video, but Dr. Hashmi's presentation was wonderful. Edit: I'm glad I stuck through to the end, being able to hear Dr. Hashmi's rubuttals was worth it. Though my frustration is great I appreciate that Dr. ElMasry is willing to make these debates - many are not willing to put themselves through the discomfort and effort. Assalamu alaykum.
What on earth was the point of revelation then if Jews and Christians were on the right path. Strange also that one would believe in Prophet Muhammad as being the last messenger or prophet of God and then reject the message that he brings with him.
The primary purpose of the Quran was to warn the Arabian pagans of Mecca and around her environs. A secondary purpose was to call the People of the Book back to following their scriptures and the Religion of Truth.
@@DrJavadTHashmi....So the verse about sending the prophet as a mercy to all mankind is moot then, he was only sent to the pagans of Arabia? Also, how do you call the followers of scriptures back to the Religion of Truth? How did he do that...can you elaborate?
@@Mustafghan You need to learn to actually understand your opponent's viewpoints before actually seeking to refute them. I never claimed that the Prophet "was only sent to the pagans of Arabia." I said he was sent primarily to them. Big difference.
I think there should have been a more robust discussion on 2:62, because that verse really complicates things for Dr. Shadee if one were to look at the verse on its face.
I agree. Hashmi should have pushed back more on Shadee’s claim that “belief in Allah and the Last Day” is an alleged “summary” of the pillars of faith. What is his evidence for that? He can’t just assume it. Plus if that were the case, then there would be no need to even mention the other groups such as “Jews” and “Christians” and “Sabians” in the first place-because the verse could have just simply said “Anyone who believes in God & the Last Day is saved and has reward.”-full stop. Done. Without any need for that introductory portion. To be clear, in my view, it is still incumbent on any Jew or Christian to accept the Qur’an-under the condition that they have been faithfully introduced to its message (which came THROUGH the prophet) in a clear & accurate manner-but that not knowing this, or misunderstanding it, but still remaining faithful to their own tradition as monotheists, can still certainly grant them salvation as long as they fulfill those duties that God has set forth (faith in Him, belief in the Last Day [i.e Judgement Day], and doing good deeds). So in my view, the truth lies somewhere in between Dr. Hashmi’s view (semi-extreme pluralism) and Dr. Shadee’s view (extreme exclusivism). But I still think that Dr. Hashmi is closer to the truth, and Qur’an 2:62 is one of the clear scriptures that is in support of that. The term “Muslim” has no doubt been abused by orthodoxy, and the Qur’an is a much more tolerant and pluralistic book than many people would like to imagine. And for me, I think that is beautiful, and an expression of God’s true mercy. Salam.
The crust of the question about the Prophet should be, is he’s Allah’s “Partner”🤔. Because that’s the only way he would be significant enough to determine if one gets salvation/heaven or hell in the next life of resurrection. Allah says in Quraan that if he wanted everyone to believe the same he would have made it so,🥱
Hello, friends. Dr. Shadee ElMasry is incredibly popular and even had a team of students fly out for the debate, which is impressive and shows the dedication of his students to him. However, it is unfortunate that they are spamming the UA-cam comments. This is, of course, not to be unexpected. I had the same thing happen with Robert Spencer's followers after I debated him. Spencer has 20x as many followers as Dr. Elmasry. Thankfully, truth is not based on popularity. In any case, all I ask is that you maintain a minimum level of courtesy in the comments. Thank you.
Just in case you didn’t know the Shahada including Muhammad Rasulallah is in the Quran. So how can you say it was decades after the Quran when it’s in the Quran? 😂
Come on brother, if your comments section is favourable towards your opposition, it may also be because the viewers found their points to be stronger
Provide proofs for your claims.
@@appearances9250Strawman argument.
Spamming? Having back and forth conversations isn’t necessarily a bad thing. P.S. Enjoy your 5 seconds of fame as this is probably the most interaction you’ll be getting for a while.
1:51:27
Jawad scored an own goal.
"Ibrahim was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but he was one inclining toward truth, a Muslim [submitting to Allah]. And he was not of the polytheists."
So it's clear that Jews and Christians aren't Muslims.
That's a refutation of religious exclusivism actually. People are claiming that he belongs to x or y but God is saying no, he was someone who surrendered which is what Muslim is.
You have inverted the very intent of the verse, which reveals how the exclusivists butcher the text to serve their ends.
@@DrJavadTHashmi Muslims are those that follow the last message and messenger because the previous dispensations have been abrogated. The only Muslims are the followers of Quran and Sunna and the rightly guided Muslims are the majority group: the Sunnis. This is crystal clear. You're trying to include non Muslims as being part of the Muslims because you worry that nice people might go to hell shows that you just don't trust Allah to do the right thing, that you are right and know better than what our beloved prophet saws thought us. The tradition is correct no matter how much you dislike it. It will stand until the Last Day and your work will be erased from memory like a sand castle. You will need to answer to your Maker for trying to change His word. That's even if you don't truly believe in the depth of your heart because Believing means submitting and you clearly are a rebel. May Allah guide you and forgive you because you are truly on a wrong path.
@@DrJavadTHashmi and no, 99.9% of our ulama since the beginning of Islam are not guilty of butchering anything. That's just slander. Yet another sin.
@@subhaanahmad2149 So what is Muslim?
and why being Jew and Christian is not being Muslim?
Dr. Shadee Elmasry: Nothing but facts & nothing but drip 💧
Say mashaAllah!!! Masha'allah.
lol@facts!!! he was literally invoking fear and tribal allegiances 🤣
Translation: “I knew which position to support before watching this debate. And I came out the same way, because it felt good”
Let’s try to be more open-minded and actually consider what the other side was saying. Dr. Hashmi brought 10x as many verses & facts. Much of what Dr. Elmasry brought was assumption and appeal to tradition-which Jews & Christians also do (and which the Qur’an ironically condemns as a warning to us)
If you can’t deal with Qur’an 3:113-115, 2:62, 5:69, and ESPECIALLY Sūrah 5:48 (among many others)-then you aren’t dealing honestly with the Qur’an. They are crystal clear. And our traditions have contradicted them, just as they contradict many other things clearly stated in the Qur’an.
Salam.
Dr Javad the type of individual to contradict his own underlying principles.
Woah, what a banger!
So Javed's argument essentially boils down to: "It is ok to recognize the prophet Mohammed and still be jewish christian"
Imagine God telling you "the scriptures have been corrupted, here is my final messenger, follow him"
and your reply is "no thanks God, I'm good, what I have right here is enough to please you"
what arrogance
But that isn't what God says ... so stop "imagining" for God. What says is the opposite, He tells them to establish the Torah and Injeel and if they DON'T then they are kaafireen.
Because what they have is also from God. You seem to imagine it isn't.
@@QuranicIslam what Torah and injeel do they follow is the question? Bring me the originals
@@omarabbasi2682
The same that were present in the Qur'an's time. God called them Torah and Injeel ... did God use the wrong names? Besides ... I doubt we'd agree on what they even are. The Injeel was not a "scripture" for example ... it was a teaching ... 'Isa wasn't given a worded scripture
@@QuranicIslam how do you respond to the blatantly contradictory carbon dated manuscripts present at that time?
Strawman.
Dr Shadee easily won this debate. Well done.
Dr. Hashmi’s arguments were excellent and rational, Dr. Shadee’s points were more subjective, he lacks knowledge of Abrahamic sources and early Israelite theology, pseudepigrapha, apocalyptic literature, discrepancies in manuscripts that perhaps he doesn’t know about either. These things believe it or not are quite important, so any dogmatic claim that any institution makes is merely flimsy and subjective. Salam.
@@bhavinmehta1490 we don't need orientalists tools which are just recently came into existence whose findings are itself philosophical and not authentic for the approval of our transmitted authentic knowledge.... Thanks have a great day..
@@aftabahmad8658 We don’t need biased metrics and selecting data from hearsay to determine what’s historically accurate, you have a good day.
@@bhavinmehta1490 well said Bhavin, I am a muslim and I concur with you, though according to Dr. Shadee, I might be entering a completely new religion 🙂
Yes 💯✅.
Dr Javad seemed like he wanted to go home.😂😂😂
Seeing all the comments here, even the Muslims living centuries ago were more curious and open to discussion than the Muslims of today. May Allah guide us away from being insecure about our faith, hopefully i will live to see a day where we can have full discussion about every aspect of our religion.
اتَّخَذُوا أَحْبَارَهُمْ وَرُهْبَانَهُمْ أَرْبَابًا مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ وَالْمَسِيحَ ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ وَمَا أُمِرُوا إِلَّا لِيَعْبُدُوا إِلَٰهًا وَاحِدًا ۖ لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا هُوَ ۚ سُبْحَانَهُ عَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ
May Allah guide us all. Ameen.
@@MiloBoz The Hadith are full of innovations. Quran says only 4 foods are prohibited. Hadith says a dozen or more. The Qur’an says don’t trust in intercessors, and unrepented major sins will be punished; the Hadith says the Prophet will be our intercessor for major sins. The Quran says it is the best & only Hadith, and there is nothing like it (Q 30:23 & 52:34); the Hadith says the Prophet allegedly claimed to be given the Qur’an and “something like it”. And the list goes on and on and on. Quran has very merciful laws, whereas Hadith is filled with harsh punishments that even contradict the Qur’an (such as lashing versus stoning, etc). It’s no wonder why so many people are apostating from Islam. I hate to see it, but unless we go back to the Qur’an there will be no change.
‘And the messenger will say: “My Lord! My people have abandoned the Qur’an!”’ (Qur’an 25:30)
Blame the Hadith stopped these debates
@@celestialknight2339agree, Taliban will make their own people turn against Islam, lot of oppression are from Hadith than Quran
It's only because of the generous academic spirit of many early Muslim ulema who transmitted opinions they didn't agree with that we are able to continue their legacy and question their conclusions.
@@paulthomas281 no, no there isn't. Only in your mind is there ugliness and darkness
Alhamdoullilah for Dr Al Masry. May Allah protect our Umma from so-called reformist and bless and protect Sunni Orthodox traditional ulama
@@paulthomas281 that is an idiotic and ignorant comment by every measure. Tell us Mr Thomas: what is a traditional Muslim Alim and how are they anti-human. Otherwise, retract your statement
@@paulthomas281 no one cares about your opinion.
Are you the same Islamophobic guy who copy pastes some nasty comments against Islam under every other Islamic video?
Congratulations brother Shadee on your victory.
Good joke. 😊
When I first read the Quran 8 years ago I was astonished by so many of these verses that open the gates for potential salvation of those "who believe in God and do righteous deeds". A worldview that finally made sense - and so I embraced Islam, only to find out later, much to my irritation, the unexplicable insistence of the majority of muslims that infact it is only Muslims that go to heaven. Not only is that view in direct contradiction of the worldview that the Quran plainly illustrates to the unbiased reader, but it is a view completely detached from the reality on the ground, beyond scripture. Furthermore it robs Islam from its greatest strength and would inevitably lead to deep social fracture..
Agreed! Thank you.
Well said!
Well said!
Javad Hashmi, thank you sooooo much. You just make sense to me. I’m afraid though the exclusivists are just too scared to face up to the truths and doubts you’ve articulated.
Nice debate, I wish it was longer because there will still more to say, but I think Dr. Shadee had the better case and rebuttals.
Easy W for dr Shadee, although this topic was not worthy of a debate tbh because it's very clear to any rational person who is a MUSLIM.
You must lack critical thinking.... clearly his reasoning was fallacious and appeal to traditional transmission which has been proven without a doubt over and over to be unreliable. The only evidence he put forth from the quran relied heavily on taking the verse out of context.
@@noorahamid3376 lol
@@noorahamid3376 forget transmission, what about interpretation? All of a sudden some random western fool got it right? Please stop with this sophistry
special pleading
@@omarabbasi2682 loll how did they get to their interpretations, if you read their own books you would see them citing transmitted information or tradition as precedent for abbrogation and interpretation.
Also, it is clear that some of their interpretations and reasons for revelation were ahistorical, contradictory and incoherent from not only a large amount of physical evidence that prove that the narratives are not reflective of the actual context but also other historical evidence so at some stage we've got to stop idealising their understanding and be as critical as we are to other religions and actually be in search of truth and not just ohh they live 200 years closer to the prophet so they know more and they're just as smart etc This is just fallacious reasoning and does not count as good evidence at all.
If people want to argue for earlier scholars' conclusions then they really have to prove how their methodology is sound and how it accounts and regulates for bias, reliability, contradiction to physical evidence, it's weakness and strength etc. Then we can compare that methodology with the methodology of historical, critical scholarship and find out which is more reliable.
Not corrupted textually but orally? Sir what came
First to be written down later
Assalam-o-Aleykum,
As someone who doesn't like to be labeled (modernist, sufi, literalist), I commend these two men, who are both (I think so) Muslims.
There will always be debates and disagreements. However, from my experience, the important thing is to see what brings us together before seeing what divides us.
Having said that, it was a really nice debate. It comes from a man like me, who was more educated in a literalist setting (Salafi, Ahl-e Sunnah), who was drawn to mysticism (Sufi) and who admired the thinking skills of the academics of the West (modernists & liberals).
I'm not taking a position, but I take that there was a debate, an interesting debate, with two speakers, two charismatic scholars and also a sympathetic and professional moderator.
As we say, Masha'Allah.
May peace & blessings of Allah, al-Azeem, be upon you, dear reader.
@@baniadam900 Assalam-o-Aleykum,
I never said that though.
Peace.
@@AzukosNeither really did I. It’s an uncharitable take. Unsurprisingly
Personally think this was an unecessary topic but Dr. Shaadi is a legend MashaAllah his bluntness kill me
Well sister it is necessary or duty that Rightly guided scholars ulema rebuke and defeat the misguidance of Astray people.
As-selam alaykum warahmatullai wabarakatuhu
I'm 75% into the debate, but i feel a deadlock has occurred. The intellectual exerter, Hashmi, coming at the question from a real world contemporary problem-solving perspective i believe, runs up against the bulwark of Islamic traditionalism, with no intellectual commitment except to reproducing a received wisdom.
The responses from Almasri were all stereotypical and clearly not meant to intellectually rebuff Hashmi. Rather, they were intended more as posturing to the blind believers in the fan club gallery. Case in point: Almasri early on advances the stale argument that early Muslim scholars knew better, brushing aside and ignoring two hunded years of religious and political strife amongst those scholars and the central impact this might have had on core doctrines.
When Hashni cleverly retorts by asking why Muslims do not afford Christians that same privelege - i.e. of uncritically accepting the doctrines of early Christian scholars - Almasri has no response. At that moment already the debate was over and settled in Hashmi's favour.
Sadly though, Alazhari radiates a certain arrogance borne from complacency, laziness and his uncritical faithfulness to his religious indoctrination. The type of arrogance which the Prophet Muhammad himself painfully experienced from the Jews of Medina, who until their death, could not concede that anyone but a Talmudist could access truth.
The irony is that, these uncritical defenders of extra-Quranic doctrines and traditions have genuinely run out of space in the Arab world, which is trapped in a painful political malaise borne from religious parochialism. They now gain a modicum of celebracy at western post modern identity driven institutions. Much like a homeless peasant on the streets of Rome, vaingloriously pretending to be an heir to mighty Rome and threatening an imminent return of Caesar!
The dogs will bark but the caravan of intellectual emancipation must proceed.
Thanks for the debate :) May Allah guide.
Anwar Shaik
Doctor of Education
What a beautifully written comment. ❤️
Thank you for kind and insightful comment.
@@ashaqhussain6902 have you read Quran 5:48? Our Lord seems to encourage pluralism from this verse my brother.
@@ashaqhussain6902 he too is misguided just like the one he is admiring.
He is the one who hates our master Abu Huraira R.A.
These people, from our point of view, are a lost cause.
Don't waste your time.
Only Allah can guide.
I wish there was a way to save/bookmark comments. This is so well articulated and on point.
Also the claim that there was no engraving of Muhammad rasullulah but only of لا اله الا الله therefore the former wasn't important is so weak.
Masha Allah. Good job, Dr.Shadee
Spot on.
وَمَنْ يَبْتَغِ غَيْرَ الْإِسْلَامِ دِينًا فَلَنْ يُقْبَلَ مِنْهُ وَهُوَ فِي الْآخِرَةِ مِنَ الْخَاسِرِينَ
And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, then it will never be accepted from him. And he will be amongst the losers in the hereafter. (Surah Ali Imran, 85).
Just finished watching it. I enjoyed it very much. I thought you both acquited yourselves well. It was dignified and respectful and you both presented your cases well.
Yes and Allah presents His case here...
وَمَنْ يَبْتَغِ غَيْرَ الْإِسْلَامِ دِينًا فَلَنْ يُقْبَلَ مِنْهُ وَهُوَ فِي الْآخِرَةِ مِنَ الْخَاسِرِينَ
And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, then it will never be accepted from him. And he will be amongst the losers in the hereafter. (Surah Ali Imran, 85).
@@jackbirdie You forgot to hit “Play” on the video
@@celestialknight2339 What do you mean drainhole glooper? I watched it and saw a fool with a silly haircut talking to an actual scholar.
Whenever you see someone doing a lot of stretching to try to convince people of his beliefs, run the other way. I'd say you should present yourself as having a PhD in the art of stretching rather than whatever you said you do. May Allah guide you or stop you from being a means of corruption, "Hashmi".
@@user-jk1qk2qp3oThere is no comparison between my PhD program and what he did.
@@DrJavadTHashmi
yours is less impactful so far
Dr. Javad was also wrong at 1:50:00, he cited that the chapter speaks about how "You will find the closest to the believers...are the Christians". True. But the verse also says that the most in enmity are the Jews and Polytheists. Now, if you're using this as evidence for a Pan-Abrahamic brotherhood, then how do you reconcile that the Jews are being likened to the polytheists?
The verses only praises them AFTER they believe what was revealed to The Messenger?
Overall, I don't find this thesis compelling.
Just watch the moderator’s smirk at 1:45:42 when Dr Shadee says “You pointed me to this verse, it wasn’t even a part of my argument.” Even he knows Dr Shadee just scored the FIFA World Cup final winning goal in the last seconds equivalent with that statement after quoting the verses that followed the one verse (5:69) Dr Hashmi is using 😂
He absolutely crumbled after that... "No Christian today says that God is the Messiah, No Christian today says Third of the Three" What is the worst part about this is that he said that this understanding makes the Quran look like it was written by an idiot. :0 Speechless
@@ryangyllenhammer He’s one of the cursed by Allah I’m afraid to say. The amount of times as Shaykh Elmasry mentions he blasphemes Muslims and even Christians is astounding to me. He doesn’t even know what he’s arguing.
@@CarEnthusiast90 we make dua for him and will open our arms to him when he gives this egotistical rampage up
@@ryangyllenhammer The Quran was not written by a single person but rather it is a collection of sayings by various people written, compiled, modified and then printed in book form. One of the reasons it has repetitions, contradictions and inconsistencies. It seems that the Quran wasn't thoroughly checked and proofread for its linguistics, dialect, diacritical markings, accuracy, timeline, narratives, headings and titles, contents, consistency, etc. and written down haphazardly and hurriedly to become the "best hadith", called it Allah's words and named it Quran.
@@earthlycreature8772 @critical historical method people! Observe what atrocious doubts you are giving way too ⬆️
Masha'Allah!!!
Dr. Shadee has done a wonderful Job!!!
وَمَنْ يَبْتَغِ غَيْرَ الْإِسْلَامِ دِينًا فَلَنْ يُقْبَلَ مِنْهُ وَهُوَ فِي الْآخِرَةِ مِنَ الْخَاسِرِينَ
And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, then it will never be accepted from him. And he will be amongst the losers in the hereafter. (Surah Ali Imran, 85).
the is your opinion,,,,nothing more
@@biker1581 this is your opinion.
I don't care.
Dr. Shadee's Statement at 2:03:25 really is a synopsys of the whole debate I think. He a priori Rejects an argument if it leads to a conclusion that his traditionalist concious feels uncomfortable with.
There is an utter unwillingness on his part to even read Donners work (or any work comong from western historical scholarship) if he feels his views will be questioned.
Secondly it is very dubious that he would a priori reject archelogical evidenece that posesses inscriptions of the early shahada and simply brush it off by saying "the Religion has reached us via transmission" without speciffying what he means by transmission. What he means is oral transmission. Its very strange standard for evidence that he would prefer oral transmission of information over artefacts that can be reliable dated back to classical times.
I agree with your comment completely. Thank you.
@@fatimatuzzahra4036 Please don't try to take down the Quran to preserve Hadith. The Quran was committed to writing very early on, which was not the case with the Hadith. The two are totally different.
Standard neo-traditionalist approach. They need to confirm their ideology. They believe they're starting off correct so they don't need to learn anything, only refute everyone else.
@@DrJavadTHashmiNot true. The Prophet (pbuh) had scribes writing ahadith during his lifetime.
I recommend M Azimi's books for reference.
Alright, for the sake of argument let's grant the proponents of the historicocritical their conclusions as far as ahadeeth go.
Dr.Hashmi talked about "backcasting" anxieties relevant to the time of the people who built the hadith "sciences" but the problem is proponents of that method do the exact same thing, until recently introduced methods almost everyone who happened upon the religious sources missed the conveniently pluralistic, entirely compatible with modern definitions of Human rights, women's rights, democratic Islam that was occulted all along.
I mean, again if we take your conclusions and accept that the hadith corpus was "backcast" anxiety then based on that critera alone, your conclusions fit the bill as well. I think that your theories might find much credit until this is adressed, i think it just might seem dishonest to most people regardless of your intentions.
What so he said the verses with obey the prophet is “oh you believe” is in the audience to already believing Muslims but also considers the “believers to include Jews and Christian’s . Which is it sir?
Shadee was representing the Null. The alternative hypothesis was Hashimi's. The latter had to present the case that is significant enough to deny the null..... A null which has been established for millennia.
Hashimi's argument rests upon first creating doubt about this "establishment" so as to further solidify the potentiality of their being an alternative hypothesis to begin with. I.e., for people to question the very "established fact."
Relying upon this, he pushes his case forward to provide, what is in his mind, the "right way"... as opposed to the "wrong" and "traditional" way of nearly every single reputable scholar leading up to today since the time of Muhammad ﷺ .
Throughout the debate, "traditional" and "orthodoxy" which are inherently orientalist terms, are used by Hashimi in a derogatory manner. And this isn't necessarily his fault. These terms by their essence emerged so as to be derogatory and pejorative terms. They are colloquially synonymous with those who are "backwards." You will often find such words used in narratives that contain odium-drenched vituperations against groups that are demonized in the media.
(Of course they're going to be derogatory seeing as this is the 21st century, he's a liberal, the debate is taking place in a post-modern and secular/liberal country, and "orthodoxy" is seen as something regressive.)
Truly, it's not "orthodoxy." We don't need liberal, secular, scholars to define Islam. One is either Muslim or is not Muslim. Simple as that.
But of course, the usage of such terms will remain because it delineates the difference between those that follow the "backwards, traditional" way and those that are the "enlightened" ones who are upon the "liberal, open-minded, all-accepting" way.
The "otherizing" of a group and/ or groups, happens in all domains. What we merely saw here is this very concept. One that establishes a line and an "us vs them" dynamic.
What it is however, is Islam vs "neo-Islam" or, at least the attempt at solidifying this "neo-Islam." Similarly with Christianity we saw the cheap liberal revisions they have done with their books, you best believe people will try the same with Islamic books.
Ultimately this is Islam vs. non-Islam. Haqq vs falsehood.
With all due respect, wa alikom al salam.
Very Solid take, Masha'Allah.
What I have observed about all this "Academic Enlightenment" where even "Revisionist School" born; which is just a super Skeptic school of thought about Islamic History; is that it COMPLETELY FAILED TO DO THE THING TO ISLAM WHICH THEY DID TO CHRISTIANITY and Other Religions.(mainly Christianity)
Alhamdulillah, Islam won and Insha'Allah, soon, we WILL SEE THAT what they consider as "Islamic Tradition" will become the UNDISPUTED/UNDOUBTED HISTORY even through secular lenses, Insha'Allah.
Just wait and watch.
“A null which has been established for millennia.” is another way of saying “tradition”.
@@lucashughes8063 world wide tradition. The presumption that it was colluded upon out of fear of losing it is a fallacy and has no historical backing whatsoever. That was one of Javads weakest points
@@ryangyllenhammer Spot-on. Thanks for explaining to our jahil guest.
Edit: Also note the palpable irony of Javad's conspiracy not having historical backing; even though he claimed he was approaching the topic from a historical-critical method.
@@ryangyllenhammer I don't see how "worldwide tradition" is any different than "tradition". It could be solar-system-wide tradition... It's still just that. Something outside Scripture.
I have just one question.
1. You will use non islamic early sources.
2. You will NOT use Hadeeth because it is not reliable.
How anyone can say this as a muslim to prove anything for Islam side?
In which universe we live?
May Allah guide you.
It is illogical how you even started with your rules for debates.
Illogical 1/1
If you really want to learn more about the unrealiability of hadith, The Impactful Scholar has a fantastic interview with Dr. Joshua Little that goes through 21 points of why hadith should be assumed to be false unless there is a good reason not to.
@@kschacherer92 I can also assume his reports are completely false
@@techutopiareviews You're free to do so. I would encourage you to watch the video before you assume that though!
@@kschacherer92 Dude you as him lack logic and honesty. Without these 2. I can consider u both mentally unstable or paid hadeeth rejectors who accept nonmuslim sources and rejects muslim sources. Which is illogical and some agenda is behind it.
@@techutopiareviews I wish you wouldn't assume i'm bad faith when you don't know a single thing about me. Again, if you are curious, feel free to watch the video. If not, no big deal! was just a suggestion. Long life and good health to you friend.
Hey Dr. Hashmi, is it true that Ahmad Jallad is a Muslim? You mentioned it around the 2:00:20 mark (and I believe you), but I’m just curious how you know?
Thanks. Salam.
Still waiting for you to show how this was the early view of scholars like you claimed in the beginning..
Dr Javad please do an after debate thoughts video. I feel like your position was convincing but the back and forth with the specific iyats needs contextualising and explaining eg them being in the Ummah, what is Kufr, what is m(M)uslim, i(I)slam
At one point in the debate you said it was possible that the quran is telling us that the people of the book maybe had to believe in the prophet ﷺ then went on to claim that they didn't have to. If they don't have to then my question would be as Dr shadee said: #1what do they have to believe in exactly for them to be considered righteous?
#2 do the people of the book have to believe in the quran at all? And if they do then wouldn't that mean that they have to believe in the prophet ﷺ since he is the one who brought the book and also because the quran itself tells them to believe in him in many places like surah 3:31?
If they don't have to believe in him then why does the quran tells them in many places that they have to do so like in surah 3:31 and in other places like surah bayyinah, the verses about the unlettered prophet in the torah and gospel that they have to believe?
This view of yours is really strange to me personally and seems to be going against the quran itself and all of Islamic history.
Unfortunately he can’t answer this question without his argument falling into pieces. Surah Bayyinah verse 6 makes it clear that there are disbelievers within Jews and Christian’s. Now we know that being called a Jew and Christian presupposes that you believe in god, what is it that makes them disbelievers then, specifically from the people of the book? The answer is their disbelief in the prophet Muhammad ﷺ, which proves that you MUST believe in the prophet Muhammad ﷺ to be admitted into heaven.
@@omarabbasi2682 I wouldn't say that the word "Kafaro" means disbelievers.
But I think Kufr, means more "to not care"/"carelessness".
Basically, Kafir, is someone who does believe in God, but does not care.
@@omarabbasi2682 why does the verse say those who disbelieve from amongst the people of the book. So why is it classifying them into two groups when by their very nature jews and Christian's are disbelievers
Where's the logic ?
@@hamidman6974 Good thing the Quran isn't based on what you think!
@@Cassim125 "min" there is for ta'keed. One of the great proofs to support Dr Shadees first point
I emailed you this a while back now but received no response, so hoping you answer it here as it seems to be problematic for your claims
1. Surah 98
this chapter begins by referring to the people of scripture as kafirun. why?
if the "min" is used to mean only some of them, and not all, then how can that explanation apply the mushrikoon, as the "min" also applies to them in this ayah, hence it is in the genitive case due to the effect of this preposition: thus it is mushrikeen and not mushrikoon in this ayah. And unless you are saying that some mushriks can be muslim (in your and Fred's understanding) and others kafirs, then it makes little sense to claim this to explain this ayah here for the ahl al kitab.
It makes more sense that kafir is the broad category containing many subcategories, and the subcategories here are the polytheists and people of previous scriptures. It grammatically would be like saying, of the global population, it is the french and the english that are most haughty. this would mean every french and english person in comparison to others, not some amongst them.
so how do you explain this surah calling the people of scripture kafir?
2. Jesus pbuh
the christians at the time of the Prophet pbuh and today ascribe divinity to christ, as co-equal and co-eternal with God the father. do you claim that the Quran is calling these people muslim, and that they have salvation? if tauhid is the most fundamental element in the Quran, or as Fazlur Rahman called it, the master truth, then how can this contradictory belief to it be reconciled with it?
ok watched all without taking side! DR SHADEE DID A EXCEPTIONELL JOB.
Salam,
A main question is that if someone complies with some matters of faith/iman and does not fullfill the others, should he then be considered as a kafir/rejector as a whole or just in the vacant points?
Is the iman in Allah swt and the last day really a summary of all articles of faith as dr. shadee stated or are they an independent extension?
If someone rejects what is known in the religion by necessity (ma'lum min al-din bi al-darura), this is disbelief. Iman in Allah and the Last day includes what was specified in other ayat and ahadith... It is absolutely known in religion by necessity that belief in the Prophet ﷺ after hearing about his message is a condition to enter Jannah. If someone don't acknowledge this now... he/she will see it clearly upon the Sirat. We ask Allah to guide those trying to convince us of their doubts and to give us all afiya and salaama
@@ryangyllenhammer صح
@@ryangyllenhammer
That statement is a creation of sectarian scholars. It has zero Qur'anic backing and each sect then gets to decide "what is known of religion by necessity" and include into that category, if they so choose, their own sectarian peculiarities ... whether that be that Sahaba are all righteous, or 12 Imams of Ahlul Bayt, or only Muslims go to Jannah, etc
On Judgment Day Allah has scales, your good is weighed against your bad. It is that simple, though one sin, deliberate murder of a person enjoying saftey, is irrevocably weighty, while others that would condemn can be relieved by tawbah (murder, zina, etc)
@@QuranicIslam @Qur'anic Islam first point: when discussing a topic you must agree on a definition. The Quran and Prophet ﷺ have clearly defined Islam for us. a definition has essential components to the thing being defined. When defining Islam, belief in the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ is undoubtably a essential component to the religion. Therefore, when you negate what is an essential component to the definition, you negate the entire concept. Hence negating belief in the Prophet ﷺ is negating belief in Islam. This is logic
Javad reminds me of the Protestants and Wahabis where anyone goes to the scripture devoid of scholarly structure and tradition. The excuse is “the scripture” or “Quran is clear” according to what they themselves interpret as being “clear” or “obvious”.
So ... the fact that the Qur'an itself says it is clear and also easy for dhikr means nothing To you? Why are you making it seem as if the claim of "clarity" is Dr. Javad's own invention?
Btw ... the Protestants are closer to Islam (they at least don't worship Mary) and the Wahhabis only claimed to do that when in reality their understand was all centred on ibn Taymiyyah as even the brother of Muhammad bin AbdulWahhab noted in his book refuting his brother
And the twisting of the old books is not twisting of the word, it is the twisting of the definition of the word like "Son of God" can be twisted to mean something else. It means "The one with brings God's message", "The one cared by God", but the intepretation went "God is an entity, who has a child" etc which was basically incorporating the Roman Theology into the Jewish Theology. So many wars took place btw the Romans+Jews. Read about Jewish Wars and how it changed things.
Hopefully you are reading all this, I am here to help, I have a bank of knowledge which is available for your disposal.
Dr. Hashmi never said don't follow the prophet Mohamed. I believe he's saying that there has been miss interpretation from the early teachings of the Koran and the prophet. Some of his examples sound convincing.
1:51:27 The most interesting part of face-to-face exchange.
What do you mean by vis-a-vis in your comment?
@@snakejuce I edited just now.
Dr. Shadee nailed it here.
It was own goal for Jawad.
"Ibrahim was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but he was one inclining toward truth, a Muslim [submitting to Allah]. And he was not of the polytheists."
3:67
Great debate. Thank you.
Islam is not in need of Western academics and historians.
Why would Muslims accept the conclusions of academics but reject the Sayings of Muhammad?
Allah Bless Him and Give Him Peace.
First one has to establish that the "Sayings of Muhammad" actually go back to him, and for this one needs historical-critical scholarship.
Thank you.
Why is this method superior to rigorous Islamic scholarship and scholars?
@@ahxmadnur Isclamic scholarship and scholars are perfectly capable of using this method, and have historically. Dr. Hashmi even explains this: 1:05:10
Western academics are going to take over from the mullahs and fix all the nonsense inserted by the Muslim rabbis.
You don’t need to follow it but you can’t stop it either.
Shady Nasr is making only emotional arguments. He would be a perfect chrstian
So modern scholarship counts a lot to other scriptures but not the Islamic traditionalist position. On his point about following the "newest prophet/messenger on the block", why are the jews to whom iesa came with a new message/injil (the Quran claims he made somethings halal which used to be haram) never once in the Quran told to judge by the injil but to stick to the old taurat
Dr Hashimi you accept the preservation of the Quran but do not accept the Hadith that were preserved by the same people from the early generation to the preceding ones..? Your denying of the core of Islam; rasoolullah (SAW) and your claim to represent the message of the Quran seems truly bizarre.. subhanAllah
Pretty clear issue. Allah says: "Whoever seeks a way other than Islam,1 it will never be accepted from them, and in the Hereafter they will be among the losers."
Yes but what does islam mean?
@@hamidman6974 The Belief in Allah Almighty that He SWT is one and the only God, and that Prophet Muhammad PBUH is the last messenger of Allah.
What does Islam mean?
@@proofy25 how is Ibrahim muslim if Islam meant the belief in God AND Muhammad (SAWS) as his Prophet?
Islam in the Quran means believing in God and obeying him, period.
@@zeustn9525 Surah Al Nahl 48. That's how.
Dr. Javed, can you expound or give examples on anachronisms in the hadith corpus?
I think he does give an example in the video.
Why do the Chapters say the wrong name of the speakers? Al Hashmi is the first speaker and Al Masry is the second right?
Dr. Shadee Elmasry - 36:40
38:15
12:42 Dr. Hashmi reiterates the debate topic "Is (I)slam the only path to salvation?"
12:58: Dr. Hashmi describes his speciality in Quranic studies as a historian of religion and his methodology in using the historical critical method to conclude that (I)slam as it appears today was not the predominant view in early Islamic history.
13:05: Dr. Hashmi outlines his (early historical) sources: 1. the Quran, 2. the Constitution of Medina, 3. physical evidence, and 4. Early contemporaneous Non-(M)uslim sources
13:33: Dr. Hashmi does not use sources manufactured much later that were back-projected to the original community: 1. Hadith, 2. Sira, 3. Tafsir, 4. Asbaab al-Nuzuul and/or 5. Views attributed to early (M)uslim communities.
14:08: Historians of religion agree that it would be anachronistic to attribute the term 'religion', to early Islam. Religions, in their earliest forms, did not demarcate exclusive spaces and language as religious. This is essentially what institutionalized religion seeks to accomplish much later as part of its identity building efforts which is then back projected as the religion's origin story/myth.
14:35: Islam takes on a different meaning in the Quran than how it is used today to refer to the institutionalized religion, (I)slam.
14:50: "So what does the word Islam mean in the Quran?” 1. In its literal and/or existential meaning, a Muslim is a submitter (to God). Islam is submission (to God). Wholehearted and conditional and exclusive self-abandonment in an absolute devotion to God. 2. Its universal meaning, absolute devotion of one’s worship to God. A committed monotheism of the primordial timeless religion with God. 3. Particularized meaning, Islam as an institutionalized religion with a beginning and affirming Muhammad as the religion’s prophet. This meaning is not found in the Quran
15:54: According to Fred Donner (Muhammad and the Believers 2012), the term Muslim appears only 75 times in the Quran. The word mu’min (believer) appears ~1000 times. Through this logic, the prophet’s community were initially called Mu’minun (believers) instead of muslimun/(M)Muslims. To Donner, a Muslim is a committed Monotheist and Islam is committed monotheism by committing oneself to God’s will (this corresponds to definitions 1 and 2 above). Muhammad’s community were pluralistic in faith, consisted of Jews/Christians/Monotheist(ic)
16:38 Pan-Abrahamic Thesis is widely recognized (this includes in western Quranic studies) when studying Classical Islam
16:48 To clarify the terms above, “Mu’min,” has been narrowed/particularized/excluded to a believer of God and Muhammad and following Quranic law. Muslim, generally, is any submitting Monotheist to God even as they follow their own scriptures and religious laws.
17:13 Who will receive salvation? Verses 46:13-14 (those whose submit…) and 2:62 (those who believe … Jews and Christians and Sabeans .. those who believe in God). Does not say Islam, Christianity and/or Judaism.
18:48: Quran indicates the one true religion, as opposed to idolatry is God’s timeless religion in verses 42:13 and 46:9.
19:14 Different names for this one true religion in the Quran
19:35 Quranic verses using “Muslim” imply the entire universe submits to God
20:52 Quranic verses which criticize religious chauvinism/exclusivism/sectarianism
21:04: Restating debate question: Are only Muslims following the Upright Religion?
21:10 No, according to Verse 98:5-7.
21:30 According to Joseph Lumbard, “al-Islam (is the primordial form and) refers to the universal pre-sectarian submission to God which is the quintessence of all virtuous religions. It is the attitude of submission that is believed to be inherent in true faith.”
21:46 The Quran makes clear of one true religion. The religion has manifested itself over time through sub-religions and/or different codes of holy laws and religious paths. The Quran endorses divinely ordained religious diversity in Verses 5:48, 22:34, 22:67
23:18 According to Fred Donner, the Torah was viewed by the believers as one addition or avatar of God’s law with the Quran being another edition or avatar of God’s law
23:33 Quranic verses using “Islam”as submission/absolute devotion to God but is used by religion exclusivists to imply its particularized meaning as the institutionalized religion we see today. (Verses 3:19, 3:85, 5:3)
24:08 Alternative reading of verse 3:19 through Ibn Masood’s codex also opposes religion exclusivism and particularity
24:30 Alternative reading of verse 5:3 implies not religion but rather religious worship ie. The absolute devotion of your worship to God
25:06: What does the Quran say on the People of the Book/ahl al-kitaab (the Jews and the Christians)? According to Fred Donner, general verses regarding the ahl al-kitaab are positive. Verses which have negative overtones almost always makes sure to say “a group among” the ahl al-kitaab (verses 3:100, 3:113-115). The Quran is concerned with individual behavior and avoiding blanket statements by passing judgement on entire groups.
26:18 This group among the ahl al-kitaab are critiqued for not following their own scriptures, the Torah and the Gospel (verse 3:93, 5:44, 5:47, 5:66, 5:68)
27:20 According to verse 5:48, the Quran does not abrogate past scriptures. The Quran came to confirm and protect these texts
27:25 Who then were classified as the original community of Mu’minum/Muslimun (submitting monotheists)? Mu’minun were those who believed Muhammad as their prophet and followed Quranic law. Muslimun can include Jews and Christians if they submit to God religiously and and to Muhamad from a social and political perspective and followed their own scriptures and religious laws. All of these groups could secure salvation
28:12 Verse 3:80 calls Christians Muslimun (and criticizes them for deifying Jesus)
28:30 Kafirs/Idolators in the Quran refer to idol worshippers and pagans
28:45 No compulsion for conversion (3:64)
28:55 The Quran allowed the early community to intermarriage and social intercourse (sharing food) since all groups are believers (verse 5:5). Verse 2:221 forbids marriage with idolators because of their impure beliefs. The Quran allows for a self-defense war to defend monasteries, churches and synagogues (verse 22:40) No mention of idol worshipping temples
30:00 Review of early historical sources. 1. Constitution of Medina ratified between Muhammad and the believers/mu’minun and submitters/muslimun. Both groups are named as one ummah
30:28: Ummah now is used in a completely exclusively to imply the Muslim Ummah. This goes against the Constitution of Medina
30:46 2. Contemporaneous non-Muslim historical sources reveal that even after the Prophet’s death, Jews and Christians identified as Muslims. In early Syriac sources, Jews and Christians were members of the early movement of Islam even after the prophets death
31:05: (Repressed) Early Islamic sources call Jews and Christians as belonging to the community of Muhammad
31:20 An Exclusivists’ reading is contradictory to the Quran
32:00 The Quran condemns Muslim ‘safe sect’ mentality
33:00 The Quran condemns Jewish and Christian’ exclusivist mentality (verse 5:18)
33:18 Does Heaven Belong to Your Religion (verses 2:94 … 57:29)
34:34 What direction did the Islamic tradition take verses which express religious plurality?
35:11 Late exclusivist view found in Hadiths which contradict the Quran. The Quran says there will be no intercession on that Day. One’s fate will be based by individual faith and virtue.
35:42 The Quranic view on salvation (Verse 49:13)
36:25 Final thoughts: “Muslimun is an existential state inside the heart. God judges you based on that, your faith, and your virtue.”
Thanks!!!
Dr Hashmi Dr Dr Dr pipe down
Thank you. The Shadee cheerleaders must have missed all of these facts.
Thanks
This is seemingly the youtube channel of Dr. Hashmi, but the video chapter annotations are mixing up Dr Hashmi with Dr. Elmasri. Obviously Dr Hashmi knows his own name, which leads me to believe that whoever is editting/publishing for him on his channel has no interest in what he is saying or in him to begin with, which is understandable given the absurdity of his arguments.
Javad, you were in your comfort zone and had prepared notes. Shadee didn’t come prepared and was winging it despite saying he watched all your videos on UA-cam.
Maybe he wasn’t used to this setting?
😆 😆 😆 @1:57:53 Dr Shadee lost it! It was all too much for him, he got overwhelmed with what he had never thought of! What's next? He says ... Is Judaism still from Moses!??
Made me think of one to throw in; the Qur'an never says the Torah was given to Moses. In fact the word "Torah" and "Musa" do not appear in the same verse together anywhere in the Qur'an
How's that for what's next? 😆 ... I actually feel for his confusion here
That's not confusion.
It was actually an excellent point made by Dr. Shadee.
If it's all about inscriptions or any of the Archaeological/Documentary evidence then where are the inscriptions about Musa AS, Ibrahim AS, Haroon AS, Nooh AS, Sulaiman AS, Idrees AS, Other Prophets AS?
Your belief is based on the Rock Inscriptions?
Just tell me.
وَلَقَدۡ اٰتَيۡنَا مُوۡسَى الۡكِتٰبَ
And We gave Moses the Scripture
Quran 28:43
So what is this verse talking about?
Which book Musa AS was given?
@@maximus320
You are mixing things. Firstly, I just found his perplexed rant there funny. Secondly, no it's not all about inscriptions, etc ... but when such things are found and they don't match the oral narratives, then it opens up questions. Thirdly, our faith in the Messengers rests on the Qur'an (if that wasn't obvious!)
@@first9_yt
Answer; not the Torah
This comes back to understanding what "Kitab" means. It doesn't mean book/scripture. Hence verses like the Jews and Christians both recite THE Kitab. The channel "learn Quranic Arabic" has an excellent video on it.
Bottom line is what Musa was given became part of the Torah, but it wasn't the Torah. You can throw as much a fit as you want, but ultimately you should accept that God chooses the right words ... and in the WHOLE Qur'an, in the numerous places where revelation to Musa is mentioned, not once does it say "Torah".
That should mean something to you if you are serious about the Qur'an and serious about God's Words and serious about pondering them.
So you tell me ... why isn't the "Torah" mentioned with Musa even though it is mentioned with later Israelite Prophets? Do you have reasonable answer? Other than what I mentioned?
Here is another thing that would make Shadee lose it I think; not once in the Qur'an does Allah say He loves the "believers". I have a video on my channel going through all the verses.
@@QuranicIslam "Kitaab doesn't mean book/ Scripture"
🤣🤣🤣
What are you on?🤦🏻♂️🤣
Here look what Allah Says.
"He has sent down upon you, [O Muḥammad], the *Book* in truth, confirming what was before it. And He revealed the Torah and the Gospel (3:3)
Before, as guidance for the people. And He revealed the Criterion [i.e., the Qur’ān]. Indeed, those who disbelieve in the verses of Allāh will have a severe punishment, and Allāh is Exalted in Might, the Owner of Retribution.(3:4)
"And [recall] when We gave Moses the Scripture and criterion1 that perhaps you would be guided."
2:53
"The month of Ramaḍān [is that] in which was revealed the Qur’ān, a guidance for the people and clear proofs of guidance and criterion"
2:185
So Allah calls The Quran and previous Scriptures as Book and He ﷻ calls both Quran and Torah as "Furqan" and Heﷻcalls
Yahoodi and Nasara as "People of the Book" but you say that Book doesn't mean Scripture.
Aren't you afraid of Allahﷻ?
Now look how these verses expose you and prove that you don't even know well enough about Quran.
"Indeed, We sent down the Torah, in which was guidance and light. The prophets who submitted [to God] judged by it for the Jews, as did the rabbis and scholars by that with which they were entrusted of the Scripture of God, and they were witnesses thereto."
5:44
Wasn't Moses Prophet Himself?
Your analogy shatters in the verse itself😂
But I have a final nail in the coffin for you.
Quran 5:44
"Indeed, We sent down the Torah, in which was *guidance and light*."
Quran 6:91
Say, "Who revealed the Scripture that Moses brought as *light and guidance* to the people? You [Jews] make it into pages, disclosing [some of] it and concealing much.
So it is clear that the Guidance and the Light given to Musa AS is Tawraat itself, Subhan'Allah!!!
But I have more for you.
"And We gave Moses the Scripture and made it a guidance for the Children of Israel that you not take other than Me as Disposer of affairs"
17:2
"And We had already given Moses and Aaron the criterion and a light and a reminder1 for the righteous."
21:48
"And We certainly gave Moses the Scripture that perhaps they1 would be guided."
23:49
"And We certainly gave Moses the Scripture, so do not be in doubt over his meeting.1 And We made it guidance for the Children of Israel."
32:23
Which "kitaab" was guidance for children of Israel?
"And We had certainly given moses guidance, and We caused the Children of Israel to inherit the Scripture"
40:53
Which "Kitaab" did Bani Israeel inherit?
"And We had already given moses the Scripture, but it came under disagreement."
41:45
Which "Kitaab" did come under disagreement by the Jews?
You, under your another comment section said that you are not a Hadith Rejector but you only don't accept nonsense.
"I mean I don't accept the nonsensical hadith that contradict the Quran."
So now tell me about this hadith.
Sahih al-Bukhari 4476
"Go to Moses, the slave to whom Allah spoke (directly) and gave him the Torah."
So now, do you accept this Hadith or again say that this Hadith in your analogy "Contradicts the Quran and is Nonsensical."
I’m wondering Dr Javad do you pray 5 times a day? Or because the detailed description are in the hadith you don’t pray 5 times a day?
This is a weak argument. First off, I specifically stated that one can still use Ḥadīth from a religious perspective and I have spoken about this frequently in the past. Second off, and even so, the details of prayer come from lived tradition (Sunna) more so than mere reports, which are often conflicting and contradictory. Stated another way: If you gave the Ḥadīth collections to someone who has never prayed before and does not know how to do it, that person could spend their entire life combing through those books and still not figure out how to do it, especially given all the conflicting information found therein.
@@DrJavadTHashmi I’m not saying this as a trolling argument Dr Javad I’m actually curious do you or do you not. If not that’s fine I’m not gonna call you a kafir or something *I’m not a salafi or those Neo salafis btw haha* and I agree if a lay person did go through the detailed descriptions of the prophets prayer it would take a lifetime and it does seem confusing.
Also your first presentation I agreed with about 70% of what was presented but the other 30% I have issues with. Alhamdulillah it was good a debate and we Muslims worldwide need to know and be acclimated with the western scholarship tradition of Islam 👍🏾
@@abdulrahmanabdulkadri4825 If I ignored all the comments, then I would be criticized for this. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. This sums up the conservative traditionalist dogmatist attitude.
@@MohamedShou I have prayed regularly since I was 12 years old. Not only this but I am likely more religiously practicing than many of the akh-right bros who oppose me.
Not that it is any of your business.
@@DrJavadTHashmi you didn’t say it was the 5 daily prayers though 🤔
Sir plz add Urdu subtitles
Even though i like some of javad's Ideas on certain issues, but this one I'm disappointed, Dr. Shadee speaks more logical and it's so dumb to reject all of this transmitter for the sake of what you believe in, it's really illogical.
I felt the opposite for the same reason; Dr. Shadee seemed the illogical one because he rejects all scholarship in lieu of the tradition of transmission, seemingly for the sake of maintaining what he believes in. Like he started by completely dismissing all of Dr. Hashmi's points out of pocket because they come from Western scholars and critical methods, then makes the completely illogical fallacy of claiming that Islamic scholars closer to the time of the prophet would be better interpretters. If he had any specific issue with the modern scholars' understanding of Arabic and reading of the sources, he should say that, rather than simply saying it's possible and therefore none should be considered. Similar logic of doubt applies to early Islamic scholars: that they are motivated (likely subconsciously in most cases) to twist interpretations to server their own sectarian needs/beliefs, rather than be impartial and objective - but I believer that to be far more likely than modern scholars simply not understanding Arabic, even though it isn't their first language (the Arabic at the time of the Prophet and Quran is not Dr. Shadee's first language either, anyways).
Dr Javad destroyed himself at 1:55:45. He wants everyone to explain their own religion but then wants modernists to interpret Islam and not let traditional Islam explain itself. #specialpleading #doublestandards #hypocrite.
Actually, beautifully said my guy. Accurately spot-on. Jzk.
Absurd strawman I responded to already. I never claimed that Christians have the ultimate say on a historical question about Jesus. In fact, I said the opposite. Rather, what they get to explain for themselves is how they currently believe. This has nothing to do with historical claims, which are the kennel of historians. Sorry, easy to talk big in the UA-cam comments, but Dr. Elmasry had his chance in conversation with me.
@@DrJavadTHashmi So the christian scholars in history aren’t classified as historical?
You were trying to appease the Christian audience but exposed your dishonesty, be honest. Look at 1:56:11 to 1:56:25. Ironically you’re the one getting fine points wrong and “butchering the religion” while claiming people outside the Christian faith are doing that to Christianity.
Dr. Javed, do you believe that Christians today who believe Jesus was "fully God and Fully Human simultaneously" on earth will attain salvation according to the Quran????
Jesus the son of Mary already answers that question in the Qur’an:
“I only told them what You commanded me: ‘that you shall worship God, my Lord and your Lord’… *If You punish them, they are Your servants. But if You forgive them, then You are the Mighty and Wise.”* (Qur’an 5:117-118)
So according to you can a christian or a jew achieve salvation even if they deny the prophethood of Muhammad pbuh after being told about him?
Abu Bakr and Omar also show no interest in saving Christians....one says: don't bother the monks, the other they will take the church away from you...I would be happy if you give your opinion on whether I'm right
Dr Shadee won this debate by a landslide. Hashmi conceded the debate on many occasions (1:37:00 & 1:37:47). At 2:18:47 he states that the interlocutors stance (which he is quite literally trying to disprove) is a perfectly acceptable belief. So now the question is, what was the point of even showing up to the debate? If you believe the opposing stance is perfectly fine then why argue against it? This shows how flawed Hashmis epistemology is ONCE AGAIN.
1. Hashmi violated debate rules by using Tafsir (from an irrelevant academic) AND Hadith to try and push his argument. If Dr Shadee were to use Tafsir or Hadith he could have ended the debate in a few seconds.
2. Hashmi is unable to respond to the point regarding Surah Bayyina verse 1 & 6 which talks about disbelievers from the people of the book. When we talk about the people of the book it is presupposed that they believe in god, so what is it that makes them disbelievers Hashmi? The answer is their disbelief in this new messenger ﷺ and his message. You won’t address this though since it refutes your entire argument.
These are just two points that are enough to show that Hashmi lost this debate (not to mention he conceded).
Hashmi also demands for archaeological evidence only when it suits his stance which is unreasonable, another flaw in his epistemology.
Overall Hashmis epistemology is severely broken and is filled with double standards and logical fallacies. If this is the level of what Harvard is producing then I must say I’m disappointed.
@@Oxygen11115 doesn’t change the contention
@ra c when it talks about the “people of the book” it’s already presupposed that they have some sort of monotheistic belief, otherwise Allah would simply group them in with the pagans (which is also mentioned separately as mushrikeen). Since they are already people of the book, being a disbeliever would mean that there is something exterior (aka rejecting the prophet ﷺ). If we go with the idea that it is referring to them following the injeel and Torah which are now corrupted, Allah would not tell them to follow a corrupted message, rather it is clear that Allah is telling them to adopt the uncorrupted message and to follow the prophet ﷺ as a messenger (4:59 is key). Also, what is the purpose of revealing the Quran if it wasn’t meant to be followed?
@@Oxygen11115 I’m not sure what you’re arguing but be aware that there is a major difference between kufr (disbelief) and sin
Well said
@ra c We have to realize the context. The Quran is now speaking about the Jews and Christian’s at the time of the prophet ﷺ, as well as after him. This implies that their disbelief is rooted in the final message. As for the interpretation that Allah is telling them to follow their old scriptures, I believe that according to Hashmis criteria this would not be the apparent meaning but it would be a jump in logic, because it doesn’t say “partial believers of the book” but it’s clear in saying “disbelievers from the people of the book”. General disbelief is just disbelief. If Hashmi wants to argue that they are rejecting parts of the book then this is clearly not the apparent meaning and would go against the criteria laid out by him in the debate.
1:01:52
This was very unnecessary and classless but it seemed to have gone under the radar. He called him a qawaad which means pimp in a very derogatory way.
Even if there is a huge disagreement, we shouldn’t resort to this way of speaking. Also talking like you are respectful, smiling and sneaking in a insult like that is actually weasel behavior.
If you reject the Beloved of the Creator, why would you expect His Mercy. The whole narrative of humanity is for the Beloved. Reject Him and you reject his intercession on that Day.
Reject his intercession, then good luck in being accepted by the measure of your own deeds. The only salvation is through him, Sallalahu aleyhiwasalam..the most praised one.
The Quran was transmitted by the same companions that transmitted the ahadith. If you deem the hadith unreliable, then you should also deem the Quran unreliable. But you also said the Quran is reliable, due and not restricted to existing manuscripts. Therefore there is no logical reason to doubt the reliability of the ahadith.
Not to mention the preservation of ahadith is the most reliable source of history in the world, due to its thorough methodology. If you deem it unreliable, you might as well throw all history into the bin. Obviously western academia will never admit to its authenticity, so I can't understand one you could go into a debate on this by reliying on it.
Subhanallah to know that this is even a discussion is scary honestly may Allah guide al of us to the truth
Salam brother. Imagine if you were sitting in the Masjid on Jum’ah and the Imām stood up on the pulpit, and said “My brothers and sisters! Listen to me when I say this! EVERYONE who believes in God, and believes in Judgement Day, and does good, will in the end GO TO HEAVEN! Yes, EVEN if they are Jews, or Christians, or another monotheistic faith! They have NOTHING to fear!”…..You would probably gasp at his ‘shocking’ words, and get angry that such a misguided and liberal Imām has infiltrated your place of worship. Yet, your very Lord & Creator said those very words over 1,400 years ago in the Holy Qur’an, in Sūrah Al-Baqarah 2:62, as well as Sūrah Al-Mā’ida 5:69. So why don’t you also get upset or angry there? Because, you have sadly convinced yourself to stretch, twist, and re-interpret those crystal clear words of your Lord, in order to fit it in with your childhood-raised tradition & sectarian lens that has been handed to you. Therefore you mold and squeeze God’s revelations into your tradition & creed, rather than molding and squeezing your traditional creed into God’s word-as you in fact ought to do.
So indeed: May Allah (SWT) guide us all to the truth-which means guiding us all to first & foremost accepting His words & message as revealed in His Book for WHAT THEY ARE, and not twisting them around for the sake of our sectarian creeds and traditions, which would not even EXIST in the first place, were it not for Him having sent His Book to guide us in the first place. So God, please give us the strength to read, to have an open heart, and to accept your clear Kalām and beautiful teachings for what they are. Ameen.
@@celestialknight2339 what do you think about the last Aya of Surat Al Kahf?
@@celestialknight2339 Walaikum Asalam, sorry but I’d rather stick to 1400 years of scholarly work and the tradition over what some westerner liberal thinkers say about my faith. Let’s both make sincere dua to Allah when we’re alone to guide us to that which is best.
@@jacobim94 can you show us where in the quran it says to follow 1400 years of tradition ?
@@Cassim125 don’t be ridiculous. It’s very clear that those whom heard the message are destined for the hell fire. Salvation can however come to those who haven’t heard. Simple.
Overall this was a good debate!! Both doctors put out solid good points for their positions.
I’m glad it happened. Would like to see more of this. Islams golden age was defined by this sort of healthy debate and discussion within our tradition.
This isn’t even something up for debate in Islam.
There is only one guy who spoke the truth here. And that was Dr. Shadee. The other dude was upto all sort of gymnastics.
@@ismohd87 such as?
@@BeNGALi4LFE for one, attempting to negate the opinions of those who preserved the religion to give precedence to those swayed by post modernism.
Javad main argument is if the christians scholars of the past are wrong then so are the muslim scholars. and then calls it special pleading if we try to merit each person in their own paradigm
is there a hidden assumption that all religions are wrong therefore islam is wrong too?
Salam, if 49:13 says, "Oh Humankind, we created you from Male & Female", What does this say about "Jesus" then. Was Jesus excluded from this sentence or was Jesus of a Father & Mother.
"Indeed, the example of Jesus in the sight of Allah is like that of Adam. He created him from dust, then said to him, “Be!” And he was!" (Q 3:59)
....
Like Adam a.s., Jesus a.s. is an exception...
@@aftabahmad8658 Thank you
Two points; 1. the quality of the disbeliever versus the quality of the believer is what the Quran condemns as it pertains to the Jews and Christians in 7th century Arabia. 2. Muslims need to be shown how the historical critical method is applied to all forms of history and that Masry is special pleading when he avoids it. So much more could be said but I’ll leave it at that. I’ve waited my entire life for a debate on this topic between Muslims. Glad to see it happen.
Farhan from clubhouse not surprised you are here lol
If a person doesn't believe in the Qur'an or in the Prophethood of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam), that makes the person an outright kaafir (this is aside from the shirk and other forms of kufr the Jews and Christians ascribe to God).
Beliefs are only relevant if they have consequences; the spirit of believing in the Quran or the Prophet is that it leads to transformed behavior and thinking; taqwah, tazkiyah and ihsan are the goals not dogma and tribal identity. Any Christian, Muslim or Hindu could be living a lifestyle and performing practices that are making them God conscious and maintaining discipline over the nafs and it’s desires. No point in believing that a Prophet talked to God, only point is if that Prophet leads to the individual transformation of the soul. I would say transformation of the soul and spirituality are universal, the fitra is universal, salvation ought to be universal.
1:17:54 That's a Checkmate.
Great timestamp, thank you.
What is Shadee on about. 10 minutes in and he’s just rambling. 😫
Well there is so much i wanna say, but i cant due to YT’s limit, so apologies.
1st off it was a heated debate, but interesting nonetheless.
In my opinion Dr.Javad’s not using hadith is problematic when it comes to historical critical method (HCM). Why? Well, he gleefully stated that Muslims love to use it when we use it against Christianity with the renowned Sheikh Arman (Bart Ehrman), have to admit i am a big fan of him & Dr. James Tabor, but when it comes to our tradition we try to shy away from it due to “special pleading”. What? Does Dr. Hashmi not know the uloom and sciences of hadith that characterize supposed eyewitness testimonies of the Prophet by his companions? Does he not know the Islamic tradition relies heavier and primarily on oral tradition which is memorized and scrutinized via grading and criticism? Oh yes! Sorry, he decided not to use hadith due to inference of bias Im guessing?
News flash, using the Quran also is inferring bias to prove a point. But lets use Javad’s argument as he stated Muslims like to use HCM only with Christianity.
Well, biblical and historical scholars when they look at Christianity, like Ehrman, they look at primarily at the Gospels. Guess what? the gospels are sayings of Jesus, from supposed eye witness accounts of his life, sayings and teachings, written by anonymous authors, incorrectly attributed to his disciples. In other words, the gospels are literally hadith and seerah of Jesus falsely attributed to his disciples that were discovered 40- 80 years after his departure. Oh, but that's okay to use for Christianity when it comes to HCM, but not to Islam? Honestly, that seems hypocritical and dishonest to me.
If we can use that method with Christianity, then for the purpose of being objective and unbiased, we too must use the same methods for Islam surely. The hadith provide context of the exegesis and explanations of the Quran, they provide the historical and circumstancial context of the revelations. You can't t have one without the other, doing so otherwise would be historically and critically dishonest. Sure you can grade it authentic or inauthentic, fabricated etc by Muslim, and non-Muslim, or historical scholars alike, but you can't just dismiss them entirely, especially if thats what they rely on when it comes to Christianity.
Thats the first problem i have with it, more in the further replies.
Secondly, there is a stark difference between the historical documentation of Islam and historical Christianity.
In christianity, the earliest manuscript we have is of Mark, anywhere from 150-250 AD. There is such a gap in time after Jesus's departur and the "gospels" coming around. Plus, the main writings we have are of Paul who was very much against the teaching of James and the Church in Jerusalem. The most important is we dont have the divinely revealed Injeel, all we have are letters by Paul who made Jesus into a God and negated the Torah. In christianity, a lot of its history has been suppressed by unknown groups, groups in power, etc, it is pretty evident, no need to go into it further. So one can see why Ehrman who was a devout Christian later became agnostic/atheist when the historical transmission of early Christianity was so weak.
Islam on the other hand has primarily rigorous oral tradition and then textual tradition that is graded on its chain of narrators. One of the earliest mufassireen was Ibn Abbas, who was the cousin of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) who wrote the earliest exegesis of the Quran to my knowledge. His sahabas were with him, they memorized the Quran, and also narrated his sayings and his life, not to mention his beloved wife Aisha. May Allah be pleased with them all. In fact, it is with in the Islamic tradition where there is critcism of the compliation of the Quran, some quite critical, but it is within the tradtion. Heck Islamophobes especially the notorious Sam shamoun regularly use them to discredit the Quran, yet if looked critically, all the evidence is provided there proving the historicity and preservation of the Quran, let alone aqeedah or this supposed shahadah being different initially (only place i could find it was from Sam Shamoun anti-Islam website, Dr. Javad Hashmi never provided evidence of which scholars had this view.)
If anything, seeing the preservation, orally and written, would make one see how robust the difference is between Islam and Christianity.
So you are comparing two different preservations. So from a Western and Christian perspective i can see why one would become so critical of Christianity and possibly negatively affect their faith or trust in it, and then apply that lense and rubric to Islam and other religions. Sure, you can if you want to, go for it, do it, to be critically honest, but you can clearly see the stark difference in the preservation of the two. It makes sense why historical christian scholars would approach any religion with much suspicion but you are comparing two different animals here. But still do it, in order to be honest with yourself.
And then critically analize all the hadith and tafseer to see what seems authentic, and what does not and then come to your conclusion. Therefore dont discount the hadith in the name of critical honesty when what you’re doing is quite the opposite with Christianity.
Anyways will continue soon with the 3rd part iA
1:57:00 first of all, it seems highly unlikely that the second half of the shahadah didn't exist for the first 70 years (!!!!), as the adhaan itself contains a variant of the shahadah, as Dr Masri said. But even if this were true, (and i don't think it is), what sort of a debating strategy is it to admit something like that - you'll never convince anyone with a claim like that, except the most extreme sceptic out there. This was an own goal, and Dr Hashmi never recovered after this point. Shadee won this debate not out of his own wits, but because Hashmi didn't know when to stop dropping skeptical trivia.
How could you even have the first part of the shahada without believing in the prophethood of the person telling you about it? ﷺ
@@omarabbasi2682 um, you can believe the second part, without mandating its utterance. And even Dr Hashmi isn't saying that the Prophet's person isn't important - he is merely saying that it is not mandated to recognize him to enter Islam or rather the community of believers (for these Jews and Christians). I don't agree with him. But at least we should characterize it fairly.
Dr Javad had the better argument and was consistent in his position, I feel that debates with traditionalists seem to be more about them using rhetoric rather than engaging. It's clear at the end Dr Elmasry used the whole "they're trying to destroy Islam" line, which is very common when traditionalists debate people with different opinions. Even though I'm still on the fence about this issue, I do think Dr Javad made a very convincing argument and Dr Elmasry didn't really respond to his points. I do like how Dr Javad called out the double standard of Muslims using the historical critical method when it comes to Christianity which is very common to the extent that they would use Richard Carrier who argues Jesus did not even exist but when it comes to the historical critical method, they call it liberal nonsense if it applies to Islam. It's also interesting how this is seen as a non-Muslim endeavour when, in reality, a lot of the points that were raised came from Muslims. I'm pretty sure it was people like Chiragh Ali and Sir Syed who made a lot of the arguments before the orientalists did.
Thank you for the thoughtful comment. Yes you are right about Cheragh Ali and Sir Sayyid. I am very inspired by both but I feel a special bond with Cheragh Ali.
@@DrJavadTHashmi Yes ofcourse you're only inspired by kuffars and murtads more than any believer, rather you are very suspicious of those who have taqwa!
May Allah guide you and destroy your misguidance,,.!
Q 4:150: "Surely those who deny Allah and His messengers and wish to make a distinction between Allah and His messengers, saying, “We believe in some and disbelieve in others,” desiring to forge a compromise"
Q 4:151: "they are indeed the true disbelievers. And We have prepared for the disbelievers a humiliating punishment."
This is clear to me stating the need to believe in the prophet PBUH
As I have already stated, the People of the Book had to affirm the Prophet Muhammad in some capacity, perhaps even as a prophet. Yet, they could still follow their own religious laws and scriptures. This is apparent from the verse that precedes the ones you cited, i.e. 4:136.
@@DrJavadTHashmi
Q 4:136:"O believers! Have faith in Allah, His Messenger, the Book He has revealed to His Messenger, and the Scriptures He revealed before. Indeed, whoever denies Allah, His angels, His Books, His messengers, and the Last Day has clearly gone far astray."
it's not clear to me from this that it says they can follow their own religious laws.
Dr Elmasry needs to learn human psychology so he can understand why nuances exist- and basic things like stresses in society unconsciously impacting scholarly analyses at their time. They are human after-all. His arguments were at times uncomfortable to listen to, and his demeanor patronizing. Unfortunate.
He did not address the sound and straight proofs/ points that Dr. Hashmi made, and instead resorted to fear mongering to persuad the audience/fellow Muslims. I agree that he came with his preconceived theology and therefore it felt like he wasn’t listening to-or purposefully ignoring Dr Hashmi’s points.
Excellent concluding summary from Dr Hashmi. And not suprisingly, Dr ElMasry didn’t address any of the evidences, but resorted again to his tactic of promoting fear and shame- understandably causing viewers to become closed off to logic and wisdom (we all want to be good Muslims after all!). Even going as far as to say Dr. Hashmi is promoting a new religion! Absolute shame.
May Allah cleanse our community from this unkind, unconscious, weak approach to our beautiful and perfect faith, which is preventing the UMMAH from forming again. May Allah lift the veil and envelop our minds, hearts and souls with His light, love, and wisdom- so we can know The Truth and truly be God-conscious, pure, and morally upright individuals. Which is the way of the believers.
Dr. Hashmi without a question “won” this debate, and I applaud him for his respectful demeanor through out.
Jazakallahu kheirun for your efforts, and may Allah increase you (and us all) in knowledge, wisdom, and peace.
My deepest gratitude to Dr. Shadee and Dr. Hashimi! A great and powerful debate! May Allah bless you!
Looking at the majority of comments, religious bigotry is very apparent from my muslim brothers… we should be better than this
Not bigotry. As muslims we dont have to call christians believers 😂 its just false. They would agree
@@AD-lk9re a kafir is a disbeliever and the Quran has stated this quite clearly. if somebody has rejected the only truth then they have rejected it no in between.
@@AD-lk9re I think you might have missed the point of Jawad's (really Donner's) argument. If you disagree with something, InshaAllah you still understand what you're disagreeing with. He's saying that the early ummah (based on the Quran and historical documents like the constitution of Medina, as well as other sources like non Muslim contemporaneos and eyewitness accounts of early Islam) was divided into two sections: Mu'minun (believers) which was made up of people following the Quran (what we now call Muslims), and Muslimun (submitters) who were made up of other monotheists who accepted the prophet as a political leader (the ahlul Kitab). I don't agree with this point or the point on hadith rejection but I have faith that my correligionists have the ability to understand what they knee-jerk reaction reject.
@@S3Abbas splitting hairs. His argument is so random and offputting to muslims that it doesnt matter if he was calling christians muslimun or muminoon. Hes wrong either way.
@@AD-lk9re I know that you think that but the whole point that they're making that you're missing is that there were two tiers to early Islam and the early Muslim ummah, a more general and a more specific and that's based off of how they are reading verses. You might as well get used to splitting hairs when it comes to Quranic studies, Islamic or Western, in particular, and when it comes to philology in general. It's based off of close readings of texts with unbiased questions, in theory, in mind (critical) and using knowledge of history as it's understood in the secular world, for better or worse how they approach every religion, using every available piece of data, from receipts to inscriptions (historical) as their methodology. To react like this, by getting scared and not even understanding what they're saying makes Islam look as feeble as Christianity or Judaism can look when some of their followers are presented with scholarship about the Bible. Beat them at their own game if you disagree or stop having these knee-jerk reactions which make us look non-serious and try to understand what it is that you find so objectionable.
mind boggling SubhanaAllah
I know-the truth hurts, doesn’t it? Sūrah 5:69 is a game-changer indeed. But Alhamdulillah we should fit our beliefs into the Qur’an-not fit the Qur’an into our traditional beliefs. Hope you would agree.
Salam.
To believe in Allah a condition is to believe in all of his prophets as the Quran says .
Do not put verses against each other .
Subhanallah
What's with the deep breaths though
I listened to the debate, and have come to the conclusion that at a few points in the debate, the speakers were talking past one another. The capital “M” Muslim vs. a non Muslim submitter from a “أهل الكتاب" faith, I believe to be essentially correct because in the end Allah is the ONLY judge of a person’s eternal fate and any number of factors may play into why or why not a person accepts Islam. But having said that, people have an obligation to seek the truth and only Allah who knows about all these factors that play into this can be the ultimate judge. الله اعلم. But this has always been known in Islam to my understanding. Where I think that Dr. Javad’s thesis fails is that he overemphasizes and makes a whole proposition of this point whereas this is the most weak and dangerous place to be on judgement judgment day.
The danger of Dr. Javads position is that, as Dr. Almasry points out, --its logical conclusion seems to be an entirely different faith- something akin to “Abrahameya” faith and I will not go there and accept that because it makes adhering to the Sunnah and the transmitted tradition optional- which to me is clearly a Western, secular, objective.
I did not embrace the faith of Islam to be drawn into some Western inspired quagmire of a watered down faith- so I would have to conclude that I stand with Dr. Almasry. I honestly believe that the war on Islam is precisely because faithful Muslims will not embrace this Orientalist, deconstructionist paradigm which would enable a secularist system to undermine the power and relevance of our Islamic faith.
The Quran urges the various communities to compete in doing good. I will rest on that, and allow Allah to be the final judge trusting that Allah is true to his attributes of being الرحمان و الرحيم.
1:04:07 Javad visibly distraught, thinking "Golly, I'm not sure I can defend this debate, I just want to go home.,"
Imaginary.
😂so true
it might be more of "Golly, how do I communicate with a guy who just confessed that he rejects opinions without even reading them first"
Thats the point when you know, its not about evidence, its about tribal/cultural loyalties.
Another absurdity is how Shadee thinks "Western" is synonymous with "non-muslim"
Alhamdulillah much needed debate, many Muslims believe in what Dr javad is saying but they keep silent due to the backlash of the Muslim community, Allah knows best.
Thank you!
Assalamualaykum guys.
Dr Shadee's starting arguments were weak. The historical critical method does not presuppose that those who wrote hadiths were liars, rather we do not have good reasons to believe them because of political movement in that area, spills about which is filled in tafseer and hadiths.
If the historical critical method can give us the theology of real Jesus A.S then this method can very well either prove the reliabilty of hadith or the forgeries.
Who is the Christian theolgian you referred to about Byzantine theology that the Quran is referring to, please?
Can you clarify your question. Keep in mind this debate was long time ago, so I will need a reminder of what you are talking about. Thanks.
@DrJavadTHashmi
Apologies, around 1:48:47
On the topic of Byzantine Christian imperial theology, that the Quran is engaging with and critiquing this. Then you mention a Christian theologian that reads the Quranic critique of the theology and agrees with it.
But didn't say his name.
Thank you.
@@Stardust475 Ah I was referring to this:
ua-cam.com/video/flvLH6BkaNo/v-deo.html
I think Dr Hashmi is being misunderstood. If I am not mistaken, I believe that the core point of his argument is that the foundational message of Islam is anti-sectarianism. It makes sense if someone allows themselves to read the Qur'an in a non institutionalized way. For example verses from the Qur'an criticize Christians and Jews for both thinking that their religions or groups are saved, when in actuality belonging to a certain sect isn't what saves us but rather our good deeds/demeanor and belief in God.
Yes agreed, and there was wonderful quranic quotes to back this I have learnt a lot from Dr Javad on this area.
Sounds right 👍
Your opinion doesn't matter against the text of the Quran lol. Javad said no tafseer yet here you are trying to do your own modern tafseer.
No one is making the argument that belonging to some sort of "saved-sect" is the answer to all of life's questions.
This is actually a common trope and a misconception presented particularly by those who have an attraction to thinking that is in tandem with perennialism.
This would be particularly by those who are repelled by, what they deem to be, modern exclusivism and fundamentalism.
This attraction is in the idea that somehow all religions are pointing to a transcendence, a core, some shared universality if you will.
This is cute and all, to the new-age goons who want to hold hands and sing "Kumbaya," even though it has no grounding in reality.
The difficulty in such a notion is that religions are naturally mutually exclusive in some of their fundamental truth claims.
Buddhists and Christians cannot BOTH be right, Christians have a personal God.
Islam and Judaism will assert that God is One, Unique, and that there is no internal differential in the Divine Nature.... whereas the Christian would say that to be INCORRECT, and that the Divine Nature is characterized by a Triune deity.
Christianity and Judaism cannot both be right.
.........Anyways I digress, and probably no one cares and no one is even reading this.
My closing remark would be to reiterate that Islam, since it's onset holds that it is the final and true religion as ordained by the last and final, holy Prophet of God.
One who is indeed God's true prophet to the world and this time....and that his way is an all embracing, inclusive, and diverse way. The Quran and the Prophet is at the heart of all scholars past and present, who have done their due-diligence.
Whether they were Sufis like Rumi and Ibn Arabi, all the way to any most recent extensions of the Islamic tradition, all hold these notions to be true and that Islam is the correct way...as is detailed in the Holy Quran.
Ibn Arabi even himself has sometimes harsh words to say about Christian doctrines, like the doctrine of the Trinity. He would have been the LAST person to say that all the metaphysics of the worlds religions are simultaneously true, he believed his system was right.
Period.
(Anything beneficial in my comment is from The Most High, and any mistakes are from myself wa alikom salam)
@@AwaisAhmedPodcast Interestingly enough, when one says the Shahadah (Attestation of the Islamic faith), and they affirm the final Prophet Muhammad ﷺ , they are ultimately also affirming all the prophets leading up to and coming before the final: Muhammad ﷺ .
I.e., By affirming Muhammad ﷺ , you are also affirming the belief in all of the other prophets that were sent by God.
Edit: typo in "Shahadah."
You just got humiliated by Dr Shadee...
Only because you came here to anticipate what you claim with a biased view.
@@immasavagebro2845 Did you make that biased comment because of your biased view as well?
Although I don't agree with the delivery of OP, I felt the obligation to point out that we all have biases.
@@snakejuce tafsir of the 'ulama of islam to present the Islamic belief? Thats wrong but qala shaykh Kevin ibn Kafir is okay!
@@aldogjataj2196 Welcome to the New World.
@@snakejuce we'll go down a path of calling out each others biases infinitely. Subjectivities don't imply that nothing objective can be said. What I maybe should've said was that OP was a dishonest analyst.
2:27:40 so true 😢
Saying the gospels haven't been textually corrupted, is a mistake.
Oops.
May Allah guide all the ones who follow dr Jawad back to traditional Islam. They are so on the wrong path I don’t even know what to say 😢
Mashallah ... It was the moderator of all people who put his finger on the crucial point that "believing in the Messenger" isn't about believing in his *being* a Messenger, but rather in having faith in what he teaches and brings
@@shafeydanish
When he says; God is One
And you accept it, then that's faith in the message. Just like now you can convince someone else of all the teachings of Islam, and they could accept them all, without teaching them that Muhammad was a Messenger.
What's illogical about that?
Muslims do it all the time when they argue for anything in Islam; hijab, no alcohol, charity, that God exists, etc ...
Don't tell me everything in Islam has only one reason; Muhammad is God's Messenger
?
No. There are real reasons why God commands and prohibits certain things. Anyone can accept them and see that they are good and true, even without believing that Muhammad got them from God.
Sorry ... but we have very different backgrounds in this. For me Dr Shadee practically said nothing of importance and was completely unconvincing. All he has was special pleading and "follow the forefathers", something the Qur'an criticizes again and again ... this blindness to evidence which he admits to. That it doesn't matter what evidence anyone brings ... we won't read it because we "know" the conclusion is wrong.
@@QuranicIslam "Follow the FOREFATHERS"
Following the Mushrik Forefathers like Mushrik Quresh of Mecca did and Following the Salaf, who were the friends of Allah; these are two EXTREMELY DIFFERENT THINGS.
One were following their Forefathers to Jahannam and Alhamdulillah we are Following our Spiritual Forefathers to Jannah.
I would have quoted some Hadiths but since you are just another Hadith Rejecter I will just quote Quran.
"Guide us to the straight path -
The path of those upon whom You have bestowed favor, not of those who have earned [Your] anger or of those who are astray."
Quran 1: 6-7
@@first9_yt
I'm not a Hadith rejector, just not a nonsense acceptor. And the verse you quoted is supposed to prove what exactly? ... That you should follow your forefathers? Wrong. This is Fatiha ... Surely you can understand it better than that!
@@QuranicIslam what you mean by nonsense?
@@first9_yt
I mean i don't accept nonsensical Hadiths that contradict the Qur'an. How about you? Do you reject Hadiths that contradict the Qur'an?
Agree with hashmi it’s like there can be new scholars other than bhukari
Islam versus Perennialism.
More like Islam vs exclusivism.
@@DrJavadTHashmi Islam is exclusive by its very premise lol.
(Quran 3:19) The true religion with Allah is Islam.16 The People of the Book adopted many different ways rather than follow the true way of Islam even after the knowledge of truth had reached them, and this merely to commit excesses against one another.17 Let him who refuses to follow the ordinances and directives of Allah know that Allah is swift in His reckoning.
@@SaceedAbul As I already said in the debate, al-Islam refers to the primordial generously tolerant religion, as indicated by the Quranic variant of the very verse you cite.
@@DrJavadTHashmi may Allah swt guide if you think you’ve proven your position in the argument. Inshallah you’ll understand Islam and the shahada the way the Sahaba understood it. And not the way the colonial powers of European “intellectuals” have tried to shape it to be understood. Ie for their own benefit and not the benefit of the Muslims.
One day the colonizers will not only leave the lands of the Muslims. But their minds of some of the ones they still occupy.
Allah is one, not two or three
We all agree on that 😅 Alhamdulillah
Leaving the debaters and their arguments aside (which of them I hink Dr. Shadee has the higher ground) the moderator looks like a very sympathetic and nice guy. I just want to point out how wholesome he looks all the while just sitting there and listening to Dr. Shadee. Kudos to those of you who organised the debate for bringing such a source of joy and happiness. Some of the most visually rich and spiritful sceneriers I have witnessed in my life were made possible with the inclusion of Dr. Krarus or Krauss, Crows idk. Thank all of you and dear moderator especially. Assalamu Alaikum!
I think he failed in the moment he wouldn't admit Christians believe Jesus is God. He didn't want to help one defeat the other but he looked like he was helping Javad.
Very disappointed by Dr. ElMasry's first talking point. Dr. Hashmi's proper citation of where he got his ideas from does not make it tasfir and therefore disqualified from consideration. This came off as a very slimy and disingenuous way to avoid addressing the arguments and score points with the audience. The alternative, by implication, is to avoid mentioning tasfir each scholar can only base their arguments off of their own, entirely original readings of the Quran? And presumably they have to avoid reading any other scholarship on the topics, both Western and Islamic? What a ridiculous argument to make. I refuse to believe someone holding a doctorate would make it sincerely.
And then rephrasing "hadiths are unreliable" to "hadiths are Muslim lies." Just a frankly unbelievable amount of poisoning of the well right from get-go. Not sure I can continue watching the rest of the video, but Dr. Hashmi's presentation was wonderful.
Edit: I'm glad I stuck through to the end, being able to hear Dr. Hashmi's rubuttals was worth it. Though my frustration is great I appreciate that Dr. ElMasry is willing to make these debates - many are not willing to put themselves through the discomfort and effort. Assalamu alaykum.
What on earth was the point of revelation then if Jews and Christians were on the right path.
Strange also that one would believe in Prophet Muhammad as being the last messenger or prophet of God and then reject the message that he brings with him.
The primary purpose of the Quran was to warn the Arabian pagans of Mecca and around her environs. A secondary purpose was to call the People of the Book back to following their scriptures and the Religion of Truth.
@@DrJavadTHashmi....So the verse about sending the prophet as a mercy to all mankind is moot then, he was only sent to the pagans of Arabia?
Also, how do you call the followers of scriptures back to the Religion of Truth? How did he do that...can you elaborate?
@@Mustafghan You need to learn to actually understand your opponent's viewpoints before actually seeking to refute them. I never claimed that the Prophet "was only sent to the pagans of Arabia." I said he was sent primarily to them. Big difference.
@@DrJavadTHashmi Good way of avoiding answering my questions. Why don't you answer the questions first.
Dr Shady destroyed him
Destroyed himself*
I think there should have been a more robust discussion on 2:62, because that verse really complicates things for Dr. Shadee if one were to look at the verse on its face.
I agree. Hashmi should have pushed back more on Shadee’s claim that “belief in Allah and the Last Day” is an alleged “summary” of the pillars of faith. What is his evidence for that? He can’t just assume it. Plus if that were the case, then there would be no need to even mention the other groups such as “Jews” and “Christians” and “Sabians” in the first place-because the verse could have just simply said “Anyone who believes in God & the Last Day is saved and has reward.”-full stop. Done. Without any need for that introductory portion.
To be clear, in my view, it is still incumbent on any Jew or Christian to accept the Qur’an-under the condition that they have been faithfully introduced to its message (which came THROUGH the prophet) in a clear & accurate manner-but that not knowing this, or misunderstanding it, but still remaining faithful to their own tradition as monotheists, can still certainly grant them salvation as long as they fulfill those duties that God has set forth (faith in Him, belief in the Last Day [i.e Judgement Day], and doing good deeds).
So in my view, the truth lies somewhere in between Dr. Hashmi’s view (semi-extreme pluralism) and Dr. Shadee’s view (extreme exclusivism). But I still think that Dr. Hashmi is closer to the truth, and Qur’an 2:62 is one of the clear scriptures that is in support of that. The term “Muslim” has no doubt been abused by orthodoxy, and the Qur’an is a much more tolerant and pluralistic book than many people would like to imagine. And for me, I think that is beautiful, and an expression of God’s true mercy.
Salam.
Yes, I agree, but there is limited time in a debate.
The crust of the question about the Prophet should be, is he’s Allah’s “Partner”🤔. Because that’s the only way he would be significant enough to determine if one gets salvation/heaven or hell in the next life of resurrection. Allah says in Quraan that if he wanted everyone to believe the same he would have made it so,🥱