Amazing discussion! Javad had some very interesting points. Hes very articulate. Altho I agree with Muftis view but am grateful for mufti bringing such guests to learn different theories. Mufti do get dr javaid again to cover more stuff.
I just came across this discussion, and I really think that if the key excerpts edited into a single shorter video, it will make a big impact. Really enjoying listening to this.
@Dr Javad T Hashmi @Mufti Abu Layth On the discussion on the term 'sabab' in the Quranic narrative of Dhul Qarnayn (2:19:00), I'd just like to add that the same term is also used in a few other places in the Quran with a similar contextual meaning. For example, Q38:10 ('Or is the dominion of the heavens, the earth and everything in between theirs? If so, then let them ascend via the available paths/means'), and Q40:36-39 (Pharaoh's instruction to his minister to construct a tower to help him reach the 'paths/means' to the heavens.
On the discussion at 1:30:00: Proto-Evangelium and the Gospel of James (extra canonical Gospels) include stories found in the Quran about Jesus such as the infant Jesus speaking in the cradle and giving life to clay birds.
Mind blow after mind blow- what a brilliant discussion. Made me think about my own positions and do more research. Please do part 2 and maybe have a panel discussion with some other past guests. I’ll even pay for that! Thank you both for this.
@Saracen 786 What is so mind-blowing about this? The Qur'an was written for literary reasons (that means for the purposes of literature itself, albeit terribly mediocre) because that would have been the best cultural medium to communicate new values (not beliefs) and a new way of thinking so to speak. It's only if one believes in literal truths, like the whole sour Prophethood business, perceived to be contained therein that this comes as a shock.
Ofcourse you would love this saracen🙄 love to accuse your Muslim brother in public or public humiliate your Muslim uncle in public so ofcourse Allah s.w.t would misguide you, so good luck on your journey of misguidance 😳
@@user-vy6ee1wo4n What on earth are you talking about? He is not knocking down anybody by sharing his ideas and explaining this thinking. To think and to contest dogma IS to be human. You are total fanaticism. To defeat dogma is to get closer to the divine (in this case, Islamic dogma). Dogma and doctrine is the stuff of the jurists and half-baked theologians from the 9th-11th centuries. What is next for Dr. Hashmi is to explain (hopefully sooner than later) is that Muhammad was not from Mecca. Mecca was not on the radar of the Umayyads At All. That too is myth.
@@user-vy6ee1wo4n You are talking about the Mufti then? Do not make a medical diagnosis (with irony or otherwise), even by saying "like", "known to..be". That is irresponsible and unethical. Don't medicalize people. That's not the way (1) to engage with people and/or (2) to speak about them. Weren't you invoking Allah just above? I would do better as a believer, if I were you.
Dear Mufti Sahab, can you kindly change the title to "Sacred Legends of the Qur'an" instead of "Archetypal Myths." There is a technical difference between myth and legend, which is important to my overall argument and certain counter-arguments that I will have to deal with in my work. Thank you! And thank you for this amazing opportunity! It was fun... Cheers! EDIT: Mufti Sahab, thanks for letting me know how you always alliterate your titles. I realize now that this is the reason you needed to use the word "myth" to match this alliteration scheme. No worries! Thanks again!
im curious. Correct me if im wrong but your view is that these quranic stories including prophetic stories are mere parables in other words Moses, Jesus etc are invented characters not actual historical people/prophets ?
@Siraj Haq Oh i see ok so he does believe these were real figures but the stories are dramatized. But i see you have got yourself caught in a philosophical problem with the statement that God doesnt intervenes. For one this contradicts surah 55 which speaks about god dealing with affairs everyday in the world 2 There are other verses which speak about supplication as well as hadith speaking about dua 3 The fact that divine revelation comes to any prophet or they perform a miracle is divine intervention. 4 Non belief in any divine intervention is a deistic belief not a theistic one. Thus you dont believe in the islamic god but a deistic impersonal one. 5 We dont know fully how free will/determinism works & the relation to quantum mechanics. We know we dont have 100% free will.
Salam dr javad. Wow I really feel you cracked the code on this whole gog and magog story. You’re explanation on this is the best I’ve ever heard, I’m excited to hear more from you!
I used to think because of the Alexander Syriac story is a legend. I couldn’t understand why the Quran mention this. It kinda prove the Quran being man made why would god mention legends. This story made me doubt my faith and no one has a good answers I’ve been looking for years. I think dr javad makes the best sense in this. It’s either this explanation or the Quran is a book of legends and not from god. You choose yourself I’m still amazed by his explanation
@Siraj Haq the only reason you say that is because you pre assumed the Quran to be from god and it can’t be wrong. If you look at it objectively it’s pretty clear. I’m no expert either
When the 'Aql is involved there will always be disagreement amongst every person because the aql is determined by your own make up and situation and is shackled, and can't break free. This is why all the Prophets had no disagreements in Tauheed because their knowledge is not derived from the 'aql, it's derived from unveiling.
Dr. Javed T. H. Please have a discussion (not a debate) with Abdullah Sameer and/or Veedu Vidz. I would love to listen to that discussion. It will greatly help me in my faith🙂
@Fiyadh Mowla This is very unlikely to help you. Dr. Hashmi has a faith-based position. The other two do not. Dr. Hashmi is interested in a revamping of the understanding of the Qu'ran's purpose, "of the mission of the Qur'an" as Dr. Hashmi puts it. In this paradigm, the role of Muhammad is secondary. The passages in the Qur'an adjust themselves, albeit seldomly, to some situation Muhammad found himself in (and, here again, this is a faith-based stance; there are major assumptions here). Mr. Sameer's or Mr. Veedu's possible discussion with Dr Hashmi is not going to instil in them a restored quasi-faith of any kind nor produce some agreement or reconciliation (by reconciliation, I mean the action of making one view or belief compatible with another) that would speak to you (now, I am assuming things): they do not believe in the Abrahamic god, or believe that Muhammad was in contact with this god. He might have been a leader in the Nabatean region and then Medina, but that's it. All Mr. Sameer and Mr. Veedu would take away ultimately from this is that the Qu'ran is a text from late Antiquity which has been fashioned and refashioned for a number of aims; they already know this. Dr. Hashmi's interpretations of this story and that story, or his reclaiming of the scripture for a new purpose will not change their attitude towards the Qur'an. It will still be a book of platitudes. The same can be said for Abdullah Gondal, Mr. Sameer's sidekick on UA-cam (both are very bright). Reading scripture as literature is nothing new for educated, intelligent people like Mr. Sameer or Mr. Veedu or Mr. Gondal. It might seem novel for Muslims, but that is not saying much. This is why Dr. Hashmi's arguments are quite boring, really, on the larger human scale (for Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Taoists, Confucians and Western atheists). If Dr. Hashmi's work (and the work of other academics on this topic) sounds ground-breaking for Muslims, this goes to show how backwards and behind Muslims really are in their thinking and understanding. If you are not following me, I would love to discuss further
@@paulthomas281 i just check Andalusian Project channel to find the video were he mentions that. The video is gone. Ill let you know if i can find somewhere else were he mentions it.
@Dr.Javed wondering why can't we take the explanation from moral foundations theory to figure out morality or many cases use Sam Harris's moral landscapes and include suffering as yardstick?
I was asked this question in another place, but I'll reproduce my answer here. I was asked if we could consider the angels on the Battle of Badr to have been a sort of "collective dream" that inspired the troops, so to speak. My answer to this was as follows: I would say that I do not take this line of thinking and would in fact consider the idea of "a collective dream" to be the type of scientistic interpretation that I was opposing in my discussion with Mufti Sahab. Instead, I would point out that these verses about the angels being dispatched during the Battle of Badr, such as Q. 3:124, were not revealed during the Battle of Badr at all. Rather, it was a subsequent conflict and time of struggle, which is why the previous verse says: "God certainly helped you at Badr, when you were lowly. So reverence God..." (Q 3:123). This seems to me to be possible proof that the Qur'an's initial audience itself understood the literary allusion and did not take it literally. It was not meant to convey historical information about the past event but rather to reassure the believers in the present. Hence, "if you are patient and reverent [now]," then "your Lord will support you with five thousand angels..." (Q 3:125). The Qur'an is telling the believers to be steadfast in the time of adversity and using powerful literary language to do so. Instead of focusing on why one verse says a certain amount of angels and another says a different amount, etc., we should instead focus on what the Qur'an is doing here, which is to call for certain ethical or moral action... in this case, to be steadfast in the time of great adversity.
Dr. Hashmi, I don't understand the point of such rationalizations frankly enough. Maybe it's because the existence of angels and jinns never shook my faith when I was a practicing Muslim. Although I do appreciate the fact that Muslim modernists such as yourself are showing people the vastness of the tradition, I think there are much bigger problems with the standard narrative of Islam. I think the problems of religious diversity, religious exclusivism, and eternal hellfire are much more pressing. I find it hard to believe the Qur'an is a "sacred art" when you can't go a page without God mentioning how he will roast unbelievers for eternity. Would you possibly know of any material that engages with these problems from an Islamic perspective?
@@sifatraihan3455 Check out Yasir Qadhi ' Descriptions of jahanam 8 - the externality of heaven and hell', Shabbir Ally ' Does Allah hate unbelievers' & Shahid Bolsens ' Inferiority of Western values ...'
Mufti, I greatly appreciate your work. I disagree vehemently with many of your positions but respect your effort. All the best and hope to keep seeing more.
@@MRshraaf you took the liberty of certifying him. Why do you care who cerifies whom? You clearly think you're qualified to - who am I to present an alternative viewpoint.
I keep missing those mindtraps on Facebook. I have just watch it out. I got the say it I loved it! This mindtrap was the bom. I’m definitely a fan of Dr Javad. He made some very good points he just nailed it! I was so happy when he spooked about those morality’s in the beginning 😭🙏🏼 “That they can do everything kill and rape eating a baby and then when the come into islam it’s all good” it’s all forgiven” your good. I can’t bear it when people teaching those stuff. Happy you have spoken out! Your thoughts are very critical and interesting I like that! I wish we had more people like you and Mufti Abu layth. I liked your views for the most parts. I’m not sure that I follow the same understanding about the prophets in the end but never the less I loved it! Waiting for the second one. The conversation about Alexander was interesting I agree in both ways you guys both made good points. Mufti Abu layth you nailed it! Much love for both of you keep sharing the love!
They call that divine command theory in philsophy. Of course it has alot of criticism. But no educated person could believe that about eating babies and all forgiven.
@@Yameen200 then I lot op people are not educated it’s because of the Hadith that says that every sin that you made wil be forgiven when you becoming a Muslim. I find that ironic because it’s injustice for the victims who been raped, murder and those kinda stuff but thanks
@@DrJavadTHashmi do you have an Instagram or Facebook account? I have a question and I’m wondering what your thoughts are on this topic. What proof do we have that the prophet really married multiple wives? Did he really married them and why didn’t he just take care of them? Because god menstion in the Koran your other half and not a man has more half I don’t find it justice towards a woman? How can a man marry more woman’s ? And should be called justice?
This guy is a machine. So he did a medical degree (and presumably an undergraduate degree before that), a bachelors and masters in Arabic and Islamic studies, 2 years at al-azhar, and is in the middle of his PhD? I’m tired just thinking about all that
@IbnSaifi You'd speak to many physicians (and lawyers) who wish they could pursue something else in addition to medical practice. They would look upon Dr. Hashmi as someone fortunate, who has a passion and made it work, not as a machine who is stretching his time and self-pumping. Many people can do this (it's pure pleasure) if you create the opportunity.
@@IbnSaifi I agree with you. I was not saying it is feasible for everybody (and if it were, more people would move ahead and not consider it that difficult), but I disagree with your remark earlier: we shouldn't be applauding (praising, even) people who can pursue 2 careers (or one and another half-way) or multiple degrees, the way you seemed to with regard to Dr. Hashmi. If I have misinterpreted you, pardon me please.
Can one be Muslim without actually believing in jins and angels? Hell and heaven as concepts also existed before Islam came just like jins and angels, so what is the point of believing
1:56:00 How is "splitting of sea and the water on two sides of the path looking like mountains" Reading between the lines? Imagine we had the power to split the sea, it would exactly look as described i the Quran. I dont think it can be any clearer
Thank you for this Video ! Im a christian and intrested in Islam and you guys are great listen too ! Final there is not a 5 minutes interduction in arabic before the actualy topic and there is also not always arabic senetce between english words which Im not able to understand and it is also a pain in the ear. So good thanks for your work !
@@DrJavadTHashmi sorry for my bad english . Seriously how should anyone in the West accept Islam when your life is OK? When you hear Dawah man, Hijab, Ali, Ustadh Abu Ibraheem Hussnayn that sounds going back to the stone age without even reasoning about it. Im sometimes wonder why we even have to talk about certain things , like beheading teachers over some cartoons or killing of apostates, or journalist who critic Islam what the heck is wrong? Serioulsy it is very hard to stay positiv towards Islam. When you observe whats happen in Nigeria, Mali, Afgahnistan, Pakistan etc... all because of religion it makes me sad. One other point is also that Muslims always speak at WE Muslims but when you browse around they fight each other like mad. Ochhh you just need to see the discussion at speakers corner . As a non arabic speaker I honestly have no chance to find the truth ( when their is one truth) in all the different matters. So it is refreshing to listen to you both truly thank you ! Greetings from Europe
@@pilgergufy why do you care what happens in Afghanistan. Even if you accept Islam you are not responsible for it. I think you are scared of accepting the truth and too attached to your Christian white European identity
Dear Dr. Hashmi, There are some grammatical points I would like to bring to your attention if you wouldn't mind. I noticed that these were repetitive mistakes. The first is the use of the interrogative personal pronoun. At 1:38 you said "Who killed who"? It is and can only be "Who killed whom", and at 1:53 "by who?" where it should be "by whom" The declension of 'who' goes as follows: who/whom/whom/whose for nominative/accusative/dative/genitive respectively. This means that in the position of direct object, 'whom' must be used. Examples: "The person whom I saw (not who)", "Whom did you see", "Whom do you love", "Whom did the prime minister demote?". Further with objects used indirectly and instrumentally with prepositions to/for/by/at/on/in/with/from, the pronoun must be "whom". Anglophones have no trouble grasping this, but the latter escapes them. One might wonder, well how do I know when to employ the proper pronoun each time, so I do not find myself humming "ahhh....who or whom?" This is the trick I tell people, and it works perfectly: imagine what the answer would be to a question using either 'who' or 'whom', the answer meaning which personal pronoun to employ, such as he/they vs him/them. If I would say, "He killed them" -> then it is "Who killed whom". "She saw them" -> "Whom did she see?", not "Who did she see"? because the reply could not be "She saw they". "I love her" -> Whom do you love? Brits are just as bad with this as Americans and Canadians. Mufti Abu Layth committed the same error at 2:29 with "Who should we worship". Again it has to be "whom". Further you did not apply the subjunctive where you ought to have at 2:36. You should have stated "if he had not been", instead of "if he was not", given that you were setting up a hypothesis (certainty does not matter) from within the past. (In the present, one has to say "if he were not".) The only permissible verb forms of "to be" (and of every verb) with the word "if" are "if one should be/if one were/if one had been"; with "to have" it is "if I should have/if I had/if I had had". Should you have any questions with respect to the subjunctive or the who vs. whom distinction, I would be glad to help.
@@DrJavadTHashmi I'm surprised that such an important writer hasn't been translated to English. I'm increasingly coming across snippets of his quotations in various books and articles. Just finished reading, journal article " an analytic study of the Khalfallah's Quranic political thoughts". Khalfallah perhaps offers a perspective which allows religion to save itself from dogmatism & authoritarianism. Really enjoyed your talk with Mufti sahab. And hope Inshallah you'll make your discussions regarding khafallahs widely available. Jzk.🙏
I came across this while trying to figure out how to understand the story of Dhul Qarnayn in light of the Syriac Legend. Considering stories in the Qur'an to be "legends" is a more compelling than I would have originally thought, but I can't stomach the idea that Allah would essentially lie. I understand the response is, it's not lying, it's a spiritual truth or a greater truth...but still. Kind of hurts to think about.
Could it be that the Angels mentioned in Quran were visions of Angels shown by Allah to the believers to encourage them and give them mental strength? It could be so that the believers were encountering a kind of spiritual illumination and transcendental experience in which they were enjoying the sweetness of their imaan as God rewarded their unwavering faith by showing them the visions of green turbaned angels. During extreme meditative states people really see visions of extraordinary beings. Even when people take DMT, they have these type of visions. There are realms beyond these materialistic plains. Sometimes there occur deliberate momentary lapses in the virtual reality of this material world which enable people to see beyond the usual dimensions.
@Abu Muslim al-Hajjaj So what do you want to imply? Do you want to say that the Sahabas did not see any angels? Do you want to say that Quran or Hadith does not mention anything about angels? It is clear that the Sahabas saw the angels. It is also clear that the Sahabas killed the Quraysh leaders. So what was the purpose of the angels other than providing tranquility and confidence to the Sahabas? When the Sahabas saw the angels, their imaan and confidence got a great boost. Their fear of number disparity evaporated. They fought with great vigor and with the zeal of desiring martyrdom. The angels are clearly mentioned in the Quran. So either they were physically present or they were visions witnessed by the Sahabas. Quran is categorical about Allah sending the angels to help the companions of Rasulullah (S:). So as a Muslim it is clear to me that the angels were either physically present or the Sahabas experienced the presence of the angels spiritually. Denying the presence of angels in that battle is a clear cut denial of Quran. "(Remember) when you said to the believers, 'Is it not sufficient for you that your Lord should reinforce you with three thousand angels sent down?'" [Translation of Quran, Sura: 3, verse: 124]
@Azal Abadi Where does it say that if anyone sees angels, he would be a Prophet? Don't make up things on your own. Hazrat Mariam (A:) saw angel, but she was not a Prophet. Hazrat Ibrahim's wife saw angels. When angels come in human form in front of the Prophets, the people with the Prophets can see them. Read Quran and Sahih hadith properly. Don't make up doctrines based on your conjectures. Where does it say that in order to see angels you have to be infallible? The dying men see the angel of death.
@Azal Abadi You are just making up your own definitions. Who said Hazrat Mariam and Hagar were Prophets? Please give evidence from Quran. It was Hazrat Ibrahim's (A:) wife Sarah who saw the angels. So was Sarah a Prophetess as well? Hazrat Lut's (A:) daughters and wife also saw the angels who came to Sodom to destroy the city. Was Lut's wife and daughters Prophetess as well? Prophets (A:) are those who receive divine revelations from Allah through the Angel Jibril (A:). Seeing angels and receiving revelations from Ruhul Amin (A:) are not the same thing. I would request you to first read the Quran cover to cover on your own. Quran will remove the misconceptions and bias hammered into our brain by people. Nabis (A:) get divine revelation from Allah through Angel Jibril/Highly honored Angel. Rasuls (S:) get risalat (messages) from Allah through Jibril (A:)/Highly honored Angel. Mere seeing angels does not make anyone a Prophet. Yes, normal human beings cannot see the angels. But when Angels in human form are sent by Allah to the Nabi (A:) or Rasul(A:), the people surrounding him can also see them if Allah wills. Bibi Sarah (A:) actually was spoken to by the Angel. "Indeed Our messengers came to Abraham, bearing glad tidings. They greeted him with 'peace', and Abraham answered back to them 'peace', and hurriedly brought to them a roasted calf. When he perceived that their hands could not reach it, he mistrusted them, and felt afraid of them.They said: 'Do not be afraid. We have been sent to the people of Lot. And Abraham's wife was standing by and on hearing this she laughed. And We gave her the good news of (the birth of) Isaac, and after Isaac, of Jacob. She said: 'Woe is me! Shall I bear a child now that I am an old woman and my husband is well advanced in years. This is indeed strange!' (Surah: 11, Verses: 69-72)
The laying of the golden egg in the churning of the cosmic ocean is a far, far, far more interesting creation story than anything, and I mean anything, the Abrahamic traditions have on offer. Millions of Kerala's Christians and Muslims would agree with me, and millions of other Indian Muslims as well.
@@aali87 There is no relevance to theology. I never said simple, simplistic theories can't be true. But it is the content of these simple, black and white stories that make them laughable. The richer creation stories are not chasing after truth just by being complex, but they provide much more for intellectual and spiritual reflection. These stories are above theology. The Islamic and Jewish creation stories are pathetic which explains why the theology of these religions is in turn pathetic.
I love Jawad Hashmi and went through his Islamic intellectual course twice. I agree and believe with his thought process. The traditionalist have their roots dug deep into the fabric of Muslim societies. What we got to understand that the main reason for this is lack of education and economical deprivation. Reason can never be promoted unless people are of a mindset to accept it . Traditionalist take advantage of this mayhem - they can’t be beaten till we improve general education in Muslim societies.
I humbly request you , LAYTH, to please bring someone of your calibre who can cope with your reasoning. The guy may have the education institutions certificates but ........!!
I am confused Mufti is Muslim right. Is he a liberal or how or does he think of his views? I am asking cause I am not sure and am just beginning to watch him
2يوحنا [6] John وَتَبِعَهُ جَمْعٌ كَثِيرٌ لأَنَّهُمْ أَبْصَرُوا آيَاتِهِ الَّتِي كَانَ يَصْنَعُهَا فِي الْمَرْضَى. 2 And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.
I don't agree with all of Abu Layth's original interpretations and Javad Hashmi can be very arrogant, wrong & refuse to admit he's wrong, but these 2 guys are BRAVE and moving Islam in a better direction than most Conservative Traditionalists who aren't looking for any new knowledge from the Qur'an or Islam or Islamic history. Javad takes it way too far in pandering to Western scholars. The Qur'an tells you to believe in what its saying constantly. To say the prophets were just fictional legends and miracles were meant to cheer up listeners is very kuffar, IMO.
Javad is a intelligent chap thats for sure. He should read a bit more on moral theories, arguments for subjective vs objective morality, atheistic moral platonism by eric wielenburg but hes definitely got potential for philosophy. I do think that with these historic stories ppl can disagree with the details & believe the Quran dramatizes the stories or summarises & ignores details but its problematic to discount all the stories as made up fables for 3 reasons 1 The issue of prophets : Prophets are one of the articles of faith so if the stories are made up these prophet characters are no different from lord of the rings characters. Thus the theology of the faith breaks & the religion shatters. We could say the concept of angels, afterlife etc are all just stories. Theres no resurrection, heaven hell etc. 2 The authenticty of prophethood shatters since even the quran can be said to be a story entirely ie not divine revelation to the Prophet Muhammad. 3 The Bible goes into deeper detail of these individuals, Now these accounts may be exaggerated. Its far fetched to think the biblical writers were writing so many details on a fiction story. Anthropology & Biblical Scholars believe these were real individuals particularly Jesus. The Mslim convert Louay Fatoohi for instance has written books on the stories of Joseph, the exodus comparing the details arguing for the quranic account as more true.
@Siraj Haq I don't think you know exactly what you are raising for discussion. Are you aware about the study of early Islam, 7th and 8th centuries, and why the first coin with Muhammad's name appeared in 682-685?
@Siraj Haq I think you misunderstood me. Yes it was for ideological purposes that Ibn al-Zubayr put Muhammad on one of this coins. But this is the beginning of a documented story of Muhammad, a story that disappeared in the 8th century.
@Siraj Haq All I know is that he was from the Quraysh, and was a leader of the caliphate based in Mecca. I know don't know what is full name was, nor do the Pakistani mullahs. Trust me on this. Quizzing people is a very futile, even hostile, way to engage with them.
And among them are those who listen to you, but We have placed over their hearts coverings, lest they understand it, and in their ears deafness. And if they should see every sign, they will not believe in it. Even when they come to you arguing with you, those who disbelieve say, "This is not but legends of the former peoples."Quran(6:25)
He has addressed that, that is mentioned about 12 times and about 11 of them is in the context of resurrection after death, that is what the people'l are calling the legends they didn't believe they will be ressurected. Hope you understand.
@Dr Javad T. Hashmi. You claim that the stories told in the Quran were readily available and known at the time of Muhammad. You are right because the unbelievers readily identified the stories of the Quran as "tales of the ancients" (Q 6:25). How then were they to accept Muhammad as a prophet if he did not bring "new" revelations? One way would be to perform miraculous feats, so the unbelievers again were right to demand a miracle from him, the like of which Moses was given (Q 28:48). However, you already grant that he was not given miracles in the Quran, and you claim that to argue otherwise would be fruitless. So how can the unbeliever accept him and his book? This is why I am not convinced you have provided a viable theory on the source and nature of the Quranic revelations that enjoys wide explanatory power and scope. The theory you presented is ad hoc because seemingly important details in the Quran, which are now problematic, are explained away by appealing to some literary device. This approach robs the Quran of its mystery because to explain everything is to explain nothing. For example, you claim all the stories of previous prophets in the Quran were somehow really about Mohammad and we need not bother whether they happened or not. I believe this claim runs roughshod of the historic traditions that produced these Islamic stories. You set aside the earliest Islamic traditions and by means of mental work produce a religion that adds nothing new but assertions which cannot be verified or falsified. And this novel understanding is supposed to be an improvement on Jewish and Christian scriptural traditions? Do you really believe that the stories in the Quran are richer, fuller, and more sophisticated than similar stories in the Bible? Will we consistently find the stories in the Quran to be morally superior to the more primitive Biblical texts? You need a theory that makes fewer assumptions, depends more on observations and less on authorities, accounts for a lot of the facts and observations on the ground, one that illuminates surprising ideas, has great predictive power, and is falsifiable. I hope you can see that the theory you provided is wanting in many of these areas. How does your theory compare in this regard to the theory proposed by the pagan, Jewish, and Christian opponents of Muhammad in the 7th century (i.e. Quranic revelations had no divine origins)?
James -- I am considering doing a follow up "reaction" video in a week or so, and I might respond to your comment there. You have to keep in mind that I was speaking off the cuff in a running dialogue, which usually results in some imprecision of speech... Therefore, I will hope to clarify and respond to your argument. Here, though, I should say that nothing I said was meant to denigrate the Bible or Christianity. I am interested in building bridges between Islam/Muslims and Christianity/Christians. Therefore, I have nothing but scorn for Islamic-Christian polemics and those who engage in them (on both sides). I believe we were all cut from the same cloth.
@@DrJavadTHashmi Doc BRODA' IT'S REALLY GR8 & VERY BRAVE ACT 2 BE RATIONAL AGAINST QURANIC MYTHS N EVEN YA' KNOW 4 SURE IT'S HISTORICALLY AIN'T TRUE & EVEN SENSE OF ARABIC LANGUAGE GRAMMAR IS ABSURD...ANY AVG HUMAN WITH OPEN MIND N COMMON SENSE WILL CUM 2 CONSEQUENCE THAT THERE AIN'T ANYTHING SPECIAL OR DIVINE WITH QURAN OR ANY RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE..EXCEPT THE CLOSE MINDED SUFFERING FROM FORCE FULLY IMPOSED CHILD INDOCTRINATION WILL FOLLOW THIS IDEOLOGY BLINDILY & PASSIONATELY EVEN WILL READY TO KILL WHO'LL MAKE SENSE N AIN'T AGREE WITH THEIR ILLOGICAL TEACHINGS.. YA' REALLY BECOME PRISONER LIKE ALWAYS PUZZLED UP BY RELIGION COMMANDS IN EVERY ASPECT OF LIFE..THESE FOLKS AIN'T GET IT THIS TOTALTARIAN IDEOLOGY WAS TO GATHER BIG NUMBER OF PPL UNDER ONE ROOF TO GET AS MUCH POLITICAL FAVOR AS ONE CUNNING HUNGRY FOR POWER MORON WITH NO SELF EMPATHY CAN GET..& IN RETURN YA' GONNA GET IN RETURN TO FULFILL UR GREEDY N LUSTY NEEDS WHICH YA'GONNA GET FROM AN IMMORAL BEING IN HIS FANTASY KINGDOM..THE ALL IMMORAL THINGS WHICH A MORAL SOCIETY FORBIDS YA' IS ALLOWED N EVEN PRACTICED ON A LARGE SCALE WITH NOW LIMIT FOREVER N EVER NON STOP...WOW 4 HOLY GOODNESS SAKE MAKE A BIAS FREE DECISION N COMPARATIVELY CHOOSE BETWEEN REAL MORALITY N IMMORALITY TRUTHFULLY...DOC BRODA' STAND ON UR STANCE OR MAKE DECIS
What is the problem if we take it literally that God did send the angels to fight alongside the believers. I dont think this should be the problem at all, What we should be worried about is , How to rekindle the faith among ourselves as muslims and try to emulate the faith of early generations of Believers. I think that should be the major question we should be asking and seeking answers
@Anon haha no I said it bc I was surprised that a muslim scholar said it with such openess. In muslim discourse the Syriac legend is almost nonexistent. For me it was such a shock when I first heard about the Syriac.
@Flat Sky I thought they were talking about Dhul Qarnayan ? Which is a fantasy tale similar to other medieval events found in the Quran. Lots of old rabbinic tales found in the Quran too like the tale of sleepers. These stories were not literal stories but events that were copied into the Quran as Gods Word.
What do you think of his views Ziryab and peace. I see your name pop up on Quranic Islam from time to time. I am curious as a former Christian. It is true The Koran seems to take from apocryphal and Talmudic and even stories of Alexandria? God knows best. It’s just confusing to me because there are the miracles of the Koran such as scientific, mathematical, and even prophetic as in 10:92 and so on but then you have these stories from those other sources. What are your thoughts??
Mufti? Where did you get this title from bro? What country are you a mufti in? Mufti gives Fattwa in matrers of the deen and is appointed by fellow scholars of the Umma for his knowledge in quran, hadeeth, Fiakah...
He said the Quran copied from the story of the Alexander and the gates? There is a difference between The Alexander Romances and The Alexander Legends( later syriac version). The Alexander Romances did not include Alexander building a wall to prevent Gog and Magog. This was included in a later text called The Alexander Legends, dated 629-630 AD, which was after Surah Kahf was finished. Cyrus is mentioned in the bible with great respect, whereas Alexander is not...If the story was so well known in syriac myths, how would this 'test' by the Jews be something only the Prophet knew about? Aka it wouldn't be. It would refer to someone only someone who had access to jewish scriptures would know lol. Also imagine the fact the Quran contradicts the entire Bible on Jesus being crucified lol. And that Jesus was resurrected or whatever. Are you really going to take the Bible’s word over the Quran. This major clarification the Quran tells us about Jesus, now compare that to what the Quran tells us about Dhul Qarnayn..
@@DrJavadTHashmi I'd love to learn more. In the mean time, your imaan seems to be on the lower side. Here's an imaan sensu bean brother. ua-cam.com/video/OOfe-lWMwtg/v-deo.html&ab_channel=StraightPath
@@notionSlave I do not think God has given anyone the ability to discern the level of iman someone has in their heart. In fact, the Qur'an indicates otherwise. Whereas some Muslims struggle with their faith when they study it academically, for me my educational journey has only strengthened mine.
@@DrJavadTHashmi If someone is denying the existence of prophets, and angels, aka major Quranic creeds, to bend to the whims of orientalists and empiricism, it would be a giant red flag to me and most others. Never have I heard someone dismiss the events in the Quran as mere literary art lol and not actual events (we would have no way of differentiating which is a real event and which isn't which would make the author of this Quran disturbingly deceptive, on par with calling God a liar). Either way, I pray you are guided on your journey to truth
Great debate - well done. Lots of word salad from Jawad- “myths”, “ legends” , “ deep metaphors” but “ not fictitious” ? If that is not sitting on the fence than what is ? Mufti’s composure was commendable
@Azal Abadi this is the ad hominem fallacy @ Azam abadi. You don’t know what I know or not. Nonetheless please enlighten me about the academic and colloquial differences in definition of myth, legend and deep metaphor please ?
Dr Hashmi said “The traditionalist argue that miracles are obligatory to be sent to prove the prophethood of a prophet. That is the purpose of miracles. Theologically that’s the purpose. In order to be a prophet you have to make a claim of prophecy and it has to be confirmed with a miracle. That is the traditionalists view.” I don’t know the tradition he refers to but that is absolutely not true. Firstly, if miracles were obligatory we wouldn’t have many prophets who didn’t carry out any miracle as it clear from the Quran. Noah, Abraham, Lot, Joseph, Zachariah, John the Baptist, in fact the majority of prophets did not do any miracles to prove their prophethood to their people. So to say that every prophet has to prove his prophethood with miracles in simply false. And the tradition never said that. Secondly, the few prophets that produced miracles were rejected by their people such as Moses with the Egyptians. He did many miracles unlike any another prophet but still they called him a magician and disbelieved in his prophethood. What about Jesus? Did the Jews believe in him after all his miracles? No. That is why the Quran made it very clear to the pagans that there is no point in making them see miracles to prove the veracity of the message of the prophet. Dr Hashmi said “If you take a look at the Quran, the Quran itself seems in multiple places to imply clearly that the prophet did not carry out any miracles” I have to point out that miracles have two audiences and two objectives. The first audience is the disbelievers with the objective of making them believe. The second audience is the believers with the objective of increasing their faith. If a miracle is meant for the disbelievers they have to see it themselves but if it is meant for the believers the disbelievers might not see it. To say that the Quran implies clearly that the prophet did not carry out any miracles is not accurate. Maybe he did not produce any miracle to the pagans because that is useless anyway, but he did do miracles that were seen by the believers to strengthen their faith. And some of those have been recorded in the tradition. Dr Hashmi said “Take common sense if the prophet did any of those things (miracles) the pagan would acknowledge him as a prophet.” The Quran have proved to us that Moses and Jesus did miracles nevertheless people didn’t believe in them. So it is not common sense. Dr Hashmi said “ if the pagans saw the angels with their own eyes at badr they would have fled” The angels were not sent in their original shapes, they took human shapes, so they were seen by the pagans and the muslims as humans like them, so why flee? The battle of Badr was a miracle meant for the believers to strengthen their faith and was not meant for the disbelievers to believe in the message of the prophet pbuh. The objective behind that battle was not to destroy the pagans but to teach them a lesson because God knew the majority of them will become believers afterwards. That is why the role of the angels was very limited. I believe the tradition has many mistakes but the solution is not to make stories of the Quran myths like the brother did here.
Hi Zubair. I appreciate your courteous engagement with the material and also the fact that you are thinking hard about these matters. That's definitely a good thing. However, I would kindly caution you away from using forceful language such as "that is absolutely not true." Instead, unless you've rigorously researched a claim, it's better to put forward your argument as a potential objection and ask for an opinion on the matter. You've made a number of claims, none of which can stand up to scrutiny, in my opinion. For example, you claim very emphatically that the tradition never claims that the prophets must come with miracles. Not only is this the case, but it is often stated as a creedal point. I could point you to numerous well-known creeds that indicate this. Indeed, it's even formalized in a hadith in which the Prophet is attributed to have said: "Every Prophet was given miracles because of which people believed." If you'd like a quick source to check on this position, you can see this fatwa here: www.aliftaa.jo/QuestionEn.aspx?QuestionId=2894#.X-Af0OlKgb1 That link includes Ibn Hajar's quote, "[E]very Prophet must have a miracle that makes people believe that he is speaking the truth... [E]very Prophet was given one miracle or more that makes people believe in him." If you'd like me to look up the creeds, I can do that for you as well. For now though, I'll give you a scholarly assessment: Commenting on the classical "orthodox" theologians, Isra Yazicioglu concludes: "All deemed miracles an essential requirement for a messenger of God" (Understanding the Qur'anic Miracle Stories, p. 19). There is more to be said but I'll leave it there for now.
@@DrJavadTHashmi Hi Dr Javad. Thank you for your reply. I think you will agree with me that this is the only hadith that seems to support the view that every prophet has to produce a miracle for his people to believe in him. It is narrated by layth bin sa’d from sa’id from his father from abu harayra حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ العَزِيزِ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، حَدَّثَنَا اللَّيْثُ، عَنْ سَعِيدٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، قَالَ: «مَا مِنَ الأَنْبِيَاءِ نَبِيٌّ إِلَّا أُعْطِيَ مِنَ الآيَاتِ مَا مِثْلُهُ أُومِنَ، أَوْ آمَنَ، عَلَيْهِ البَشَرُ، وَإِنَّمَا كَانَ الَّذِي أُوتِيتُ وَحْيًا أَوْحَاهُ اللَّهُ إِلَيَّ، فَأَرْجُو أَنِّي أَكْثَرُهُمْ تَابِعًا يَوْمَ القِيَامَةِ» صحيح البخاري (9/ 92) وَكَانَ سَعِيدُ بْنُ أَبِي سَعِيدٍ ثِقَةً كَثِيرَ الْحَدِيثِ وَلَكِنَّهُ كَبُرَ وَبَقِيَ حَتَّى اخْتَلَطَ قَبْلَ مَوْتِهِ بِأَرْبَعِ سِنِينَ الطبقات الكبرى (ص: 147) Ibn Sa’d said about sa’id : “he was reliable but he became old and remain until he started mixing up four years before his death.” It has been also reported that he carried on narrating ahadiths after he became old. This puts a question mark on his ahadiths since we don’t know when they where taken from him, and this one in particular. Even if we accept the hadiths as authentic it is a mistake to translate ايات as being miracles like ibn hajar said. The term AYAAT has many meanings. It could be miracles and it could be signs and it could be verses. If we refer the hadith back to the quran we can see that the meaning of Ayaat here is sign not extraordinary miracles. Not every sign is a miracle. The first companions who believed in the prophet pbuh did not do so because they saw a miracle from the prophet but because they saw signs in his character that he was truthful and could not lie about God and that his message made sense. In the Quran, the only prophet that was asked for miracles as proof of prophethood is our prophet pbuh. If it was an obligation for every prophet like ibn hajar said all these people before us would have asked their prophets for those miracles. But we see nowhere in the Quran that they did. If people were to believe because of miracles they saw from the prophets, then what is the point in rewarding them for that belief? To conclude: This hadith has only one chain of narration, one narrator started mixing up in his old age and it is narrated by abu hurayra who is known to have taken statements from ka’b al- ahbar that were later on attributed to our prophet pbuh. To translate Ayaat as being miracles is a mistake and nothing in the hadith itself suggests that . If you have another evidence, please provide it.
@@DrJavadTHashmi Hi Dr Javad The reason i am confident in saying " that is absolutely not true" is because this hadith( if Ayaat are translated to mean miracles) and the explaination of ibn Hajar of it go against the Quran. Here is why Quran 7 105- Who is] obligated not to say about Allah except the truth. I have come to you with clear evidence (ببينة) from your Lord, so send with me the Children of Israel." 106- [Pharaoh] said, "If you have come with a sign ( باية), then bring it forth, if you should be of the truthful." 107- So he [i.e., Moses] threw his staff, and suddenly it was a serpent, manifest. In these verses Moses pubh said he has come with a clear evidence e.i miracle because what he produced was indeed a miracle. Notice that here بينة and اية mean miracle. In contrast Hud pbuh did not come to his people with any miracle Quran 11 53- They said, "O Hūd, you have not brought us clear evidence (ببينة ), and we are not ones to leave our gods on your say-so. Nor are we believers in you. If their statement that Hud did not come with clear evidence i.e miracle was false and a lie Allah would have defended his messenger and say they lied. So the statement is true and when confronted with this argument Hud still did not produce any clear evidence ie miracle to them to believe instead they were destroyed. This is proof from the Quran that it is not obligatory for Every prophet to come with a miracle to prove his prophethood. So the hadith should be interpreted otherwise or just be rejected and any book that makes this position part of the islamic creed is simply wrong. I think you should have investigated the issue more deeply and ask others before coming to your conclusion that the islamophobes like Jay smith and co are right. They are using your words to attack our prophet pbuh in the sense that since he did not do any miracles, he is not a true prophet or is below the status of Jesus who did many miracles. There is NO MYTH in the Quran, it is historically correct about everything it says because it comes from God Allah. You just lack the right undetstanding. Saying the stories of the Quran are mere myths is actually saying that the pagans were right about the Quran. Quran 6-25 The ones who have disbelieved say, "Decidedly this is nothing except the myths of the earliest (peoples)." May Allah guide us ALL to the right understanding of his religion. Take care brother.
Instead of just honestly admitting that your initial claim was wildly incorrect, you have decided to move the goalposts and then, on top of that, insisted that you continue to speak in full confidence. In any case, I will address your comment in my response video, if I end up doing that.
@@DrJavadTHashmi that will not be fair because i won't have the opportunity to respond. If you can't refute me here don't do it in the show because i cannot take part and defend my position. If you have evidence bring it here . Let us discuss it. I brought my evidences why don't you bring yours? My initial claim was correct it is your understanding that wasn't.
He has missed the point of the miracle of Islam. The miracle is the Qur'ans inimitable style not in any so-called scientific facts mentioned. The challenge of the Qur'an to the disbelievers was to bring something like it which they could not.
This is a problematic argument atleast for todays world. What does this even mean ? Most ppl including mslims are not arabic experts or arabic grammar & poetry experts. So this argument becomes redundant. Secondly i dont get what this supposed to mean to bring something like it. How is that a miracle. Someone can imitate shakespeare or harry potter or critics may say its not as good as that literature, How does this make anything divine, I fail to see this. Even if this argument does prove quranic divinty it only applies to the arabs at the time. This doesnt work with the western world today & most ppl.
Pretty intense mental gymnastics by Dr Sahib. Just leave Islam dude. You've woken up to most of the holes and contradictions in this man made religion. Now wake up to the rest. ⏰
Men professing themselves to be wise but they're really just fools without the Creator. Islam is perfect human beings or not unfortunately to speak against Islam in a subliminal way is a imposter pedigree you notice a lot of this on the west particular in America here, invite non Muslims to Islam the way of life much needed peace in America salamualaikum we all will have to answer to Allah
Are " western " scholars inherently more right than " eastern " scholars. Seems like there is a complex going on here . A " western " scholar has written a article on the origin of that word
I am not saying that Western scholars are inherently more right than Eastern ones. In fact, I think it would probably better say "those who use modern tools of scholarly inquiry" are going to be more convincing (to me) than "those who dogmatically stick to the (gullible) traditionalist paradigm." And ultimately it is about scholarly results rather than inherent right.
Surah 12: Yusuf Ayah : 111 لَقَدْ كَانَ فِي قَصَصِهِمْ عِبْرَةٌ لِأُولِي الْأَلْبَابِ ۗ مَا كَانَ حَدِيثًا يُفْتَرَىٰ وَلَٰكِنْ تَصْدِيقَ الَّذِي بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ وَتَفْصِيلَ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ وَهُدًى وَرَحْمَةً لِقَوْمٍ يُؤْمِنُونَ Certainly in the stories of the bygone people there is a lesson for people of understanding. What is being narrated in the Qur'an is no fabrication; it is rather confirmation of the Books that preceded it, and a detailed exposition of everything, and a guidance and mercy for people of faith. (via) Tafheem ul Quran in English
That is absolutely not true: if "all you believe in is just biology and evolution, then you have nothing in which to ground your moral realism"... What?? This is not scientific, in fact it's anti-scientific. Through sheer understanding of your own need to ground yourself and see other people grounded in ethics, and then the more you observe the rest of world, your notice similitudes and patterns and justice/moral systems of complexity now and well into the past like tens of thousands of years ago, and decipher moral systems in our long gone hominid cousins and in the current ape world, you arrive at the grand-scale possibility of moral realism. I don't know how someone like Mr. Hashmi could just blurt this out when speaking about an atheist like Apostate Prophet, who has thought about moral realism a great deal, more than Mr. Hashmi is giving him credit for. Please Mr. Hashmi, I would love to read your response, because I might have misinterpreted you. What did you mean?
@@DrJavadTHashmi Thank you sir. Please don't read my comments as though I am being abrasive. That is not my frame of mind. I am responding in a passionately adversarial way. That's all. And I believe I speak on behalf of everyone in the discussion below, thank you heartily for doing this with Mufti Abu Layth. People all over are expressing their gratitude.
Religious truths are not superior truths. That might be the case for certain individuals. But Mr Hashmi is stating this as an objective fact. We are not left with an anaemic worldview if we just rely on evolution for self-understanding. Mr. Hashmi is constantly opining over the real inferiority of all orthodox religious factions for the dullest and most dangerous thinking, but Mr. Hashmi is demonstrating the same dullness by extolling the superiority of religious and theological inquiry. That too is a very trite thing to say and think. It's the idiot theist's line for the last 2000 years. Has he never heard of Buddhism or the Vedanta? Mr. Hashmi's now established dichotomy between religious and non-religious truths as far as informing the human condition is concerned is completely juvenile. What is religious and non-religious, from the perspective of organized religion, is an unhelpful and dangerous game. This is the very extremism itself of religion, and Mr. Hashmi embraces this. Mufti Abu Layth is very different in this regard.
This is what happens when you learn to play cricket from a player like Maradona. After an extensive research that Maradona is indeed a great player.. ""Harvard""
This guy has some interesting ideas but he seems to sip on his own Kool Aid a little too hard. Some of the arguments he made were just to look at the Mu'tazilite perspective instead of actually deciphering how said perspective has more validity and is superior.
Amazing discussion! Javad had some very interesting points. Hes very articulate. Altho I agree with Muftis view but am grateful for mufti bringing such guests to learn different theories. Mufti do get dr javaid again to cover more stuff.
It was an amazing discussion and loved Dr. Javad's way of explaining his position.
This is pure GOLD
Can't wait for Dr Hasmi's book to drop 🙌
Legendary 🤘
BarakAllah. keep it up !
I just came across this discussion, and I really think that if the key excerpts edited into a single shorter video, it will make a big impact. Really enjoying listening to this.
Loved this episode
Brilliant conversation!
@Dr Javad T Hashmi
@Mufti Abu Layth
On the discussion on the term 'sabab' in the Quranic narrative of Dhul Qarnayn (2:19:00), I'd just like to add that the same term is also used in a few other places in the Quran with a similar contextual meaning. For example, Q38:10 ('Or is the dominion of the heavens, the earth and everything in between theirs? If so, then let them ascend via the available paths/means'), and Q40:36-39 (Pharaoh's instruction to his minister to construct a tower to help him reach the 'paths/means' to the heavens.
Interesting how there's many different perspectives out there.
On the discussion at 1:30:00: Proto-Evangelium and the Gospel of James (extra canonical Gospels) include stories found in the Quran about Jesus such as the infant Jesus speaking in the cradle and giving life to clay birds.
great episode!
Mind blow after mind blow- what a brilliant discussion. Made me think about my own positions and do more research.
Please do part 2 and maybe have a panel discussion with some other past guests. I’ll even pay for that!
Thank you both for this.
@Saracen 786
What is so mind-blowing about this? The Qur'an was written for literary reasons (that means for the purposes of literature itself, albeit terribly mediocre) because that would have been the best cultural medium to communicate new values (not beliefs) and a new way of thinking so to speak. It's only if one believes in literal truths, like the whole sour Prophethood business, perceived to be contained therein that this comes as a shock.
Ofcourse you would love this saracen🙄 love to accuse your Muslim brother in public or public humiliate your Muslim uncle in public so ofcourse Allah s.w.t would misguide you, so good luck on your journey of misguidance 😳
@@user-vy6ee1wo4n What on earth are you talking about? He is not knocking down anybody by sharing his ideas and explaining this thinking. To think and to contest dogma IS to
be human. You are total fanaticism. To defeat dogma is to get closer to the divine (in this case, Islamic dogma). Dogma and doctrine is the stuff of the jurists and half-baked theologians from the 9th-11th centuries.
What is next for Dr. Hashmi is to explain (hopefully sooner than later) is that Muhammad was not from Mecca. Mecca was not on the radar of the Umayyads At All. That too is myth.
@@paulthomas281 I'm talking about him as a person, he is a known "speaker?" At speakers corner who is known to cause trouble and be very bi polar
@@user-vy6ee1wo4n You are talking about the Mufti then? Do not make a medical diagnosis (with irony or otherwise), even by saying "like", "known to..be". That is irresponsible and unethical. Don't medicalize people. That's not the way (1) to engage with people and/or (2) to speak about them. Weren't you invoking Allah just above? I would do better as a believer, if I were you.
Dear Mufti Sahab, can you kindly change the title to "Sacred Legends of the Qur'an" instead of "Archetypal Myths." There is a technical difference between myth and legend, which is important to my overall argument and certain counter-arguments that I will have to deal with in my work. Thank you! And thank you for this amazing opportunity! It was fun... Cheers!
EDIT: Mufti Sahab, thanks for letting me know how you always alliterate your titles. I realize now that this is the reason you needed to use the word "myth" to match this alliteration scheme. No worries! Thanks again!
im curious. Correct me if im wrong but your view is that these quranic stories including prophetic stories are mere parables in other words Moses, Jesus etc are invented characters not actual historical people/prophets ?
@Siraj Haq Oh i see ok so he does believe these were real figures but the stories are dramatized. But i see you have got yourself caught in a philosophical problem with the statement that God doesnt intervenes. For one this contradicts surah 55 which speaks about god dealing with affairs everyday in the world
2 There are other verses which speak about supplication as well as hadith speaking about dua
3 The fact that divine revelation comes to any prophet or they perform a miracle is divine intervention.
4 Non belief in any divine intervention is a deistic belief not a theistic one. Thus you dont believe in the islamic god but a deistic impersonal one.
5 We dont know fully how free will/determinism works & the relation to quantum mechanics. We know we dont have 100% free will.
Salam dr javad. Wow I really feel you cracked the code on this whole gog and magog story. You’re explanation on this is the best I’ve ever heard, I’m excited to hear more from you!
I used to think because of the Alexander Syriac story is a legend. I couldn’t understand why the Quran mention this. It kinda prove the Quran being man made why would god mention legends. This story made me doubt my faith and no one has a good answers I’ve been looking for years. I think dr javad makes the best sense in this. It’s either this explanation or the Quran is a book of legends and not from god. You choose yourself I’m still amazed by his explanation
@Siraj Haq the only reason you say that is because you pre assumed the Quran to be from god and it can’t be wrong. If you look at it objectively it’s pretty clear. I’m no expert either
Muy bueno el invitado mufti felicitaciones
What Dr. Javad Hashmi tells about The Reliance of the Travellers applies to Asharis but the Maturidis differ in this regard.
What do the maturidis differ on?
This was a very Interesting mind trap I must they are getting better each time
When two legends clash in a beautiful way. Agree to disagree.
Agree! This mindtrap was insane loved it !
@@fushiigso7145 it was good
When the 'Aql is involved there will always be disagreement amongst every person because the aql is determined by your own make up and situation and is shackled, and can't break free. This is why all the Prophets had no disagreements in Tauheed because their knowledge is not derived from the 'aql, it's derived from unveiling.
@Swoosh Swish the Prophets don't disagree in religion, give some examples of you think they did
wow you must be so uneducated calling these guys legends
Loved this. Would love to see him again
Fascinating mindtrap as usual 👏🏻
inayah you're doooooiiin it
Dr. Javed T. H. Please have a discussion (not a debate) with Abdullah Sameer and/or Veedu Vidz. I would love to listen to that discussion. It will greatly help me in my faith🙂
@Fiyadh Mowla
This is very unlikely to help you. Dr. Hashmi has a faith-based position. The other two do not. Dr. Hashmi is interested in a revamping of the understanding of the Qu'ran's purpose, "of the mission of the Qur'an" as Dr. Hashmi puts it. In this paradigm, the role of Muhammad is secondary. The passages in the Qur'an adjust themselves, albeit seldomly, to some situation Muhammad found himself in (and, here again, this is a faith-based stance; there are major assumptions here). Mr. Sameer's or Mr. Veedu's possible discussion with Dr Hashmi is not going to instil in them a restored quasi-faith of any kind nor produce some agreement or reconciliation (by reconciliation, I mean the action of making one view or belief compatible with another) that would speak to you (now, I am assuming things): they do not believe in the Abrahamic god, or believe that Muhammad was in contact with this god. He might have been a leader in the Nabatean region and then Medina, but that's it. All Mr. Sameer and Mr. Veedu would take away ultimately from this is that the Qu'ran is a text from late Antiquity which has been fashioned and refashioned for a number of aims; they already know this. Dr. Hashmi's interpretations of this story and that story, or his reclaiming of the scripture for a new purpose will not change their attitude towards the Qur'an. It will still be a book of platitudes. The same can be said for Abdullah Gondal, Mr. Sameer's sidekick on UA-cam (both are very bright). Reading scripture as literature is nothing new for educated, intelligent people like Mr. Sameer or Mr. Veedu or Mr. Gondal. It might seem novel for Muslims, but that is not saying much. This is why Dr. Hashmi's arguments are quite boring, really, on the larger human scale (for Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Taoists, Confucians and Western atheists). If Dr. Hashmi's work (and the work of other academics on this topic) sounds ground-breaking for Muslims, this goes to show how backwards and behind Muslims really are in their thinking and understanding. If you are not following me, I would love to discuss further
Abdullah Sameer runs away from debates. He hassled Andalusian Project then chickened out saying he needed 20000 dollars for protection money.
@@seancloud0 Can you provide evidence of this?
@@paulthomas281 i just check Andalusian Project channel to find the video were he mentions that. The video is gone. Ill let you know if i can find somewhere else were he mentions it.
@@seancloud0 No problem. No need. Thanks for replying... and I have to ask: you don't think anything of Andalusian Project, do you?
@Dr.Javed wondering why can't we take the explanation from moral foundations theory to figure out morality or many cases use Sam Harris's moral landscapes and include suffering as yardstick?
I was asked this question in another place, but I'll reproduce my answer here. I was asked if we could consider the angels on the Battle of Badr to have been a sort of "collective dream" that inspired the troops, so to speak. My answer to this was as follows:
I would say that I do not take this line of thinking and would in fact consider the idea of "a collective dream" to be the type of scientistic interpretation that I was opposing in my discussion with Mufti Sahab. Instead, I would point out that these verses about the angels being dispatched during the Battle of Badr, such as Q. 3:124, were not revealed during the Battle of Badr at all. Rather, it was a subsequent conflict and time of struggle, which is why the previous verse says: "God certainly helped you at Badr, when you were lowly. So reverence God..." (Q 3:123). This seems to me to be possible proof that the Qur'an's initial audience itself understood the literary allusion and did not take it literally. It was not meant to convey historical information about the past event but rather to reassure the believers in the present. Hence, "if you are patient and reverent [now]," then "your Lord will support you with five thousand angels..." (Q 3:125). The Qur'an is telling the believers to be steadfast in the time of adversity and using powerful literary language to do so. Instead of focusing on why one verse says a certain amount of angels and another says a different amount, etc., we should instead focus on what the Qur'an is doing here, which is to call for certain ethical or moral action... in this case, to be steadfast in the time of great adversity.
Dr. Hashmi, I don't understand the point of such rationalizations frankly enough. Maybe it's because the existence of angels and jinns never shook my faith when I was a practicing Muslim. Although I do appreciate the fact that Muslim modernists such as yourself are showing people the vastness of the tradition, I think there are much bigger problems with the standard narrative of Islam. I think the problems of religious diversity, religious exclusivism, and eternal hellfire are much more pressing. I find it hard to believe the Qur'an is a "sacred art" when you can't go a page without God mentioning how he will roast unbelievers for eternity. Would you possibly know of any material that engages with these problems from an Islamic perspective?
@@sifatraihan3455
Check out Yasir Qadhi ' Descriptions of jahanam 8 - the externality of heaven and hell', Shabbir Ally ' Does Allah hate unbelievers' & Shahid Bolsens ' Inferiority of Western values ...'
Continuity of the human race and a good life are two of some moral foundations. Evolution just explain a mechanism and it's not that empty.
Mufti, I greatly appreciate your work. I disagree vehemently with many of your positions but respect your effort. All the best and hope to keep seeing more.
He ain't a mufti.
@@MRshraaf thanks for the clarification. I didn't realize you were a certifying authority.
@@hasankhan8501 Who certified "Mufti Abu Layth"?
@@MRshraaf you took the liberty of certifying him. Why do you care who cerifies whom? You clearly think you're qualified to - who am I to present an alternative viewpoint.
@@hasankhan8501 Who certified him as a "Mufti" was it his steroid dealer?
I keep missing those mindtraps on Facebook. I have just watch it out. I got the say it I loved it! This mindtrap was the bom. I’m definitely a fan of Dr Javad. He made some very good points he just nailed it!
I was so happy when he spooked about those morality’s in the beginning 😭🙏🏼 “That they can do everything kill and rape eating a baby and then when the come into islam it’s all good” it’s all forgiven” your good. I can’t bear it when people teaching those stuff. Happy you have spoken out! Your thoughts are very critical and interesting I like that! I wish we had more people like you and Mufti Abu layth. I liked your views for the most parts. I’m not sure that I follow the same understanding about the prophets in the end but never the less I loved it! Waiting for the second one. The conversation about Alexander was interesting I agree in both ways you guys both made good points. Mufti Abu layth you nailed it! Much love for both of you keep sharing the love!
They call that divine command theory in philsophy. Of course it has alot of criticism. But no educated person could believe that about eating babies and all forgiven.
@@Yameen200 then I lot op people are not educated it’s because of the Hadith that says that every sin that you made wil be forgiven when you becoming a Muslim. I find that ironic because it’s injustice for the victims who been raped, murder and those kinda stuff but thanks
Thank you, Fushii! I'm glad you liked it!
@@DrJavadTHashmi do you have an Instagram or Facebook account?
I have a question and I’m wondering what your thoughts are on this topic. What proof do we have that the prophet really married multiple wives? Did he really married them and why didn’t he just take care of them?
Because god menstion in the Koran your other half and not a man has more half I don’t find it justice towards a woman? How can a man marry more woman’s ? And should be called justice?
This guy is a machine. So he did a medical degree (and presumably an undergraduate degree before that), a bachelors and masters in Arabic and Islamic studies, 2 years at al-azhar, and is in the middle of his PhD? I’m tired just thinking about all that
@IbnSaifi
You'd speak to many physicians (and lawyers) who wish they could pursue something else in addition to medical practice. They would look upon Dr. Hashmi as someone fortunate, who has a passion and made it work, not as a machine who is stretching his time and self-pumping. Many people can do this (it's pure pleasure) if you create the opportunity.
Paul Thomas yeah if you have a high paying job to start with then you can find other interests and passions part time, otherwise it’s difficult
@@IbnSaifi I agree with you. I was not saying it is feasible for everybody (and if it were, more people would move ahead and not consider it that difficult), but I disagree with your remark earlier: we shouldn't be applauding (praising, even) people who can pursue 2 careers (or one and another half-way) or multiple degrees, the way you seemed to with regard to Dr. Hashmi. If I have misinterpreted you, pardon me please.
Paul Thomas No problem, that’s your right to disagree. I think it’s quite applaudable.
@@IbnSaifi Love the irony with that last word. Haha
Can one be Muslim without actually believing in jins and angels?
Hell and heaven as concepts also existed before Islam came just like jins and angels, so what is the point of believing
1:56:00
How is "splitting of sea and the water on two sides of the path looking like mountains" Reading between the lines? Imagine we had the power to split the sea, it would exactly look as described i the Quran. I dont think it can be any clearer
MH just "refuted" this conversation. We need a reply Mufti!
he’s nowhere near deserving of the title of a mufti
@@hannanqaisar628 I don't think he needs a clerical title anyway. These ranks are simply manmade hierarchical structures.
Who's mh?
@@ahmedmohammad7300 Mohammad Hijab
@@DarioHaruni eww him 🤢
Thanks for the reply though 😊
Thank you for this Video ! Im a christian and intrested in Islam and you guys are great listen too ! Final there is not a 5 minutes interduction in arabic before the actualy topic and there is also not always arabic senetce between english words which Im not able to understand and it is also a pain in the ear. So good thanks for your work !
Why are you interested in Islam? Listen to hamza yusuf and abdul hakim murad . Also read a English translation of Quran like the clear quran
Thank you, Pilgerufy!
@@DrJavadTHashmi sorry for my bad english . Seriously how should anyone in the West accept Islam when your life is OK? When you hear Dawah man, Hijab, Ali, Ustadh Abu Ibraheem Hussnayn that sounds going back to the stone age without even reasoning about it. Im sometimes wonder why we even have to talk about certain things , like beheading teachers over some cartoons or killing of apostates, or journalist who critic Islam what the heck is wrong? Serioulsy it is very hard to stay positiv towards Islam. When you observe whats happen in Nigeria, Mali, Afgahnistan, Pakistan etc... all because of religion it makes me sad. One other point is also that Muslims always speak at WE Muslims but when you browse around they fight each other like mad. Ochhh you just need to see the discussion at speakers corner . As a non arabic speaker I honestly have no chance to find the truth ( when their is one truth) in all the different matters. So it is refreshing to listen to you both truly thank you ! Greetings from Europe
@@pilgergufy why do you care what happens in Afghanistan. Even if you accept Islam you are not responsible for it. I think you are scared of accepting the truth and too attached to your Christian white European identity
@@Fahad-gf1wx no Im a black Jew !
Dear Dr. Hashmi,
There are some grammatical points I would like to bring to your attention if you wouldn't mind. I noticed that these were repetitive mistakes. The first is the use of the interrogative personal pronoun. At 1:38 you said "Who killed who"? It is and can only be "Who killed whom", and at 1:53 "by who?" where it should be "by whom"
The declension of 'who' goes as follows: who/whom/whom/whose for nominative/accusative/dative/genitive respectively. This means that in the position of direct object, 'whom' must be used.
Examples: "The person whom I saw (not who)", "Whom did you see", "Whom do you love", "Whom did the prime minister demote?".
Further with objects used indirectly and instrumentally with prepositions to/for/by/at/on/in/with/from, the pronoun must be "whom". Anglophones have no trouble grasping this, but the latter escapes them.
One might wonder, well how do I know when to employ the proper pronoun each time, so I do not find myself humming "ahhh....who or whom?"
This is the trick I tell people, and it works perfectly: imagine what the answer would be to a question using either 'who' or 'whom', the answer meaning which personal pronoun to employ, such as he/they vs him/them. If I would say, "He killed them" -> then it is "Who killed whom". "She saw them" -> "Whom did she see?", not "Who did she see"? because the reply could not be "She saw they". "I love her" -> Whom do you love?
Brits are just as bad with this as Americans and Canadians. Mufti Abu Layth committed the same error at 2:29 with "Who should we worship". Again it has to be "whom".
Further you did not apply the subjunctive where you ought to have at 2:36. You should have stated "if he had not been", instead of "if he was not", given that you were setting up a hypothesis (certainty does not matter) from within the past. (In the present, one has to say "if he were not".) The only permissible verb forms of "to be" (and of every verb) with the word "if" are "if one should be/if one were/if one had been"; with "to have" it is "if I should have/if I had/if I had had".
Should you have any questions with respect to the subjunctive or the who vs. whom distinction, I would be glad to help.
Good work, Mr. Thomas.
@Azal Abadi LMAO
can someone please give the timestamps
53:00 overtaking of instinct on realizing hurt
Where are the timestamps ?
Does anybody here know of an English translation of Khalfallah's book. Jzk.
Nope. That's why Ozzy and I are going through it in order to expose an English speaking audience to it. Stay tuned for our article.
@@DrJavadTHashmi I'm surprised that such an important writer hasn't been translated to English. I'm increasingly coming across snippets of his quotations in various books and articles. Just finished reading, journal article " an analytic study of the Khalfallah's Quranic political thoughts". Khalfallah perhaps offers a perspective which allows religion to save itself from dogmatism & authoritarianism.
Really enjoyed your talk with Mufti sahab. And hope Inshallah you'll make your discussions regarding khafallahs widely available. Jzk.🙏
@Dr Javad T Hashmi are you going to do a video series on your UA-cam channel on the second coming Jesus and the Mahdi in Islam.
I came across this while trying to figure out how to understand the story of Dhul Qarnayn in light of the Syriac Legend. Considering stories in the Qur'an to be "legends" is a more compelling than I would have originally thought, but I can't stomach the idea that Allah would essentially lie. I understand the response is, it's not lying, it's a spiritual truth or a greater truth...but still. Kind of hurts to think about.
Could it be that the Angels mentioned in Quran were visions of Angels shown by Allah to the believers to encourage them and give them mental strength? It could be so that the believers were encountering a kind of spiritual illumination and transcendental experience in which they were enjoying the sweetness of their imaan as God rewarded their unwavering faith by showing them the visions of green turbaned angels. During extreme meditative states people really see visions of extraordinary beings. Even when people take DMT, they have these type of visions. There are realms beyond these materialistic plains. Sometimes there occur deliberate momentary lapses in the virtual reality of this material world which enable people to see beyond the usual dimensions.
@Abu Muslim al-Hajjaj So what do you want to imply? Do you want to say that the Sahabas did not see any angels? Do you want to say that Quran or Hadith does not mention anything about angels? It is clear that the Sahabas saw the angels. It is also clear that the Sahabas killed the Quraysh leaders. So what was the purpose of the angels other than providing tranquility and confidence to the Sahabas? When the Sahabas saw the angels, their imaan and confidence got a great boost. Their fear of number disparity evaporated. They fought with great vigor and with the zeal of desiring martyrdom. The angels are clearly mentioned in the Quran. So either they were physically present or they were visions witnessed by the Sahabas. Quran is categorical about Allah sending the angels to help the companions of Rasulullah (S:). So as a Muslim it is clear to me that the angels were either physically present or the Sahabas experienced the presence of the angels spiritually. Denying the presence of angels in that battle is a clear cut denial of Quran. "(Remember) when you said to the believers, 'Is it not sufficient for you that your Lord should reinforce you with three thousand angels sent down?'" [Translation of Quran, Sura: 3, verse: 124]
@Azal Abadi Where does it say that if anyone sees angels, he would be a Prophet? Don't make up things on your own. Hazrat Mariam (A:) saw angel, but she was not a Prophet. Hazrat Ibrahim's wife saw angels. When angels come in human form in front of the Prophets, the people with the Prophets can see them. Read Quran and Sahih hadith properly. Don't make up doctrines based on your conjectures. Where does it say that in order to see angels you have to be infallible? The dying men see the angel of death.
@Azal Abadi You are just making up your own definitions. Who said Hazrat Mariam and Hagar were Prophets? Please give evidence from Quran. It was Hazrat Ibrahim's (A:) wife Sarah who saw the angels. So was Sarah a Prophetess as well? Hazrat Lut's (A:) daughters and wife also saw the angels who came to Sodom to destroy the city. Was Lut's wife and daughters Prophetess as well? Prophets (A:) are those who receive divine revelations from Allah through the Angel Jibril (A:). Seeing angels and receiving revelations from Ruhul Amin (A:) are not the same thing. I would request you to first read the Quran cover to cover on your own. Quran will remove the misconceptions and bias hammered into our brain by people. Nabis (A:) get divine revelation from Allah through Angel Jibril/Highly honored Angel. Rasuls (S:) get risalat (messages) from Allah through Jibril (A:)/Highly honored Angel. Mere seeing angels does not make anyone a Prophet. Yes, normal human beings cannot see the angels. But when Angels in human form are sent by Allah to the Nabi (A:) or Rasul(A:), the people surrounding him can also see them if Allah wills. Bibi Sarah (A:) actually was spoken to by the Angel. "Indeed Our messengers came to Abraham, bearing glad tidings. They greeted him with 'peace', and Abraham answered back to them 'peace', and hurriedly brought to them a roasted calf. When he perceived that their hands could not reach it, he mistrusted them, and felt afraid of them.They said: 'Do not be afraid. We have been sent to the people of Lot. And Abraham's wife was standing by and on hearing this she laughed. And We gave her the good news of (the birth of) Isaac, and after Isaac, of Jacob. She said: 'Woe is me! Shall I bear a child now that I am an old woman and my husband is well advanced in years. This is indeed strange!' (Surah: 11, Verses: 69-72)
Outstanding as usual.
The laying of the golden egg in the churning of the cosmic ocean is a far, far, far more interesting creation story than anything, and I mean anything, the Abrahamic traditions have on offer. Millions of Kerala's Christians and Muslims would agree with me, and millions of other Indian Muslims as well.
And the relevancy of something being 'more interesting' in matters of theology is what exactly?
@@aali87 There is no relevance to theology. I never said simple, simplistic theories can't be true. But it is the content of these simple, black and white stories that make them laughable. The richer creation stories are not chasing after truth just by being complex, but they provide much more for intellectual and spiritual reflection. These stories are above theology. The Islamic and Jewish creation stories are pathetic which explains why the theology of these religions is in turn pathetic.
I would love to see a Muslim philosophical analysis of the planet of the apes series
"Damn! Those mushrooms kicked in quick"....LOL
I love Jawad Hashmi and went through his Islamic intellectual course twice. I agree and believe with his thought process. The traditionalist have their roots dug deep into the fabric of Muslim societies. What we got to understand that the main reason for this is lack of education and economical deprivation. Reason can never be promoted unless people are of a mindset to accept it . Traditionalist take advantage of this mayhem - they can’t be beaten till we improve general education in Muslim societies.
He was talking about suboor ahmad lol, I still don't know what is his position is on Darwinism
1:20:00
1:11:14 Evolution
I humbly request you , LAYTH, to please bring someone of your calibre who can cope with your reasoning. The guy may have the education institutions certificates but ........!!
1:36:00
I am confused Mufti is Muslim right. Is he a liberal or how or does he think of his views? I am asking cause I am not sure and am just beginning to watch him
2يوحنا [6] John وَتَبِعَهُ جَمْعٌ كَثِيرٌ لأَنَّهُمْ أَبْصَرُوا آيَاتِهِ الَّتِي كَانَ يَصْنَعُهَا فِي الْمَرْضَى. 2 And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.
www.injeel.com/Read.aspx?vn=1,3&t=2&b=40&c=5&svn=1&btp=3&stp=0
52:00
I pretty much agree with all of Dr Javad’s points and reached those conclusions through my own research.
I don't agree with all of Abu Layth's original interpretations and Javad Hashmi can be very arrogant, wrong & refuse to admit he's wrong, but these 2 guys are BRAVE and moving Islam in a better direction than most Conservative Traditionalists who aren't looking for any new knowledge from the Qur'an or Islam or Islamic history.
Javad takes it way too far in pandering to Western scholars. The Qur'an tells you to believe in what its saying constantly. To say the prophets were just fictional legends and miracles were meant to cheer up listeners is very kuffar, IMO.
Javad is a intelligent chap thats for sure. He should read a bit more on moral theories, arguments for subjective vs objective morality, atheistic moral platonism by eric wielenburg but hes definitely got potential for philosophy.
I do think that with these historic stories ppl can disagree with the details & believe the Quran dramatizes the stories or summarises & ignores details but its problematic to discount all the stories as made up fables for 3 reasons
1 The issue of prophets : Prophets are one of the articles of faith so if the stories are made up these prophet characters are no different from lord of the rings characters. Thus the theology of the faith breaks & the religion shatters. We could say the concept of angels, afterlife etc are all just stories. Theres no resurrection, heaven hell etc.
2 The authenticty of prophethood shatters since even the quran can be said to be a story entirely ie not divine revelation to the Prophet Muhammad.
3 The Bible goes into deeper detail of these individuals, Now these accounts may be exaggerated. Its far fetched to think the biblical writers were writing so many details on a fiction story. Anthropology & Biblical Scholars believe these were real individuals particularly Jesus. The Mslim convert Louay Fatoohi for instance has written books on the stories of Joseph, the exodus comparing the details arguing for the quranic account as more true.
@Siraj Haq I don't think you know exactly what you are raising for discussion. Are you aware about the study of early Islam, 7th and 8th centuries, and why the first coin with Muhammad's name appeared in 682-685?
@Siraj Haq I think you misunderstood me. Yes it was for ideological purposes that Ibn al-Zubayr put Muhammad on one of this coins. But this is the beginning of a documented story of Muhammad, a story that disappeared in the 8th century.
@Siraj Haq All I know is that he was from the Quraysh, and was a leader of the caliphate based in Mecca. I know don't know what is full name was, nor do the Pakistani mullahs. Trust me on this. Quizzing people is a very futile, even hostile, way to engage with them.
@Siraj Haq This 'what could you possibly know if you want to talk about a topic' is not something I will condone. Have a nice day.
They're myths, and myths are not lies. They're a form of existential truth.
And among them are those who listen to you, but We have placed over their hearts coverings, lest they understand it, and in their ears deafness. And if they should see every sign, they will not believe in it. Even when they come to you arguing with you, those who disbelieve say, "This is not but legends of the former peoples."Quran(6:25)
He has addressed that, that is mentioned about 12 times and about 11 of them is in the context of resurrection after death, that is what the people'l are calling the legends they didn't believe they will be ressurected. Hope you understand.
Revealed to him not inspired
@Dr Javad T. Hashmi. You claim that the stories told in the Quran were readily available and known at the time of Muhammad. You are right because the unbelievers readily identified the stories of the Quran as "tales of the ancients" (Q 6:25). How then were they to accept Muhammad as a prophet if he did not bring "new" revelations? One way would be to perform miraculous feats, so the unbelievers again were right to demand a miracle from him, the like of which Moses was given (Q 28:48). However, you already grant that he was not given miracles in the Quran, and you claim that to argue otherwise would be fruitless. So how can the unbeliever accept him and his book?
This is why I am not convinced you have provided a viable theory on the source and nature of the Quranic revelations that enjoys wide explanatory power and scope. The theory you presented is ad hoc because seemingly important details in the Quran, which are now problematic, are explained away by appealing to some literary device. This approach robs the Quran of its mystery because to explain everything is to explain nothing. For example, you claim all the stories of previous prophets in the Quran were somehow really about Mohammad and we need not bother whether they happened or not. I believe this claim runs roughshod of the historic traditions that produced these Islamic stories. You set aside the earliest Islamic traditions and by means of mental work produce a religion that adds nothing new but assertions which cannot be verified or falsified. And this novel understanding is supposed to be an improvement on Jewish and Christian scriptural traditions? Do you really believe that the stories in the Quran are richer, fuller, and more sophisticated than similar stories in the Bible? Will we consistently find the stories in the Quran to be morally superior to the more primitive Biblical texts?
You need a theory that makes fewer assumptions, depends more on observations and less on authorities, accounts for a lot of the facts and observations on the ground, one that illuminates surprising ideas, has great predictive power, and is falsifiable. I hope you can see that the theory you provided is wanting in many of these areas. How does your theory compare in this regard to the theory proposed by the pagan, Jewish, and Christian opponents of Muhammad in the 7th century (i.e. Quranic revelations had no divine origins)?
James -- I am considering doing a follow up "reaction" video in a week or so, and I might respond to your comment there. You have to keep in mind that I was speaking off the cuff in a running dialogue, which usually results in some imprecision of speech... Therefore, I will hope to clarify and respond to your argument. Here, though, I should say that nothing I said was meant to denigrate the Bible or Christianity. I am interested in building bridges between Islam/Muslims and Christianity/Christians. Therefore, I have nothing but scorn for Islamic-Christian polemics and those who engage in them (on both sides). I believe we were all cut from the same cloth.
@@DrJavadTHashmi Thank you for taking the time to respond. I look forward to your comments. Take care.
@@tictac7359 Thanks, Jamus!
@@DrJavadTHashmi Doc BRODA' IT'S REALLY GR8 & VERY BRAVE ACT 2 BE RATIONAL AGAINST QURANIC MYTHS N EVEN YA' KNOW 4 SURE IT'S HISTORICALLY AIN'T TRUE & EVEN SENSE OF ARABIC LANGUAGE GRAMMAR IS ABSURD...ANY AVG HUMAN WITH OPEN MIND N COMMON SENSE WILL CUM 2 CONSEQUENCE THAT THERE AIN'T ANYTHING SPECIAL OR DIVINE WITH QURAN OR ANY RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE..EXCEPT THE CLOSE MINDED SUFFERING FROM FORCE FULLY IMPOSED CHILD INDOCTRINATION WILL FOLLOW THIS IDEOLOGY BLINDILY & PASSIONATELY EVEN WILL READY TO KILL WHO'LL MAKE SENSE N AIN'T AGREE WITH THEIR ILLOGICAL TEACHINGS.. YA' REALLY BECOME PRISONER LIKE ALWAYS PUZZLED UP BY RELIGION COMMANDS IN EVERY ASPECT OF LIFE..THESE FOLKS AIN'T GET IT THIS TOTALTARIAN IDEOLOGY WAS TO GATHER BIG NUMBER OF PPL UNDER ONE ROOF TO GET AS MUCH POLITICAL FAVOR AS ONE CUNNING HUNGRY FOR POWER MORON WITH NO SELF EMPATHY CAN GET..& IN RETURN YA' GONNA GET IN RETURN TO FULFILL UR GREEDY N LUSTY NEEDS WHICH YA'GONNA GET FROM AN IMMORAL BEING IN HIS FANTASY KINGDOM..THE ALL IMMORAL THINGS WHICH A MORAL SOCIETY FORBIDS YA' IS ALLOWED N EVEN PRACTICED ON A LARGE SCALE WITH NOW LIMIT FOREVER N EVER NON STOP...WOW 4 HOLY GOODNESS SAKE MAKE A BIAS FREE DECISION N COMPARATIVELY CHOOSE BETWEEN REAL MORALITY N IMMORALITY TRUTHFULLY...DOC BRODA' STAND ON UR STANCE OR MAKE DECIS
His mic was helping him stay within the fold of Islam by muting him in many portions hahahah. God works in mysterious ways
U sound like a superstitious person
It was a joke
😂😂😂😂
Way too many Ads, I can't focus on the topic
Pay for youtube premium.
2638363836268837362
What is the problem if we take it literally that God did send the angels to fight alongside the believers. I dont think this should be the problem at all, What we should be worried about is , How to rekindle the faith among ourselves as muslims and try to emulate the faith of early generations of Believers. I think that should be the major question we should be asking and seeking answers
@jay jay sht up , RIP Jesus and he ain't coming back
"Proved that Dhulqarnayn is based on Alexander romance" that escalated quickly
@Anon haha no I said it bc I was surprised that a muslim scholar said it with such openess. In muslim discourse the Syriac legend is almost nonexistent. For me it was such a shock when I first heard about the Syriac.
@Anon Thanks. Will do
@Flat Sky Quran was written in 150BC?
@Flat Sky I thought they were talking about Dhul Qarnayan ? Which is a fantasy tale similar to other medieval events found in the Quran. Lots of old rabbinic tales found in the Quran too like the tale of sleepers. These stories were not literal stories but events that were copied into the Quran as Gods Word.
@Flat Sky where is your proof the Quran is dated at the age you say? The earliest manuscript I believe is dated 670AD?
Muslim Joe Rogan.. 🤣🤣🤣 Very fitting
So he is taking Wanborough's view then?
Definitely not.
What do you think of his views Ziryab and peace. I see your name pop up on Quranic Islam from time to time. I am curious as a former Christian. It is true The Koran seems to take from apocryphal and Talmudic and even stories of Alexandria? God knows best.
It’s just confusing to me because there are the miracles of the Koran such as scientific, mathematical, and even prophetic as in 10:92 and so on but then you have these stories from those other sources. What are your thoughts??
Mufti? Where did you get this title from bro? What country are you a mufti in? Mufti gives Fattwa in matrers of the deen and is appointed by fellow scholars of the Umma for his knowledge in quran, hadeeth, Fiakah...
👌👌👌👌👌
The Muslim Joe Rogan podcast!
He said the Quran copied from the story of the Alexander and the gates? There is a difference between The Alexander Romances and The Alexander Legends( later syriac version). The Alexander Romances did not include Alexander building a wall to prevent Gog and Magog. This was included in a later text called The Alexander Legends, dated 629-630 AD, which was after Surah Kahf was finished. Cyrus is mentioned in the bible with great respect, whereas Alexander is not...If the story was so well known in syriac myths, how would this 'test' by the Jews be something only the Prophet knew about? Aka it wouldn't be. It would refer to someone only someone who had access to jewish scriptures would know lol. Also imagine the fact the Quran contradicts the entire Bible on Jesus being crucified lol. And that Jesus was resurrected or whatever. Are you really going to take the Bible’s word over the Quran. This major clarification the Quran tells us about Jesus, now compare that to what the Quran tells us about Dhul Qarnayn..
I will try to respond to this comment if I end up doing a reaction video in a week or so.
@@DrJavadTHashmi I'd love to learn more. In the mean time, your imaan seems to be on the lower side. Here's an imaan sensu bean brother. ua-cam.com/video/OOfe-lWMwtg/v-deo.html&ab_channel=StraightPath
@@notionSlave I do not think God has given anyone the ability to discern the level of iman someone has in their heart. In fact, the Qur'an indicates otherwise.
Whereas some Muslims struggle with their faith when they study it academically, for me my educational journey has only strengthened mine.
@@DrJavadTHashmi If someone is denying the existence of prophets, and angels, aka major Quranic creeds, to bend to the whims of orientalists and empiricism, it would be a giant red flag to me and most others. Never have I heard someone dismiss the events in the Quran as mere literary art lol and not actual events (we would have no way of differentiating which is a real event and which isn't which would make the author of this Quran disturbingly deceptive, on par with calling God a liar). Either way, I pray you are guided on your journey to truth
@@notionSlave Well, good thing I don't care about your opinion nor does God use your opinion to judge me.
Too much knowledge is just as dangerous as too little knowledge.
This! This is very true... I feel like they have taken the other extreme
Great debate - well done. Lots of word salad from Jawad- “myths”, “ legends” , “ deep metaphors” but “ not fictitious” ? If that is not sitting on the fence than what is ? Mufti’s composure was commendable
@Azal Abadi this is the ad hominem fallacy @ Azam abadi. You don’t know what I know or not. Nonetheless please enlighten me about the academic and colloquial differences in definition of myth, legend and deep metaphor please ?
Dr Hashmi said “The traditionalist argue that miracles are obligatory to be sent to prove the prophethood of a prophet. That is the purpose of miracles. Theologically that’s the purpose.
In order to be a prophet you have to make a claim of prophecy and it has to be confirmed with a miracle.
That is the traditionalists view.”
I don’t know the tradition he refers to but that is absolutely not true.
Firstly, if miracles were obligatory we wouldn’t have many prophets who didn’t carry out any miracle as it clear from the Quran.
Noah, Abraham, Lot, Joseph, Zachariah, John the Baptist, in fact the majority of prophets did not do any miracles to prove their prophethood to their people.
So to say that every prophet has to prove his prophethood with miracles in simply false. And the tradition never said that.
Secondly, the few prophets that produced miracles were rejected by their people such as Moses with the Egyptians. He did many miracles unlike any another prophet but still they called him a magician and disbelieved in his prophethood.
What about Jesus? Did the Jews believe in him after all his miracles? No.
That is why the Quran made it very clear to the pagans that there is no point in making them see miracles to prove the veracity of the message of the prophet.
Dr Hashmi said “If you take a look at the Quran, the Quran itself seems in multiple places to imply clearly that the prophet did not carry out any miracles”
I have to point out that miracles have two audiences and two objectives.
The first audience is the disbelievers with the objective of making them believe.
The second audience is the believers with the objective of increasing their faith.
If a miracle is meant for the disbelievers they have to see it themselves but if it is meant for the believers the disbelievers might not see it.
To say that the Quran implies clearly that the prophet did not carry out any miracles is not accurate. Maybe he did not produce any miracle to the pagans because that is useless anyway, but he did do miracles that were seen by the believers to strengthen their faith. And some of those have been recorded in the tradition.
Dr Hashmi said “Take common sense if the prophet did any of those things (miracles) the pagan would acknowledge him as a prophet.”
The Quran have proved to us that Moses and Jesus did miracles nevertheless people didn’t believe in them. So it is not common sense.
Dr Hashmi said “ if the pagans saw the angels with their own eyes at badr they would have fled”
The angels were not sent in their original shapes, they took human shapes, so they were seen by the pagans and the muslims as humans like them, so why flee?
The battle of Badr was a miracle meant for the believers to strengthen their faith and was not meant for the disbelievers to believe in the message of the prophet pbuh.
The objective behind that battle was not to destroy the pagans but to teach them a lesson because God knew the majority of them will become believers afterwards. That is why the role of the angels was very limited.
I believe the tradition has many mistakes but the solution is not to make stories of the Quran myths like the brother did here.
Hi Zubair. I appreciate your courteous engagement with the material and also the fact that you are thinking hard about these matters. That's definitely a good thing. However, I would kindly caution you away from using forceful language such as "that is absolutely not true." Instead, unless you've rigorously researched a claim, it's better to put forward your argument as a potential objection and ask for an opinion on the matter.
You've made a number of claims, none of which can stand up to scrutiny, in my opinion. For example, you claim very emphatically that the tradition never claims that the prophets must come with miracles. Not only is this the case, but it is often stated as a creedal point. I could point you to numerous well-known creeds that indicate this. Indeed, it's even formalized in a hadith in which the Prophet is attributed to have said: "Every Prophet was given miracles because of which people believed." If you'd like a quick source to check on this position, you can see this fatwa here: www.aliftaa.jo/QuestionEn.aspx?QuestionId=2894#.X-Af0OlKgb1
That link includes Ibn Hajar's quote, "[E]very Prophet must have a miracle that makes people believe that he is speaking the truth... [E]very Prophet was given one miracle or more that makes people believe in him."
If you'd like me to look up the creeds, I can do that for you as well. For now though, I'll give you a scholarly assessment: Commenting on the classical "orthodox" theologians, Isra Yazicioglu concludes: "All deemed miracles an essential requirement for a messenger of God" (Understanding the Qur'anic Miracle Stories, p. 19).
There is more to be said but I'll leave it there for now.
@@DrJavadTHashmi Hi Dr Javad. Thank you for your reply.
I think you will agree with me that this is the only hadith that seems to support the view that every prophet has to produce a miracle for his people to believe in him.
It is narrated by layth bin sa’d from sa’id from his father from abu harayra
حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ العَزِيزِ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، حَدَّثَنَا اللَّيْثُ، عَنْ سَعِيدٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، قَالَ: «مَا مِنَ الأَنْبِيَاءِ نَبِيٌّ إِلَّا أُعْطِيَ مِنَ الآيَاتِ مَا مِثْلُهُ أُومِنَ، أَوْ آمَنَ، عَلَيْهِ البَشَرُ، وَإِنَّمَا كَانَ الَّذِي أُوتِيتُ وَحْيًا أَوْحَاهُ اللَّهُ إِلَيَّ، فَأَرْجُو أَنِّي أَكْثَرُهُمْ تَابِعًا يَوْمَ القِيَامَةِ»
صحيح البخاري (9/ 92)
وَكَانَ سَعِيدُ بْنُ أَبِي سَعِيدٍ ثِقَةً كَثِيرَ الْحَدِيثِ وَلَكِنَّهُ كَبُرَ وَبَقِيَ حَتَّى اخْتَلَطَ قَبْلَ مَوْتِهِ بِأَرْبَعِ سِنِينَ
الطبقات الكبرى (ص: 147)
Ibn Sa’d said about sa’id : “he was reliable but he became old and remain until he started mixing up four years before his death.”
It has been also reported that he carried on narrating ahadiths after he became old.
This puts a question mark on his ahadiths since we don’t know when they where taken from him, and this one in particular.
Even if we accept the hadiths as authentic it is a mistake to translate ايات as being miracles like ibn hajar said.
The term AYAAT has many meanings. It could be miracles and it could be signs and it could be verses.
If we refer the hadith back to the quran we can see that the meaning of Ayaat here is sign not extraordinary miracles. Not every sign is a miracle.
The first companions who believed in the prophet pbuh did not do so because they saw a miracle from the prophet but because they saw signs in his character that he was truthful and could not lie about God and that his message made sense.
In the Quran, the only prophet that was asked for miracles as proof of prophethood is our prophet pbuh.
If it was an obligation for every prophet like ibn hajar said all these people before us would have asked their prophets for those miracles. But we see nowhere in the Quran that they did.
If people were to believe because of miracles they saw from the prophets, then what is the point in rewarding them for that belief?
To conclude: This hadith has only one chain of narration, one narrator started mixing up in his old age and it is narrated by abu hurayra who is known to have taken statements from ka’b al- ahbar that were later on attributed to our prophet pbuh. To translate Ayaat as being miracles is a mistake and nothing in the hadith itself suggests that .
If you have another evidence, please provide it.
@@DrJavadTHashmi
Hi Dr Javad
The reason i am confident in saying " that is absolutely not true" is because this hadith( if Ayaat are translated to mean miracles) and the explaination of ibn Hajar of it go against the Quran.
Here is why
Quran 7
105- Who is] obligated not to say about Allah except the truth. I have come to you with clear evidence (ببينة) from your Lord, so send with me the Children of Israel."
106- [Pharaoh] said, "If you have come with a sign ( باية), then bring it forth, if you should be of the truthful."
107- So he [i.e., Moses] threw his staff, and suddenly it was a serpent, manifest.
In these verses Moses pubh said he has come with a clear evidence e.i miracle because what he produced was indeed a miracle.
Notice that here بينة and اية mean miracle.
In contrast Hud pbuh did not come to his people with any miracle
Quran 11
53- They said, "O Hūd, you have not brought us clear evidence (ببينة ), and we are not ones to leave our gods on your say-so. Nor are we believers in you.
If their statement that Hud did not come with clear evidence i.e miracle was false and a lie Allah would have defended his messenger and say they lied.
So the statement is true and when confronted with this argument Hud still did not produce any clear evidence ie miracle to them to believe instead they were destroyed.
This is proof from the Quran that it is not obligatory for Every prophet to come with a miracle to prove his prophethood.
So the hadith should be interpreted otherwise or just be rejected and any book that makes this position part of the islamic creed is simply wrong.
I think you should have investigated the issue more deeply and ask others before coming to your conclusion that the islamophobes like Jay smith and co are right.
They are using your words to attack our prophet pbuh in the sense that since he did not do any miracles, he is not a true prophet or is below the status of Jesus who did many miracles.
There is NO MYTH in the Quran, it is historically correct about everything it says because it comes from God Allah. You just lack the right undetstanding.
Saying the stories of the Quran are mere myths is actually saying that the pagans were right about the Quran.
Quran 6-25
The ones who have disbelieved say, "Decidedly this is nothing except the myths of the earliest (peoples)."
May Allah guide us ALL to the right understanding of his religion.
Take care brother.
Instead of just honestly admitting that your initial claim was wildly incorrect, you have decided to move the goalposts and then, on top of that, insisted that you continue to speak in full confidence. In any case, I will address your comment in my response video, if I end up doing that.
@@DrJavadTHashmi that will not be fair because i won't have the opportunity to respond. If you can't refute me here don't do it in the show because i cannot take part and defend my position.
If you have evidence bring it here . Let us discuss it.
I brought my evidences why don't you bring yours?
My initial claim was correct it is your understanding that wasn't.
1:03:00 "...should not be understood as literal historical events." Last one out turn off the lights.
Javed’s needs to work on his patience. He wouldn’t let Abu Layth finish his points or questions.
He has missed the point of the miracle of Islam. The miracle is the Qur'ans inimitable style not in any so-called scientific facts mentioned. The challenge of the Qur'an to the disbelievers was to bring something like it which they could not.
This is a problematic argument atleast for todays world. What does this even mean ? Most ppl including mslims are not arabic experts or arabic grammar & poetry experts. So this argument becomes redundant. Secondly i dont get what this supposed to mean to bring something like it. How is that a miracle. Someone can imitate shakespeare or harry potter or critics may say its not as good as that literature, How does this make anything divine, I fail to see this. Even if this argument does prove quranic divinty it only applies to the arabs at the time. This doesnt work with the western world today & most ppl.
@@Yameen200 Have you seen pictures of the owl butterfly?
@@yeahbuddy4712 Whats your point
@@Yameen200 go to Google images and scroll through the pictures of owl butterfly
@@yeahbuddy4712 I know what it is ! Whats your point
Pretty intense mental gymnastics by Dr Sahib. Just leave Islam dude. You've woken up to most of the holes and contradictions in this man made religion. Now wake up to the rest. ⏰
Men professing themselves to be wise but they're really just fools without the Creator. Islam is perfect human beings or not unfortunately to speak against Islam in a subliminal way is a imposter pedigree you notice a lot of this on the west particular in America here, invite non Muslims to Islam the way of life much needed peace in America salamualaikum we all will have to answer to Allah
Traditional Islamic narrative is dying...you r children will follow different versions of islam or leave it altogether.
You you take literally that Quran was revealed to Muhammad or was it really written by man.????
It is 'written' by men. God did not 'write' that... He might reveal something using angel transportation system... Who knows!
Riveting discussion! Please get him back with the mic working properly!
I got so frustrated that I almost threw my mic and computer out the window during the discussion!
Are " western " scholars inherently more right than " eastern " scholars. Seems like there is a complex going on here . A " western " scholar has written a article on the origin of that word
I am not saying that Western scholars are inherently more right than Eastern ones. In fact, I think it would probably better say "those who use modern tools of scholarly inquiry" are going to be more convincing (to me) than "those who dogmatically stick to the (gullible) traditionalist paradigm." And ultimately it is about scholarly results rather than inherent right.
Sabab doesn't mean precursor. it means " means" = power. He was granted supernatural abilities
I believe mufti is describing its actual meaning not an interpretation
@@khanG-gq9hc you mean a linguistic definition, I wouldn't claim it to be the "actual" meaning, there's no such thing
Mufti, you interrupt a bit too much. It ruins the flow of Javed's conversation.
Great discussion...but the DOC needs to learn to listen as much as he talks..."let me just"...LISTEN..."for one second"
Surah 12: Yusuf
Ayah : 111
لَقَدْ كَانَ فِي قَصَصِهِمْ عِبْرَةٌ لِأُولِي الْأَلْبَابِ ۗ مَا كَانَ حَدِيثًا يُفْتَرَىٰ وَلَٰكِنْ تَصْدِيقَ الَّذِي بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ وَتَفْصِيلَ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ وَهُدًى وَرَحْمَةً لِقَوْمٍ يُؤْمِنُونَ
Certainly in the stories of the bygone people there is a lesson for people of understanding. What is being narrated in the Qur'an is no fabrication; it is rather confirmation of the Books that preceded it, and a detailed exposition of everything, and a guidance and mercy for people of faith.
(via) Tafheem ul Quran in English
That is absolutely not true: if "all you believe in is just biology and evolution, then you have nothing in which to ground your moral realism"... What?? This is not scientific, in fact it's anti-scientific. Through sheer understanding of your own need to ground yourself and see other people grounded in ethics, and then the more you observe the rest of world, your notice similitudes and patterns and justice/moral systems of complexity now and well into the past like tens of thousands of years ago, and decipher moral systems in our long gone hominid cousins and in the current ape world, you arrive at the grand-scale possibility of moral realism. I don't know how someone like Mr. Hashmi could just blurt this out when speaking about an atheist like Apostate Prophet, who has thought about moral realism a great deal, more than Mr. Hashmi is giving him credit for. Please Mr. Hashmi, I would love to read your response, because I might have misinterpreted you. What did you mean?
Hi Paul, I'll try to include you if I end up doing a response video in some time.
@@DrJavadTHashmi Thank you sir. Please don't read my comments as though I am being abrasive. That is not my frame of mind. I am responding in a passionately adversarial way. That's all. And I believe I speak on behalf of everyone in the discussion below, thank you heartily for doing this with Mufti Abu Layth. People all over are expressing their gratitude.
@1:26:20
He believes in crucifixion of Jesus?
Wow - - - Great Qur'an academic at Harvard..!
Religious truths are not superior truths. That might be the case for certain individuals. But Mr Hashmi is stating this as an objective fact. We are not left with an anaemic worldview if we just rely on evolution for self-understanding. Mr. Hashmi is constantly opining over the real inferiority of all orthodox religious factions for the dullest and most dangerous thinking, but Mr. Hashmi is demonstrating the same dullness by extolling the superiority of religious and theological inquiry. That too is a very trite thing to say and think. It's the idiot theist's line for the last 2000 years. Has he never heard of Buddhism or the Vedanta? Mr. Hashmi's now established dichotomy between religious and non-religious truths as far as informing the human condition is concerned is completely juvenile. What is religious and non-religious, from the perspective of organized religion, is an unhelpful and dangerous game. This is the very extremism itself of religion, and Mr. Hashmi embraces this. Mufti Abu Layth is very different in this regard.
Google BDS boycott Israel! .. Free Palestine! ❤🇵🇸👍
Ibn rushd beta version
I take this as a compliment!
@@DrJavadTHashmi do you think quran is created or uncreated?
@@DrJavadTHashmi maybe you should do a live q&a like mufti
@@Fahad-gf1wx Created.
This is what happens when you learn to play cricket from a player like Maradona. After an extensive research that Maradona is indeed a great player.. ""Harvard""
@@jsean7456 try harder mate
Apply critical thinking.. go out of that box! Dont worry about covid!
I agree with deobandis not giving akal any importance and barelvis are full of superstitions. So there is no Madhab I like honestly
What do you mean barelvis are full of superstitions
@@Muslim-87 where do you want me to begin lol .
Plz tell me I would love to know
@1:26:14
"I also believe Jesus existed AND HE WAS CRUCIFIED"😲😲😲😲😲😲😲😲😲😲
@Swoosh Swish He said he was giving his view as an academic, so he may academically believe it but not believe it religiously
In The Crucifixion and The Quran, Dr. Ali Ataie makes this matter clear.
There's nothing wrong with that interpretation. Many translations of the Quran lend to that view. Even Shabir ally tends to side with that view.
Mashallah, this guy sounds like norman ali khan
This guy has some interesting ideas but he seems to sip on his own Kool Aid a little too hard. Some of the arguments he made were just to look at the Mu'tazilite perspective instead of actually deciphering how said perspective has more validity and is superior.
Bit hypocritical mufit abu layth about madrassa being defunct and dyfunctional so why did you go to a madrassa
To attain legitimacy. Love Mufti. May Allah bless him.
Hmm, could it be that initially he didnt know that? 🤔 mmm...that was to hard for you think as an option? Wow...
Wallahi if the sahaba heard what these two are talking about they would whip them for days
I love the discussion but javad is being rude to dani boy.
Wasted🤦🏽♂️
Not at all. Very valuable dialogue
This talk was led what are you on about