MEGA DEBATE: Islamic Modernism (Dr. Javad T. Hashmi) vs. Traditionalism (Daniel Haqiqatjou)

Is Islamic modernism a better paradigm than Islamic traditionalism? In this debate, Dr. Javad T. Hashmi faced off against Daniel Haqiqatjou to discuss modernism vs traditionalism, especially in regards to the sub-topics of sexuality, religious freedom, warfare, and slavery.
This debate was initially hosted on Modern Day Debate and has been reposted with permission.

[@hdcbpxsytahdcbpx]

This was my introduction to Islamic Modernism, thank you for your extensive argumentation, you raise some good points

[@mrx6787]

sir can u make more videos of the ideas of islamic modernism ,i am very interested and i would like to send these videos to my friends and family members who are listening to extremist misogynistic maulanas 24/7 and rotting their mind. Lilke they still believe that black seed can heal every disease in 2024! It would be very helpful if you make vidoes on what Islamic Mordernism is and the thought process behind it .Also u are doing a great work ♥

[@MRCroosingTootH]

I have to say I have had some things pondering my mind about the slavery parts and so fourth and Dr Javad Hashimi is very very good at explaining his points and always come with proof form Quran which I love. I myself believe ONLY in Quran and I loved that I found a new normal good person to follow 👍👍 recommend! Keep doing hard work against these extremist people who have destroyed our religion. ❤

[@roflingsteaks]

Javad: **Presents a concise argument with plenty of evidence and sources to back it up** Daniel: You're gishgalloping, islamophobia incarnate, big meanie, liberal, pro colonialism, caricaturing me

[@majdaelkadiri9292]

you forgot “cringe”

[@Lightbulb909]

But here’s the thing: if the prophet was the walking Quran, why are we looking at Hadith at all? If he is the walking Quran, that means he judged and lived his life according to it, just as God commanded him to do. Does this command only apply to the prophet and not everyone else, the Quran doesn’t say so. So we, too, should be a walking Quran. But traditionalists will say the Hadith is the walking Quran. Oh yeah? The same Hadith that is riddled with contradictions while the Quran asserts had it been from other than God there would have been much contradictions therein? Come on, man.. don’t insult the common sense of humanity. So, when the Allah gives us privy to what our prophet will say about us on judgement day, that we’ve taken the Quran as a thing abandoned, he’s talking about all Quranists or folks saying we should go back to the Quran for knowledge? He’s not talking about the traditionalists who say the Hadith is on par with the Quran yet simultaneously treating the latter as ambiguous (even though there are ayaatin muhkamaatin within it) and in need of the former. What a lie you tell to yourselves. Does that sound like it’s on par? How come our prophet doesn’t say they took this Quran and my Sunnah as mahjoor? Traditionalists are doing Hijra to the Hadith and away from the Quran.

[@Farhadmoh]

Need more people like dr Hashimi.

[@moizahmed1149]

Feel as if the open discussions were quite unproductive here, seems like Daniel was constantly deviating from responding to specific questions by asking several follow up questions that can’t possibly be answered in the 1 minute timespan, and then resorting back to saying “you haven’t answered a specific question” The liberal reform bot narrative was new to me though, and I must say it does make sense, although it is basically the slippery slope fallacy. Unfortunately this results in the majority of muslims being cancelled/takfir’d for not following tradition strictly Another interesting thing is that Daniel doesn’t engage in justifying things that we don’t consider ethical about the islamic tradition (child marriages, sex slavery etc) rather embraces them, and may argue that these are better for society. I’m still not sure how Daniel can argue against an islamic basis for a progressive ethic, and why only a certain element of the muslim tradition is selected for his views All in all, I’m quite torn - I’m not sure whether arguing over an accurate interpretation of the Quran is an argument that can be won. Nevertheless, definitely a debate to watch more than once

[@maalikserebryakov]

The liberal reform bot narrative perfectly describes the work of javad. He starts out on the assumption that things in the Hadiths and Qur’an are immoral. Where does he get that judgement from? Liberal society. And he attacked the isnad, which is in fact the only method the Qur’an was transmitted to us. If you remove the isnad, we just have a bunch of variant manuscripts carbon dated to various periods in history. Its impossible to explain any of the variants without destroying the doctrine of the immutable text of the Qur’an.

[@SAli-yb9us]

Have we really thought about what it means to follow “tradition” strictly? It means we are doing what both Ibrahim and Muhammad were told not to do in the Quran - which is to follow one’s forefathers blindly. We are to respect our parents but not follow them when they lead us astray. Quran takes precedence over “tradition” - this is where Muslims have gone wrong. Leaving Quran and following tradition is what going astray is all about. Only Allah decides who is a Muslim so people who use takfir are playing God. Should we care about being takfir’d by traditionalists who give more importance to tradition than Quran? When they resort to takfir it tells us that they have nothing of substance to offer. I am only concerned about what Allah accepts not what traditionalists peddle so let’s not set up partners to God as shirk takes many forms.

[@KeyboardGhaazi]

In simple terms, it is about EVIDENCE from the Scripture.. Danial went against the Scripture, and favoured the hadeeth and traditional scholars that upheld the hadeeths, and placed the Qur'an as only a secondary or an obsolete source.. This was demonstrated when Javed presented the EVIDENCE from the Qur'an where Allah commands to MARRY the believers from the Right hands posessed/those under your Trust and care.. and the Ayah says not seeking and having relations with them outside of wedlock.. as lovers in fornication.. In reality the Qur'an is NOT A MODERNISTIC VIEW but the ORIGINAL VIEW that the Prophet Practiced, taught and followed.. The Qur'an predates the hadeeth literature, it is in reality the Hadeeth literature that is something alien and a new invention and introduction introduced to the Religion of Islam, inorder to destroy Islam from within! Thanks to Allah, the Qur'an is preserved and protected, and thus we see the glaring contradictions of the hadeeth and it's immoral teachings contradicting the Qur'an as clear as daylight!

[@KhalilAndani]

Javad presented 12 arguments in 25 mins and elaborated them over the debate Daniel rebutted absolutely none of them and failed to provide one argument for his brand of Sunni Muslim traditionalism

[@zulqarnainmehmoodhanbli1016]

by this comment I dont thinkyou watched the debate

[@xiuhcoatl4830]

​@@zulqarnainmehmoodhanbli1016did you?

[@KhalilAndani]

@@AlonzoHarris235I wrote the opening?

[@bilkishbegum6681]

Javad cited the Quran. Daniel did not.

[@zulqarnainmehmoodhanbli1016]

@@KhalilAndani Daniel also cited Quran on patririchy, slavery

[@info786]

I watched this several times and here are my thoughts: both sides came out with decent points but very few points were specifically addressed. Quite a bit of ad hominen, strawman fallacies and cherry picking. One thing was quite clear is that Daniel assumes early followers of Islam post-prophet were right thus he thinks whatever they did is the right interpretation of Islam, and he couldn't really justify his positions from Quran. We must remember Quran itself cites several examples wherein prophet erred in judgement in personal/small matters so how more fallible would his successors be - likely much more, so we must be very careful when relying on post-prophet sources. Abu Hanifa for example had limited/cautious use of hadith. Imam Malik rejected many so-called "sahih" hadith, Caliphs abu bakr and umar burned hadith etc. So it seems one's view will depend on one's presuppositions, i.e. if you believe Quran is first and foremost you will lean towards Javed's view, if you believe in Traditional sources being reliable then you will lean towards Daniel's view.

[@naseemarifraja1]

Javad came across as a proper academic. He presented his case very well. Most of his evidence was from the Quran, which can be corroborated. Where as Daniel was trying his best to character assassinate Javad by calling him a Kafir and agent etc. it seemed Daniel has been receiving training from the pakistani takfiri molvees.

[@lovmovement8477]

Tremendous work ! Defending critical thought & the deen of Allah 🙏🏽

[@rv706]

I'm just saying: Daniel definitely sounds homosexual. 😂 Not that there's anything wrong with that, just listening...

[@augustoc628]

Thank Dr. Javad. Since my grandpa died, I tried to get closer to Islam but always felt that the ethics weren’t applying to my personal beliefs. Now I can see that Islam is actually pretty like he always said.

[@Farhadmoh]

Agree but salafis make Islam unappealing by aligning politics to the divine religion

[@lets_wrapitup]

@@Farhadmohthat’s essentially how shia and sunni was formed.

[@SAli-yb9us]

What is the “early Muslims” argument all about? You mean the early Muslims can’t be making mistakes? Seriously? They weren’t infallible. They could have gotten some things wrong you know. We need to understand and follow the Quran not early Muslims who knew nothing of 21st. century reality. Of course we learn from the Sunnah but what does that mean? Not how the Prophet brushed his teeth or how he dressed, but his example in justice, compassion, honesty, forgiveness, peacemaking etc. These principles and values are for all times for us to follow. And so are Quranic principles which are understood, interpreted and practiced to be relevant in contemporary contexts. Our understanding evolves over time and the whole purpose of religion is for us to evolve into better human beings. The Quran is silent on homosexuality and the Arabic word for homosexuality is not even used. Committed same sex marriage is not banned. What is forbidden is sexual violence, rape, assault, debauchery and promiscuity as shown in the story of Lot, whether it is between people of the same gender or different genders. Please reflect on the Quran Daniel - it reveals its guidance to those who reflect. Don’t insult our Prophet or the Quran by using them to justify cruelty and unethical practices in their name. Yes the Prophet had slaves - Zayd and Maria were presented to him. He treated one like a son and married the other, freeing them both - what is the lesson there? That we should free slaves and pave the way towards emancipation. And the Quran encourages marriage to slaves for this reason too. We are not superior to anyone because the Quran says that humanity is created from a single nafs/soul and God breaths spirit into all of us - not just men or slave owners or Arabs or Muslims. Slavery and polygamy were social institutions which existed before Islam and Islam did not abolish them but restricted both. The Quran prescribed the freeing of slaves as a way to atone for our mistakes. What does that tell us? That these were undesirable institutions and were to be restricted and eventually abolished as Muslims evolved spiritually. The fundamentalists never seem to talk about the verses in the Quran which says you can have up to 4 wives but only if you can treat them equally and since it is not possible for you to treat them equally, then stick to one. Why is this verse never seen as the reason to abolish polygyny? Fundamentalists are very selective when they wish to justify their prejudices and superiority by quoting verses out of context.

[@beyond-liberalism]

one of the best comments i've read. we have to go back and actually try to understand the quran, there we will see it is very different from what is protrayed as islam today. that's the truth, however unpleasant it may be.

[@negeto2460]

Well said akhi! Unfortunately, the Bukhariyoon are deaf, dumb, and blind to see the truth!

[@SAli-yb9us]

@@negeto2460 🙏🏽🙏🏽

[@arl165]

Lmao prove evidence that Qur'an prohibits same sex marriage between father and son or 2 brothers and I'll accept sodomy as lawful or stay silent

[@opaapo7089]

Question. You said in your comment that same sex marriage is not banned, does that mean it’s not haram?

[@ryandrake1034]

Hello Javad I am a Islamic traditionalist I just want to give a few points of criticism First the idea that traditionalist Muslims were not rationalist is simply an absurd idea example asharis (the majortiy of sunnis) It is said that in the early period, Ash'arites followed a method that combined reason and revelation. This is in contrast to the assertions by some Ash'arites that those who believe without thinking (mukallid) cannot be true believers.This view indicates that believing in religion without using reason and thought is considered invalid according to them. The later period some Ash'arites prioritized reason and relegated revelation to a secondary position, stating that revelation could never contradict reason. Examples of these include al-Juwayni, al-Ghazali, Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, and Qadi Baydawi. The majority of the Ash'arites went further, stating that only reason provides certain knowledge, while revelation is merely a matter of conjecture and cannot provide knowledge or certainty.(you can find the sources in wikipedia) As for the flat earth their are list of muslim scholars who did not believe it and some even said their was conseuses (Ibn hazm ibn tayimyah ibn jawzi fahkr al din razi al juwayni and al ghazali as examples of scholars who said the world was round) As for arab superortiy all the sources are salafi and if you read the rest of ibn tayimyah you find him saying However, the people of theological rhetoric are of the view that there is no excellence or preference of one race over another, and this is the view of Abu Bakr Ibn Al-Tayyib and others. This is also the doctrine of 'Ash-Shu'ubiyah' (a group who hate and oppose the Arabs) so majortiy of muslims (asharis and maturdis) do not have this view and we have clear hadith and quran verse saying that everyone is equal on them being pious As for slave women dress even seculer historians disagree with you pernila myre says in her essay slaves for purchase says that most jurist do require slaves to cover themselves up in the hanfi school Abu Hanifa and al-Shaybani stated that a concubine's chastity should be protected and she should be established inside the home According to Ibn Abidin, most Hanafi scholars did not allow a female slave's chest, breasts or back to be exposed for the maliki school they use prove form the people of Medina here is what they say Ibn Jurayj (150 AH/767 CE) reported that it had reached him from some of the sheikhs of the people of Medina that slave women wear the khimar (it is big enough to cover the chest) when they begin to menstruate, but they do not wear the jilbab. in the hanbail school kuwait encyclopedia of fiqh says that The Hanbali scholars said the nakedness of a maidservant is like the nakedness of a free woman. It is not permissible to look at her except with what is permissible to see in regards to a free woman. The zahrir were know to also say that their awrah is the same as a free women also they could not just be bare chested in the middle of the pubic evidence for this is It is not permissible for a man to look at a slave woman other than his own Muhammad ibn al-Hassan al-Shaybani (d. 189 AH/804 CE). Al-Mabsut, vol. 3, p. 47 If you want more information of the topic i reccomed reading the essay Status Distinctions and Sartorial Difference: Slavery, Sexual Ethics, and the Social Logic of Veiling in Islamic Law it clear that this was done when there was no fitna as stated As for what has been reported about the jurists of the garrison towns (fuqahāʾ al-amṣār), who permit a woman to expose her face and hands, this is restricted to [cases in which] there is no fear of temptation (fitna). Where can such a well-behaved society-in which a person is safe from the fear of temptation when women go about unveiled-be found? zāhid al-kawtharī (d. 1371/1951) As for enuchs and boy love this is clear haram if you just read the Quran and hadith remember the scholars are not infalible. There is more but these are my main problems and sorry for my bad English hope to hear a response and salam.

[@DrJavadTHashmi]

Thank you for your input. You raise many different points. I will try to respond to them all, but I really can't invest that much time in KZbin comments: 1. As for Ashʿaris and rationalism, scholars will often call them "semi-rationalists." But they can equally be called "semi-fideists," depending on whether or not you see the glass as half-full or half-empty. First, however, keep in mind that my debate was primarily directed against Ḥanbalī traditionalism, not Ashʿarism. Secondly, Ashʿaris would fall under a wide spectrum of thought, with their more rationalist thinkers -- such as Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī -- being something I think modern Muslims can indeed take inspiration from. Yet, at the same time, there was also historically a tendency towards closing the gap with Ḥanbalism, as evidenced by the eponymous founder of the school himself, i.e. Imām al-Ashʿārī. You are right to note that the later Ashʿarī tradition was more rationalist. That is not something I deny. However, this is in no small part due to the influence of the Islamic philosophers, who are takfīred by traditionalists. Furthermore, Ashʿaris typically endorsed using reason instrumentally. They believed that reason was used in order to get you to affirm God, the Messengership and Message of Muḥammad, after which one should submit one's will to revelation. That is to say, human reason got you through the door but then after that, you are to park it at the door and not rely on it. So, I very much look down on this type of instrumentalist use of reason. And so no, I would not classify them as rationalist believers, although we could quibble about terms. I acknowledge the Universal Principle, al-Qānūn al-Kullī, which you mention. Yet, I reject Ghazālī's claim that one can resort to a higher level of abstraction only as a sort of last resort option or when forced to do so. Anyways, this is a long topic. And all I will say is that the advanced later Ashʿarī and Māturīdī schools are indeed much better than the traditionalist schools and expressions before them. 2. As for your second point, there were any number of traditionalist medieval scholars who affirmed that the earth was flat and even who fought against those who said otherwise. The claims of consensus, as they usually are, are false. I have even read that it could credibly have been the other way around, i.e. a majority of scholars holding the earth to be flat, although my only claim is that the belief was held by not a few scholars based on their flawed methodology. I don't need to make the argument that all traditionalist scholars were flat-earthers for my point to be effective. My point is that the methodology is flawed such that a not a few scholars insisted upon a flat earth. I'd rather not follow a methodology that can often lead to this sort of conclusion. In fact, we can just ask you right now: Do you believe that the first human (whom you call Adam) was the result of human evolution? If no -- or if you hedge and give some complicated answer -- then can we just acknowledge that this is a similar bind as flat-eartherism is? 3. Your claim about Arab superiority is simply not true. It is not limited to "Salafi" scholars, Salafiyya being a term that only came into existence in modernity. Actually many Salafis would emphacise human equality far more than Ḥanafīs, for example, the latter of whom have historically actively discriminated in marriage on this very basis, i.e. Arab vs non-Arab. There is a whole doctrine about this. As for your claim against the Shuʿūbiyya, it was THEY, not the so-called "orthodox" traditionalists, who argued for non-Arab equality, which the traditionalists twisted to pretend they were "hating" Arabs. This is not terribly different than white racists complaining about blacks wanting equality and pretending that equates to hating whites. 4. As for your claim about slave women, I will simply reiterate the historical fact: a very large number of Islamic scholars allowed for slave women to be exposed at slave markets, where they could be inspected and even groped. This was indeed done all the way up until the 1960s in Saudi Arabia, continuous with practice before that in the Ottoman Empire and before. Your claim about "even historians disagree," I am familiar with the work of Pernilla Myrne. Why don't you give me the citation for what you are referring to and then tell me what sentence I uttered in my debate that conflicts with anything she said. But, give me a direct quote from me with time stamp and an exact citation from her, including page number. 5. As for eunuchs and boy love, you will need to cite exactly what I said that you think was false.

[@ryandrake1034]

@@DrJavadTHashmi Thanks for the replay Javad I will try to respond to them the best I can 1.I acknowledge that some asharis were not rationalist or that you were mostly taking about hanbails my point is that you are calling this Sunni traditionalism so this would be more broad of a topic then just one school which was actually then minority thorough out history. As for abu hasan al ashari (or just hasan for short) not being a rationalist is something I would have to disagree with as statement form early followers say Imam Abu Bakr b. Furak (d. 406h) said, as reported in Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari (p. 127): “Shaykh Abu al-Hasan ‘Alī b. Isma’il al-Ash’ari went from following the doctrine of the Mu’tazila to aiding the doctrine of Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama’a with RATIONAL proofs, and he wrote books on that.” Other scholars mentioned he followed the path of Ibn kullab like Ibn hajar al asqlani and ibn Khaldun Even the Al jahiz (a know rationlist ) was scared of ibn kullab movemnet as stated According to Benjamin Jokisch, those who converted to Islam became known as Nawabit (Neophytes) and formed the fundament of the traditionalist opposition in Baghdad.However it was also used by scholars such as al-Jahiz as a term for a group he and other Mu'tazilites grew increasingly worried at for they were seen as having more INTELLECT able than them and had advanced in KALAM. Al-Jahiz confesses that they have been building up a type of solidarity against the Mu'tazila and have become aggressive against them, claiming to have on their side, "the masses, the recluses, the jurists, the hadith people and the ascetics". Wadad al-Qadi notes that all of those who wrote on them, aside from one, were Mu'tazilites or Mu'tazilite sympathisers and that he finds it curious that none of the Muslim heresiographers mention them as a sect, aside from Ibn al-Nadim, who Wadad would hesitate to call a heresiographer. Wadad concludes, "Indeed, under different names, they are still with us today. And dont forget philosphers like Ibn Khaldun, Al biruni, Ibn nafsi, and Ibn arabi were ashari in creed Personaly I would call them rationlist for their ideas which they did defend with reason based proofs In fact even Incoherence of the philosophers use tons of rationalist proofs to debunk the philosophers. 2.All am saying is that you saying that it was a common belief of the scholars that the earth was flat is not fully accurate and at least half of the scholars (am giving a generous answer) belief in a round earth in fact even companions of ibn hanbal believed the earth as round heres links if you want more information All in all you can be a traditionalist and also believe in the round earth sapienceinstitute.org/does-the-quran-say-the-earth-is-flat/en.yabiladi.com/articles/details/81729/muslim-scholars-knew-that-earth.html 3.I think you forgot what the rest of the statement of ibn taymiyah which clear say that the people of kalam (Asharis, Maturdis) belived that people were depend not on their skin color am not saying that muslim scholars were not racist all am saying is that all or even majortiy believed this is over all far fetched. Also you trust when they say their was consensuses for the race but not for other things like round earth? (Also for the Shuʿūbiyya, I never claimed that about them that as just a bracked in the quotes however if you want to know some of the fierces enemies against them were Ibn Qutaybah (a Persian scholar) and some source say they created the quote "all knowledge belongs to the Iranians" so make of that what you well). 4.for the page number and quotes here Myrne, Pernilla (2019). "Slaves for Pleasure in Arabic Sex and Slave Purchase Manuals from the Tenth to the Twelfth Centuries". Journal of Global Slavery. 4 (2):218 Also for information the women often had to inspect the slaves and not to men source for that Amira Bennison. The Great Caliphs: The Golden Age of the 'Abbasid Empire. Yale University Press. pp. 146-147 Even still am not a Fan of slavery as even traditionalist scholar like The great Egyptian scholar Muhammad Abu Zahra summed it up: Islam would welcome a day when slavery was banned. 5.I actually agree with you on this am just saying how even the tradtion is not divine I stil believe it has many good that out weights the bad. Additional criticisms Ibn hanbal of anthropomorphism has been debunked by even in the 12th cenutry by ibn jawzi in his book Daf' Shubah al-Tashbih a book about how hanbails went away form tawhid to anthrophomophism and abandoned ibn hanbal. Also watch this video and masud.com article on the topic kzbin.info/www/bejne/fnvGoKqCa7Cff7M In conculsion I just want to defend tradtional islam I just want you to know that you are not my enemy and just want to learn like all people oncue again sorry for my bad englsh best reading to want more for sunni tradtionlism muslimanswersfiles.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/critiquingacritique-foudah.pdf on logic asharidefence.com/2023/08/25/50-scholars-who-said-allah-exists-without-a-place-makan-and-a-body-jism/ On were is allah In general my misson is to show that islamic tradtionlism is just more then what it crack up to be anyway have a good day and salam.

[@DrJavadTHashmi]

@@ryandrake1034 Thanks for the response. As I can’t go back and forth on this due to time, I’ll let your reply be the last one. Take care!

[@iffatabbas5391]

Dr Jawad is a true scholar.

[@Adrian-mb6wt]

Lol

[@maalikserebryakov]

he is an Imam of Apostasy

[@yassinhamza574]

You are being sarcastic right?😂😂😂😂

[@karimmmm-j9m]

@@maalikserebryakovcommiting takfir u and ur people misrepresent islam

[@Farhadmoh]

Lashing someone for adultry was at the context of that time as no state police existed like we won’t use horses and camels now in the an event of wars just because prophet pbuh used camels. Adultry should be a crime yes and fine and imprisonment should be right for todays context

[@KF-786]

Dr Hashimi is clear winner. Daniel hurls personal insults and accusations when he has no answers.

[@negeto2460]

Ahh, classic Bukhariyoon! Calling people Kafir, murtad, zindiq is their speciality😊

[@maalikserebryakov]

@@negeto2460 If Javad is not a Zindeeq then nobody is

[@khalil7011]

​@negeto2460 Hashmi is definitely a zindeeq though. If you believe the things he does you cannot really be Muslim. His position is one of cognitive dissonance.

[@dilip505]

If he's the clear winner take him to your sis

[@IA67676]

And utd won the quadruple😂😂

[@lifechoices6643]

On the issue of the so called differences between progressive and conservative muslims, i have benefited the research of scholars like Mohamed Abdou and Adis Duderija.They present the background against which debates are framed

[@Hunzilla1098]

Debate was a clear victory for Dr. Hashmi, great job sir 👍🏽

[@celestialknight2339]

@@ABC-wi6vtLaughing emojis doesn’t detract from the truth one bit. You already came with your mind made up. So of course you feel that way. But the facts stand on their own.

[@celestialknight2339]

@@HarpreetSingh-kj8ro LOL of course they are. They are following their pack/team from the very start. Did you expect anything less?…

[@celestialknight2339]

@@HarpreetSingh-kj8ro Yeah, I’m not surprised. They are just denying reality at this point. It’s too much for them to handle. Takfirism is the only true path for them.

[@mahirarubaiya3052]

​@@HarpreetSingh-kj8rodoes ali dawah or Daniel have? just asking

[@MuhammadfromGOD]

@@HarpreetSingh-kj8ro Christians also always say the won. The Truth won; and Dr spoke more truth than Daniel.

[@camelkingofthemediteranean949]

What i find rude is how he uploaded this video on his channel with the title "Muslim vs Reformist" as if he already knows for sure that he is Muslim and Javad is being displayed by him as a false one before the debate even began. It is arrogant in my eyes and overconfident. But there are a lot of people in the Ummah who feel superior just for having an angry face and for preaching. Morality has become highly superficial.

[@AMGbrmmbrmm]

i love debates like this. but I always get the question, why isn't God's message so clear that there aren't any different opinions about it? one either accepts the message or rejects it, people argue about how the quran is to be understood, although all sects believe in God. It would have been easy for the Almighty to send a clear message for all time, but all these different interpretations are making me more and more desperate. i was born as a sunnite, then i found the side of the quran only more logical and now i don't even know what to believe anymore.

[@hyrunnisa997]

The quran is very clear. read it…the only thing that is confusing is the input of outside sources and other people telling you to do things that contradict with the Quran.

[@robertoospina10]

God's message is clear if you seek it directly. If you follow other books or people you always end up with conflicts. That's why there are thousands of apologetics... God is directly accessible. Just cut away all that is false.

[@khalil7011]

Humanity was not made to be perfect and as such any revelation given would always be subject to the criticisms you mentioned. Ergo, your criticism is not really God's responsibility but rather that of humanity.

[@g0stqed193]

No sentence can be 100% clear. Even if you say a fact like: I was walking outside. There are infinte ways to walk, there are infinite meanings of outside. It could be inside but outside of a room for example.

[@AlMosesPhD]

Salam, it's the first time I've seen Daniel debate. He had no issues throwing the prophet under the bus

[@nadirahmed4224]

yes, he is an enemy of Islam

[@deeznutz1428]

orthodox muslims are happy to throw the prophet under the bus as long their tradition is defended. tradition over god and eveything.

[@Quran_Alone_Dawah]

It's a very common theme I see with the hadith worshippers. Isnad chains are more important to them than the honour of the prophet.

[@deeznutz1428]

@@Quran_Alone_Dawah they cry over islamophobia but the sad thing is they defend all the things that cause islamophobia in the first place....

[@nadirahmed4224]

@@Quran_Alone_Dawah the reason why we accept Hadith is for the same reason we accept the Quran - the Hadith is a scientific miracle - there are may Hadith which agree with science which a man could not have known 1400 years ago

[@leto.o5759]

This modernist Muslim take is interesting. It’s new to me, I love the logical, self critical and non biased approach it takes. From this debate, I’ve certainly become a person who admires this thought.

[@xiuhcoatl4830]

​@@khalidaser1430mutazilla school was heavily influenced by platonism, so its way older than that.

[@SAli-yb9us]

@@khalidaser1430 - there were no scholar’s interpretations for the first Muslims. They had the Quran and a living Prophet to guide them. Scholars came several centuries later. Islam was meant to be simple, flexible and easy to follow - it says so in the Quran with respect to fasting and other practices too. Why do we need gatekeepers between us and God? The Quran is enough and Islamic history and Sunnah provides what we need for contextual understanding today.

[@Buzz727]

​@@SAli-yb9us the true scholar always seeks the interpretation of the prophet. not interpreting quran and sunnah only for his own reason. that's why Islamic scholars compel the hadith, to seek what is the guidance from prophet Muhammad. new cults like hadith rejector are just another deviation, they wanna escape from the prophet Muhammad interpretation and interpret Quran by themselves, following their own mind

[@waleeyahya198]

@@khalidaser1430 As far as I know, it was Imām Abū Hanīfah who championed the idea of Reasoning along with Qur'ān and Living Tradition / Sunnah (not to be confused with Hadīth / Khabar-al-āhād). No surprise others called him Ahl-al-Ra’y. The Mu’tazilites were an extremist group, although they had produced some brilliant scholars, some were even Hanafī also in legal school: ‘The theological school is traced back to Wāṣil ibn ʿAṭāʾ (699-749), a student of al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, who, by stating that a grave sinner ( fāsiq) could be classed neither as believer nor unbeliever but was in an intermediate position (al-manzilah bayna manzilatayn), withdrew (iʿtazala, hence the name Muʿtazilah) from his teacher’s circle. (The same story is told of ʿAmr ibn ʿUbayd [died 762].)’ [Encyclopedia Britannica]

[@SAli-yb9us]

@@Buzz727 - the true Muslim seeks guidance from the Quran which is the Word of God and does not confuse the words PEOPLE have attributed to Muhammad as God’s Word. In case you didn’t know giving anyone else’s words the same status as God’s Revelation is shirk. Muhammad’s words were not being written as he spoke, that is why Hadith were not collected until a couple of centuries (that’s 200 years) after the Prophet’s death. The Quran was compiled in the form we see it today about 20 years after the Prophet’s death when the Prophet family, his companions and the original scribes were alive and present. How can anyone in their right mind give hearsay which is Hadith the same status as Quranic Revelation? Astaghfirullah! Anyway we leave judgement to God and follow our conscience - May Allah guide them.

[@MaseTheMeninist]

This debate opened a new can of worms and has invigorated my journey towards finding the truth. Arabs don’t have a monopoly on Islam- the Quran is COMPLETE.

[@miko67]

Yeah course the Qur’an is complete. The Qur’an teaches you to follow the ahadeeth. Also, show me an authentic ‘Quran only’ chain of transmission going back to the time of the prophet if what you say has any credibility, because we can show a tradition of Quran & sunnah chain of transmission all the way back to the prophet pbuh

[@darkday8913]

Daniel is not Arab he's Persian.

[@masoodr971]

Too much abusive ad hominem and straw men from Daniel. He seemed to reach with his analogies too. Not sure what debate he prepared for lol

[@Quran_Alone_Dawah]

You can tell brother Javad won this debate after Daniel's mureeds started flooding comment sections with wails of 'Zindeeq! Murtad! Munafiq!' 😂

[@perfectdawah4535]

You mean Daniel ISISjou?😅😅😅😅😅

[@khaledalmaeena3413]

How can God fearing people use words like that.

[@perfectdawah4535]

@khaledalmaeena3413 Salamalekum brother. Do you see my comment? I ask because most my comments get deemed by KZbin.

[@WB-ox9fl]

I was watching live from Daniels chat and the comments made me very sad. I’m glad to see that there are Muslims out there that try to enrich the best of their character with their beliefs. Anytime a Muslim starts going on and on about liberals, they lose me. I just can’t imagine a prophet of God speaking like this

[@celestialknight2339]

It’s a product of laziness and tribal mentality. It’s too hard to critically analyze someone’s position and genuinely hear them out. It’s much easier to just dismiss their position a priori and throw them into the same egg basket as everyone else you caricature as a “liberal murtad” or whatever other takfiri category they’ve invented. That makes them feel safer and more comfortable, because then they don’t have to think. Just ‘sweep under the rug, and move on’.

[@Sina6]

@@celestialknight2339 those condescending Sunnis man, they always presuppose and always wrong about Javad side

[@apolloniusoftyana7049]

Daniel's fanbase is pure cancer.

[@noname19816]

sadly only a minority. Daniel has a wider appeal than people who actually use scholarship and logic.

[@miko67]

@@celestialknight2339jaFED got absolutely demolished though. Jake the Muslim metaphysician also made a reaction video in which he exposes the kinds of authorities jaFED appeals to. It’s a big joke. You ‘modernists’ are trying to make your religious views conform to western liberal standards and are willing to throw everything under the bus in order to do so. You people are a genuine joke.

[@SomeofThisSomeofThat]

9.9/10 Daniel used to get bullied. People who used to get bullied as kids talk crazy knowing the law will protect. Let out that inner bullied teen, Daniel.

[@Mutazili]

Daniel's school is the reason why I was disillusioned with Sunnism. Converting to Mu'tazilism was the best thing I did.

[@Farhadmoh]

Jawad makes sense how apostasy law came to be, it was political imperialism, stop Muslims going to enemy religion, so they used prophets name to justify apostasy law. I wouldn’t of had a problem if the law was set outside the prophets words for political purpose but using prophets name is slandering the messenger

[@tyson6695]

The number of times Daniel referred to him as " murtad " etc is the very problem with these " traditionalists". They are just fringe extremists.

[@ltopomcfly5583]

I'm really disappointed with the moderator. This was like watching a parent debating an unruly teen. Daniel can't answer anything directly and just clowns when he's stuck or exposed or isn't determining the subject. Javad came with lots of evidence and direct points to be addressed. Unfortunately his opponent couldn't respond to anything and is a master of dodging and gas-lighting.

[@HanSolo-i8s]

If I wouldn't have read the Quran myself and didn't know the lies Daniel is telling, I would have left islam. May Allah guide this dude Daniel, because people like him are the reason that muslims leave islam

[@leonkennedy9754]

Im a christian , but i respect dr Javad with all his presentation , but daniel is just full of insults n nonsense

[@skepticalzostrianos9875]

Just by looking at their opening statements one we can see the intellectual level of each. Javad's points were well-ordered in his slide with the definition of islamic modernism, his arguments for modernism and against traditionalism while citing the quran and prominent scholars of all school of thoughts (muslim philosophers, muslim traditionalists, western scholars, etc.). Whereas Daniel's introduction was centered on the refutation of western orientalist scholars (who obviously were very biased against islam) and tried to paint Javad as one of them, since his main point was to prove that Javad is a "colonial agent" sent to lead muslims astray, thus a non-muslim 51:16 . No refutation on modernism or any argument for traditionalism, only personal attacks. With his, we can see that Daniel is just your regular takfiri salafist that have no substance in his reasoning and only knows how to use ad hominem to disprove his opponent. Continue like this Javad, you're doing great! I really enjoy your debates and how well-organized you are.

[@k2411871]

The irony is Wahabism only exists and has become the force it is because of the West! without the British and the French there would be no Saudi Arabia. It was the Americans that told them to proselytise their creed through out the Muslim world. MBS admitted as much

[@Abdullah-v5n2n]

TRADITIONALISM MEANS TO FOLLOW QURAN AND SUNNAH MODERNISM MEANS TO RE INTERPRET THE MEANINGS ASIDE FROM TRADITIONAL VALUES AND FOLLOWIN UR WHIMS N DESIRES!! PIECE OF SHITTTTT!!!!!!! THERES A DIFF BETWEEN TRADITIONALISM AND EXTREMISM NOT EVERY TRADITIONAL MUSLIM IS LIKE O.B.L! PLUS ISLAM DOESNT SUPPORT DEMOCRACY AND DEMOCRACY IS KUFR!! IM SURE THESE LIBERALS ARE PURE KAFIR DEMOCRATS!!!

[@justCommando]

I am over 2 hours in. Daniel is running from the Quran. Daniel’s arguments are “Javad you are getting your ideas from your interpretation of the Quran while I’m grounded in history” You are literally presenting the Quran and he is literally saying “my forefathers, my forefathers”. Daniel doesn’t want to face the Quran and doesn’t want to face the truth, he is just trying waste time by turning questions back on you.

[@Islam4Europeans]

61/2 hours!? Is this a debate or a telethon?

[@xiuhcoatl4830]

Real debates take days even longer... You're just not used to real debating

[@dystopicstate]

DH argues like a child. The constant ad-hominem attacks are almost predictable after his first rebuttal. In fact, by the 1:30 mark he's already at a higher pitch in his voice and he even admits to not understanding Dr. Hashmi's arguments. Someone needs to remind him that calling everything goofy is not a valid argument. The snorting and weird faces are just childish and shows that he's punching above his intellectual weight.

[@nekarlmarx4744]

Wow, where did Daniel get all that hidden virulence The only argument Daniel brings here is his smirk😂

[@maalikserebryakov]

It is the Smirk of victory against the Humiliated Apostate 😎😎😎

[@nekarlmarx4744]

@@maalikserebryakoveveryone who disagrees with Daniel is a joke, and the case where Umar disagreed with Abubakr was just “ikhtilaf”😅 Yeah that’s the smell of victory ✌️

[@emaad4342]

Javad- you stood up to defend the principles of the Quran!, I've new found respect for you, as for Daniel may Allah guide him to the truth.

[@DrJavadTHashmi]

Thank you.

[@stone_]

Other way around, mate. It’s YOU who needs the guidance.

[@emaad4342]

@@stone_ Thanks dude!

[@phiuzu5487]

​​@@stone_your garbage boy daniel defended rape by saying its permissible to have sex with a wife even if they do not consent and even raping slave women

[@yassin7569]

Javad all throughout the debate referenced a bunch of Quran verses that contradict the ultra-conservative stances on sex-slavery and apostasy. All Danial answered with is "Thats BS" or "no one cares about your heuristic mental gymnastics" eventhough javad interpreted the vast majority of the verses in the most literal way. Case in point was the very beginning of the first back and forth section. Danials lost his thunder from the moment on he was pressed about the verse (4:25). From there on out he didn't engage in any type of textual criticism. And not to mention the insufferable smugness and namecalling by Danial.

[@sAfgun123]

The verse you mentioned, 4:25, apparently refers to marrying the slaves of others and does not specifically say to marry your own.

[@yassin7569]

@@sAfgun123 What? The verse doesn't say slaves of others others. It specifically says talks about believing slave women that are in YOUR right hand's posession. you just inserted that it somehow refers to other people's slaves eventhough it doesn't say that at all.

[@sAfgun123]

@@yassin7569 yes it does. “And whoever among you cannot [find] the means to marry free, believing women, then [he may marry] from those whom your right hands possess of believing slave girls.” This is the saheeh international translation. Pickthall’s translation is also similar. Tafseers confirm this as well. Where are you getting your knowledge from?

[@yassin7569]

@@sAfgun123 first of all cite the rest of the verse that says ask for permission from her 'ahl' which according to Hans Wehr dictionary means family/kin/people. If it was about slave girl's of others the quran easily could just have said "ask permission from her owner". Secondly I still don't understand why you are infering from the verse that other people's slave girls are meant. The expression "your right hand posesses" is used which doesn't say at all that other people's slaves are meant by that. I mean you quoted the verse yourself but still think it supports your point. Lastly javad's point stil stands that in order to have sexual intercourse with the slave girl you must make a nikah with her. You can't just have indiscriminate sex with an unlinited number of slave girls otherwise the quran wouldn't mandate that a nikah is needed.

[@Quran_Alone_Dawah]

@@yassin7569 These zindiqs will never learn. As Allah tells us, the Quran guides the believers and misguides the evildoers.

[@383564]

Daniel is by far the most dishonest debater ive ever seen. Dude would have a great career as a politician, avoids answering questions directly with the best of them.

[@deeznutz1428]

he already got a ulema career among his ignorant audience..

[@zayamghani]

I be honest that you are very bias and dishonest person.😪

[@maalikserebryakov]

This is just a lie Daniel is probably the only debater who never runs from a sharp question even if the answer makes him look “backwards”

[@Farhadmoh]

He’s a salafi mindset that Hadiths are all true

[@Natalie-fj7fs]

Choosing to be more moral and being a virtuous human is apparently inappropriate for Daniel

[@meshari-yy9gp]

Moral according to what/who’s standard?

[@Natalie-fj7fs]

@@meshari-yy9gp very true, majority of Muslims don’t have morals my bad

[@obaidulhaque7687]

❤ that the his forefather done nameky #umayyad

[@Mutazili]

I know the Quran says but..... what about the Romans? And chimps?

[@Slaw6602]

Hurey Daniel won on rudnes,yes on rudnes and ignorance

[@Nick-ck5xq]

You won me over from Daniel's channel. Daniel was actually my door into studying Islam with his "Genius of Islam" video series and I've been subscribed for two years now. However, I slowly lost interest because he would take the most extreme islamophobia arguments and then "own it." It reminds me of Ann Coulter from years ago, who's debate tactic was just to "be the strawman." Recently, even other traditionalists have been heavily critical of him for stuff like saying it's wrong to have interfaith discussions or treaties. All this clearly violates the Quran, and he'll just snort and ridicule the notion. He'll literally be shown the verse and then just call you a CIA agent. I was losing my interest in the religion until I started reading and listening to more intellectual content.

[@shaunshaikh8617]

Also look into Mufti Abu Layth Dr Shabbir Ally, Shaykh Atebek Shukrov, and Javed Ahmed Ghamidi.

[@NewSmithsonian]

You will either apostate or become a traditionalist. His positions are complete nonsense that 99% of scholars far more pedigreed and intelligent than him refute completely. This is why Islamic progressivism and modernism are tiny movements, even though they've been around for over a century. They don't grow because either you apostate or you actually get into the religion. If you need to bend revelation to match your 21st century western ethics, you're not a muslim and have missed the entire point of submission. Sorry.

[@Sina6]

@@shaunshaikh8617 dr Shabir ally is almost there but I think he’s scared to come out

[@abrahamsecoe87]

@@shaunshaikh8617 Bof all of them are liars, and have the fear of the truth they have been debunked since!!

[@Buzz727]

wtf are u talking about. javad literally was avoiding question, many of his follower are prefer western liberal standard rather than islamic values

[@Farhadmoh]

Reading chapter 4 from 23-25 it’s talking about who you can marry and who you cannot, having sex with a slave women is not even being talked about if you read in context

[@H-2-O]

Mashaa2 Allah brother Javed… I watched your entire debate with Daniel, I will most assuredly and most unequivocally state: ROCK SOLID argument… rock solid.. THIS is the ISLAM in its truest form.. a deep intellectual and critical understanding of the text, and striking a brilliant balance between Islamic ruling and modern day circumstantial matters.. From DUBAI with ❤..

[@jaihunbek]

Oh this is exactly what I needed! Someone that can represent that spirit of rationalism which once animated the early Muslims and philosophers of Islam, the Mu'tazila, and in general any sensible human being which attempts to approach religion in a manner that is not absolutely fideistic and non-sensical, -- someone that can represent such in the capacity of a scholar and academic, against the embodiment of the most dirty will of humanity's, which has so often found expression in the history of religion, and which is dominant today: the will to close one's eyes and live in darkness. I am only 13 minutes in, yet from what I can see thus far the Rationalist seems like he will perform well. But it might be that he will not be able to answer the Traditionalist's interrogations when he raises the subject of colonialism, and indicts his Rationalism as being a consequence of having been "mind-fucked by philosophy and the West." The best line so far was how modern Traditional Islam rejects 90% of its history, and considers 90% of its tradition from time past to be heretical and un-Islamic. Absolutely parochial and disturbing!

[@Renesmee15Jake25]

echoing much of your sentiments here❤

[@Farhadmoh]

Introduction of Hadith destroyed everything, free thinking, free thought, free will, Hadith has made Muslims go backwards, if it wasn’t for oil reserves in gulf, saudie or any other gulf nation would be backward due to wahabi or salafi version of Islam.

[@hazard1219]

Really feels cringe when Daniel Says Murtad or zindeq! As if this is Daniel's Religion. Whoever he dislike he kick it out of his religion. Really Sad 😢

[@deeznutz1428]

he and his simps are same....they act like they own islam and anyone who has different pov is murtad....they doesn't realise how childish and lame they look when they bully people with these term instead of talking like grownups. these people are beyond fixing..their mind is so messed up.

[@hazard1219]

​@@deeznutz1428well said My brother, so disappointed to see this kind of people.

[@sheebadsulthana]

Half way into this debate and Daniel seems deluded. JH answered every one of his questions, and yet Daniel constantly accused him of gish galloping and not citing from the Quran. Dude, he cited verses upon versus of religious tolerance. Daniel seems so sinister and evil in the way he wants to portray JH as this clueless person. Honestly, Javad Hashmi makes more sense to me as a Muslim and as a human being. I really don’t think Daniel understands the spirit of the Quran. What a shame.

[@marksackhaarberg1822]

@@atif2526n Bro are you that stupid that you can’t see the very obvious logic behind that rule? Why would the son get more, and the daughter less …hmmm

[@SamReed_1]

I like Daniel and do not suppprt his opponent, but Javad won this debate

[@paulstephan7]

I've been watching videos from Muslim apostates and I find it funny that in this debate, they would have to be on the side of Hikachu. I am not a muslim and it's hard for me to make up my own mind about "real Islam". But what I know for sure is that also Christianity or any ideology doesn't look good if you judge if according to the positions of the hardliners. Be it authentic islam or not: The opening statement of Dr. Javad Hashmi inspired me and reminded me of the ideas of Rousseau, Kant, and Lessing on a natural religion. What a joy to see that similar ideas can be found in the Muslim tradition as well! This is the uplifting spirit of Hope we need to achieve human progress! Hikachu on the other hand doesn't sound to me like a true believer but like a hypocrite, full of resentment against modernity, a cynical. I am "fascinated" by him in the way that all priest-like figures like this are "fascinating" according to Nietzsche. They lead us astray and try to destroy our hope in a better future. These are not prophets of good but of evil. The polemics at the end of his opening statement say it all. How pathetic ... Keep up the good work, Dr. Hashmi!

[@paulstephan7]

Pikachu's first rebuttal ends with a pure ad hominem attack again. This guy is clearly getting desperated. - It's so unpleasant to watch this clown.

[@paulstephan7]

Pikachu: "Taking sex slaves was [i.e., in his cynical logic, is] not only morally justified but necessary"* - but feels insulted when accused of defending rape. What a superclown! - What is a "sex slave" if not a woman that is raped on a regular basis??? * Link: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rYTcgJiDpbmljbc

[@negeto2460]

Brother Javad! You did a fantastic job and may Allah reward you for your amazing contributions. Don't let these Bukhariyoon (hadith, isnad, and Mullah worshippers) bring you down my brother! We will all see their evil faces on the Day of Judgement when the Messenger will say: "My Lord! My people have abandoned this Qur'an" {25:30} This is indeed what they (and their forefathers) have done. They tossed the Book of Allah behind their backs and exchanged it with their traditions. Just like the Banee Isra'el before us. The curse of Allah is upon them! Peace 😊

[@finnthechao]

and you guys call us takfiris lol

[@mohamedyayahjalloh1560]

i may need the slides... thanks very much for the research, time and knowledge sharing

[@ouessantpeaches6122]

i don’t agree with everything you say, but your intro alone won the debate for me. don’t let them get you down, keep up the good work. Allah is sufficient for his servants.

[@watfordmusalla]

Dr Javad Hashmi's Quran centric approach made his arguments very strong.

[@maalikserebryakov]

@@watfordmusalla Javad has no knowledge of thr Qur’an. He has no idea where the Qur’an came from because he rejects the Hadiths which explain the Qur’ans collections by Abu Bakr RA.

[@ArabyGUC]

He made a lot of mistakes in that intro alone.

[@Quran_Alone_Dawah]

@@maalikserebryakov Ya ka fir, the Quran came from Allah. I read it and know in my heart it is true. You zindiqs don't actually have iman. You don't believe the Qur'an proves itself to be true and uncorrupted. Your belief is based on dogma, not iman

[@maalikserebryakov]

@@Quran_Alone_Dawah Emotional damage 😂😂😂 Prove the Qur’an is mass transmitted without quoting a hadith. go on

[@velike]

daniel got dismantled in the first 15 mins icl

[@ace9924]

Daniel was using ad hominems, very good exemplar of muslim behavior lol

[@jabunkyy]

Javad, I'm a Christian and I feel extremely compelled and have gained a new respect for Islam based on your argumentation and scholarship. I've listened to this debate 3 times now, and it's clear that Daniel either A) just isn't quite grasping what your line of argumentation is or B) is insulting you and accusing you of obfuscation, Gish galloping etc because he knows his audience/fans don't understand your line of argumentation, thus will eat up his insults and ignore what you have to say (in other words, being highly cynical and bad faith). Anyway, thanks for doing this debate and if I ever hear a Christian ignorantly insult Islam, I will direct them to your works.

[@DrJavadTHashmi]

@@jabunkyy Very kind of you. Thank you!

[@thetruth27786]

You were absolutely amazing,i consider myself a very traditional muslim but you were good,matured and respectful as per the teachings of the quran,mashaaAllah,you actually not modern at all, nabi saw would be proud of you,it will be hard fighting the hypocrites when so many of them misguided but the path to Allah is never easy and majority misguided

[@maalikserebryakov]

Your statement “nabi saw would be proud of you” holds no meaning to Javad. Javad rejects the isnad, and therefore the Hadiths and therefore the transmission of the Qur’an. Javad actually has no idea who the prophet is. He requires a time machine to visit the prophet, and even then he would say “I cannot accept a chain of transmission of: ‘The prophet > Javad Hashmi’ because i am not thiqqah. This isnad is daeef” 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@thetruth27786]

​@@maalikserebryakovstop slandering.....rejecting hadeeth does not mean rejecting nabi saw...most hadeeths in reality is not the representation of nabi saw

[@negeto2460]

​@@maalikserebryakovbrother, could you give me the isnad of a SINGLE verse of the Qur'an? Let's try an easy one - Surah Kawthar. Give me the isnad please. I'm waiting...

[@homer1273]

@@maalikserebryakov Salafi extremist resemble Talmudic Jews in their obsession with their Hadith books , which Allah says are like donkeys carrying books

[@phiuzu5487]

​@@maalikserebryakov​​ hey weirdo javad doesn't even reject hadith itself. He only rejects those which are false. He said that he was a hadith cautious person. Funny how you regurgitate juvenile lies.

[@amairalylesarah1211]

to bear with being called terms like kafir, murtad etc with a pleasant enough temperament is an act of extreme patience and fortitude.I commend and thank you sir for finishing this important debate.. And your views are, on a wider view, not that radical at all. Topics such as peaceful co=existence between religions and respecting women and that men and women are spiritually equal are taught to us in school-designed religion books, which absolutely follow the sunni traditionalist views. BTW speaking from a muslim dominated country .

[@aduriteking2155]

Daniel demolished him in that debate and will finish him again inshallah

[@iman7j887]

​@@aduriteking2155 lol you salafi and wahabis are dumb to see your defeats, keep going, west will demolish your houses on your heads soon inshallah lol

[@Jubafree]

​@@aduriteking2155FR the only applause he gets is his target audience non Muslims

[@sufiblade]

Wow Daniel really outdid himself. What's the point of bringing people to debate who lack basic adaab?

[@Berisha1990]

This was not a debate it was Javad countering and refuting Daniel's islamist ideology narrative.

[@Farhadmoh]

A lot of Muslims don’t realise this Daniel guy is cause people to become deviant that bring people to Islam

[@teardropsonmyfallen]

We should make muslims Such as Dr. Javad more famous and popular! This should bw the dave of Islam. Not barbaric medieval beliefs

[@homer1273]

Daniël pickatchu is all over the place and keeps making same claims and ignoring the contradictions in his false arguments. He keeps babbling about the dome of the rock, when he was already told that the change happened during time of Abu bakr and that other sahaba disagreed with it, and he just kept ignoring that fact like he is deaf and can’t hear things that don’t fit his Isis Taliban brain

[@DudeDesi07]

Daniel appeals to orthodoxy but which orthodoxy? Sunnis and Shias both have their own orthodoxy that claim to trace their way all the way back to the Prophet himself *despite contradicting each other.*

[@kenshin4113]

Not to mention the Ibadis and the fact that there are further theological and intellectual splits in both Sunni and Shia Traditions (the four madhabs, Maturidi, Ashari, and Athari Aqidah, and the Sufi-Salafi divide in Sunnism, and the Twelver, Ismaili, and Zaydi divisions of Shiism.)

[@DudeDesi07]

​@mystic7spyder619i am a student who is still learning, plus i am aware of the argument of shia hadith science developing after sunni hadith science..but that doesnt change the fact that sunni hadith science is also a later manmade development..hadith science and orthodoxy in general is a joke regardless if its sunni or shia

[@DudeDesi07]

​@mystic7spyder619Too many unknown narrators? I would love to see a citation or two on this. Honestly i dont have a dog to lose in this conversation either way.

[@MuhammadfromGOD]

Religion is to teach us self-control; and it tells us our limits. Yours is on point; Daniel is a good preview of what their understanding of religion produces when somebody dives nose first in it. Thank you Dr for your efforts, and please don't be nervous :) . GOD is with the truth. Best of luck in your debate with Batil-atjou since he likes to attack your name.

[@dantelm2366]

😂

[@rolandboston48774]

For anyone who has been closely following contemporary Islamic intellectual currents for a while, this was WrestleMania main event

[@shaunshaikh8617]

Yes. Was quite worth watching

[@Dimas451]

Thanks for the book tips in the leads.

[@youmosque8350]

Javad is a brilliant scholar and, as far as I know, the most well-versed and clear-minded Muslim scholar in the West. This debate was a mismatch. It was not Khabib vs. McGregor but more like Khabib vs. a Clown. Good Job, Dr. Javad, for laying one fact on the other and exposing the fraudulent and delusional theology Daniel seems to regurgitate, all he was defending is other dead men's ideas, and you were defending your modern and fresh ideas and facts.

[@DrJavadTHashmi]

Thank you for your kind words.

[@mohdizaankhan6109]

​@@DrJavadTHashmibrother I have to say something, that is do you reject hadith and why don't you say saw after taking MUHAMMAD saw's name?

[@rolandboston48774]

Dr. Javad, you are carrying (gamer lingo) all Islamic modernists !!!

[@Sina6]

Mufti abu layth passed the torch to him

[@hijabiclothing2902]

Minute 1:50 showed Daniel trying to twist the Quran tafseer

[@Farhadmoh]

Companions are not infallible, they are human being will make mistakes along the line

[@زينب44]

It’s like debating a child.

[@M_A_R_I_A_M399_5]

Daniel is one of the reasons why Muslims leave their faith. So rigid and literal. Does he read Arabic? Can someone tell me?

[@deeznutz1428]

@@atif2526n so you mixed your tribal arab nationalism with islam so that you can keep your scholars happy. danny talked all about tradition instead of religion and what his daddies did and that. danny is a massive force against islam

[@SAli-yb9us]

Cannot find part 2. When is that going to be uploaded?

[@deeznutz1428]

it didn't happened yet...

[@SAli-yb9us]

@@deeznutz1428 - thanks. Is it still in the works? If so when is it scheduled for?

[@lordsneed9418]

Well done for finally getting Daniel Haqiqatjou to stop ducking you and agree to debate.

[@homer1273]

All Daniel pickatchu did was throwing insults and ad hominems and didn’t answer the filth in Hadith that he believes in

[@dangrille5846]

Who the hell is Sam Harrison this guy is quoting for interpreting Quran?!

[@deeznutz1428]

he is a new atheist activist and writer who made millions writing books on islam and other religion...who also wants to ban islam in west....he says islam is the biggest threat to western world... well cant blame him when he says islam is bad he is talking about people like daniel. i agree too daniels version of islan should be banned all over the world..these barbaric people doesn't deserve anything.

[@openyourmind7865]

Hats of to you javad you 1:34 totally exposed the extremist understanding of Daniel you won this debate on every point

[@M_A_R_I_A_M399_5]

Im still on the first hour. I congratulate you Dr Hashmi. You are doing real Jihad. This approach is exactly what we need. Instead of running around in a beard and jalabeya, daniel should follow prophet mohamed pbu. I am Egyptian and Mohamed Abdou is one of the very few scholars i respect. How dare this man say he was sucking up to coloniolism? Daniel doesnt understand your approach. All he is doing is attacking liberalism which is not your goal. Daniel is rigid and extreme , also disrespectful. Islam is about ihsaan and modesty. I would not want to sit with daniel because he has very little disrespect for women and portrays Islam at its worst.

[@Muhammad80008]

I speak from my experience who say about that he/she is feminist or nationalist is the most guy/women ever, also those pro women guys speak about women like about crazy nontalented c*nts behind back, I would not say anything, if feminist teacher would not bullied children almost to death or my pro women family would not say behind back something else and again again, acctually, if I would compare normal “islamist“ with pro women I would say most of the time second group is most of the time worse for real(listen what they saying behind back),, also stats look disgousting or I do not want see more free women who want k*ll themself, because their fake friends lying them..

[@aneespk5931]

Nice Debate

[@AMGbrmmbrmm]

in any case, we need more such debates with Salafis.

[@oldtimer9141]

He is a Deobandi.

[@Breadwinners]

‘Modernist’ thinkers and scholars are not seeking to create something new within Islam. Instead, they endeavor to revisit the Quran to find its original teachings and principles, free from later additions and human interpretations. In doing so, they aim to bring Islam back to its pure and authentic tradition as established by the Prophet and exemplified by the Quran. Instead of associating ‘modernism’ with deviation and innovation, it should be viewed as a return to the original tradition of Islam, while ‘traditionalism’ may need to be reconsidered as potentially encompassing innovations and deviations from the Quranic tradition. ‘Modernists’ should be considered as traditionalists, and ‘traditionalists’ as the modernists. “It (i.e., Islam) came as something strange, and it will return to being something strange. So, blessed are the strangers.” (Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Hadith 8)

[@generalpro6141]

So Allah couldn’t preserve the real Islam all these years?

[@celestialknight2339]

Hadith: “Whoever changes his religion and leaves the community of believers-execute them!” The Qur’an: *”Whoever BREAKS off from the Messenger after the right path was already made clear to them, and follows a DIFFERENT path than that of the believers-then WE SHALL LEAVE HIM ON THE PATH HE HAS CHOSEN-but then commit him to HELL. And what a terrible destination it is!”* - Qur’an 4:115 No apostasy punishment. The complete opposite. And the only punishment is in the hands of God in the AFTERLIFE; not the hands of men in this world. People like Daniel seriously need to wake up and repent. Stop kissing the feet of the ancient Romans, and listen to the Qur’an.

[@ace9924]

Sadly the mainstream majority people will not wake up. It's a catalyst for the prophecy in the Quran that the messenger pbuh will say, on the last day, that his people have abandoned the Quran.

[@celestialknight2339]

@@عبدالرحمنعبدالله-ز4م Wrong. The penalty for fornication in traditional Islam is 100 lashes, while for adultery it is stoning. So even if the Qur’an didn’t make a distinction, the penalty is still much more severe, harsh, and merciless under your framework. Imagine literally orphaning someone’s children for a serious (yet temporary) sin, which the Qur’an itself calls for a temporal punishment for. And then-the audacity of some people to claim that it used to exist in the Qur’an, even making up a fabricated verse to support it, which uses absurd vocabulary like _’sheikh’_ (‏شيخ) and _’sheikha’_ (‏شيخة) when Qur’anic Arabic uses those to signify _ELDERLY_ people (Qur’an 40:67) - not married folk. So whoever forged that nonsense blundered badly. Also, it’s possible to view Qur’an 4:15-16 as the penalty for fornication among young men & women. Sūrah 24 absolutely encompasses adultery. But Sūrat an-Nisā’ more likely refers to ‘LGBT actions’ among them (I’ll leave it at that) - which yet once again blatantly contradicts traditional Islamic jurisprudence, which brutally & barbarically calls for the head-long plummeting of people from tall structures, akin to what GOD did to Sodom & Gomorrah. You are literally ‘playing God’ with these false anti-Qur’anic laws. It’s no wonder why Sūrat an-Nūr uniquely starts out by declaring: *”[This is] a Chapter (Sūrah) which We have revealed, and made OBLIGATORY, and sent down in it CLEAR Revelations, so that you may PAY ATTENTION!”* ~ Qur’an 24:1 But alas, we did not pay attention. And sadly, you are a living proof of that. I hope you repent brother, and see the truth soon before it’s too late. Salam.

[@eurech]

Why are you wasting your time Dr. Javad with apologists with heads up their bums!

[@Farhadmoh]

The only way to disqualify Hadith being absolutely authentic if saudies do it

[@altGoolam]

Traditionalists take us through this psychological process, where any political ideology not contained within the very selfish and narrow interests of certain upper class Muslim groups, at the detriment of all other political and social interests that are actually at the heart of the Islamic message.

[@Aesieda]

Already 2 hours and 30 minutes in and you are WAY more intellectual, mature, and to the point than Daniel is. Keep up the good work, may God reward you. I might give my own inputs in separate comments if I feel I need to add anything of value to add clarification or strength to your points.

[@bilkishbegum6681]

Javad won this well done may Allah bless you. Daniel is so defeated.

[@DudeDesi07]

I did not like Daniel's usage of the Doctrina Jacobi as evidence that the Holy Prophet was a warmongrer since the Christians calling him that could be basing it on bias or could be basing it upon lies *(i mean donr traditionalist believe that the ahlul kitab manufactured lies against the Prophet)* or could be basing it on second or third level accounts that are lies. Also does the Doctrina Jacobi give us the whole picture of whats historically going on?

[@altGoolam]

The challenge comes with diversity of Quranic interpretation. And while extremism stems from the traditionalist view, progressivism stems from rationalism. However, Traditionalists like Daniel don't even abide by the meaning of words. He calls himself a "Skeptic" 😭

[@Muhammad80008]

progressivism do not stems from rationalism nothing like this is not possible, you only interpret something and it is probably lie

[@Abdullah-v5n2n]

Some traditionalists like Ibn Baz, Abdul Azeez Aal Ash Shaykh and Shaykh Muqbil didnt agree wit da extremists like OBL. Exxtreamism and traditionalism r 2 diff things..

[@JamieW420]

Daniel was being a little b the entire debate. His defensive takes on everything makes me believe he doesn’t know what he is talking about

[@mohammedraheef1415]

I always knew that daniel was extreme, but the dude is so archaic, precisely his interpretations and the general sharia school of thought he comes out of. But, I must say, doctor javad, proclaiming you're himself as "post-liberal" is beyond misguided and is not grounded in any islamic objectivity, its adhoc. I like Daniels geopolitical opinions but he is absolutely harmful in his sociological prescriptions, as you've clearly demonstrated.

[@M_A_R_I_A_M399_5]

Daniel is such a narcissist

[@homer1273]

3:02:30 Daniel pickatchu thinks by laughing like ignoramus he is somehow making a point

[@userpsg972]

Daniel is not an historian, but Javad is not too. How can we quote P. Crone, J. Cole (please..) and mainstream islamic studies and claim on the other hand to be historian. The methodology of an historian isn't to pick qur’an itself without read it with it's own context and also to remove all a islamic tradition and/or chose what we like in it. There are a lot of exemples that demontrate that both don't understand the logic of history. The concept of war, slavery and apostasy is clearly not understand. We only have a dogmatic debate.

[@ArabyGUC]

Dr Hashmi, Two points regarding the verse you kept on citing ومن لم يستطع منكم طولا أن ينكح المحصنات المؤمنات فمما ملكت أيمانكم من فتياتكم المؤمنات notice first the Quran uses here مما ملكت أيمانكم to refer to female slaves. You don't have issue with that. But when Daniel quoted سورة المؤمنون you said it might refer to the wife and it preceded surah An-nisa... etc ... second, which is massively more important: the verse does NOT say don't take them as lovers or fornicators. Rather, it clearly says: محصنات غير مسافحات it doesn't say محصنين غير مسافحين while this latter phrase is in other 2 verses, it's not in this verse... It's obvious that محصنات غير مسافحات refers to the she-slaves that THEY shouldn't be having lovers or fornicators. Basically make sure those she-slaves are good. ... The translation you displayed is not honest.

[@phiuzu5487]

Completely false. There are numerous translations where it says it's forbidden to engage in fornication or take them as lovers. Going by your logic, Allah has double standards since he allowed fornication to be halal & that a person who has many slaves can fornicate with them & potentially has no limit on having sex with what number of slaves

[@ArabyGUC]

I am talking about the original text. I don't need those translations, as I speak fluent Arabic :) no double logic here. Fornication is not halal. Sex is allowed with a wife (limited by 4 wives) or female slaves (which is not limited). @@phiuzu5487

[@ArabyGUC]

I also explained why the translation is wrong in my comment. You just need to learn some Arabic and you will easily understand the argument. @@phiuzu5487

[@ericthegreat7805]

I am very interested in the perspective of Quran only Islam but I have one question in relation to modernism from the point of view of someone who is a Catholic Christian democrat (meaning I am socially conservative and believe in Biblical morality but support a secular welfare public option). I support a Judeo Christian Islamic alliance to bring a Biblically and Quranic aligned welfare movement that reclaims the term social justice from the postmodern progressives. I don't align with either the Western left or right. Christian liberalism (not to be confused with liberal woke Christianity today, I mean it in the classical liberal sense) when faced with the naturalistic understanding of morality (Darwin, Marx, Spencer, Nietzsche, etc.) collapsed under its own weight and the cultural liberalism that remained broke into left wing gnosticism (aka postmodernism) and right wing gnosticism (aka fascism). How would you prevent Islamic modernist societies from following the same inversion, once the clerical state is abolished?

[@quran_wrh]

إِنَّ ٱلَّذِينَ فَرَّقُوا۟ دِينَهُمْ وَكَانُوا۟ شِيَعًا لَّسْتَ مِنْهُمْ فِى شَىْءٍ إِنَّمَآ أَمْرُهُمْ إِلَى ٱللَّـهِ ثُمَّ يُنَبِّئُهُم بِمَا كَانُوا۟ يَفْعَلُونَ Those who have divided their doctrine and become sects: thou art not of them in anything; their affair is but with God; then will He inform them of what they did. (Koran chapter/verse 6/159; Sam Gerrans translation)

[@fintripod22]

He isn't quran only but quran centric he takes sunnah but is very critical

[@SAli-yb9us]

In the Quran Muhammad is instructed to say that his religion is the religion of Abraham and all the prophets - so Muhammad was not bringing a new religion, he was confirming and clarifying what came before him. It is said that Moses brought laws, Jesus brought love and Muhammad combined the two into justice. Sadly the followers in many Muslim countries have strayed from the teachings. If we don’t reflect on the teachings we will have people like Daniel who will take extremist interpretations of the Quran and rely on Hadiths which have dubious origins and authenticity to justify their agendas.

[@robertoospina10]

Daniel is condescending, arrogant, and full of ad hominem attacks. He's not a serious scholar. Just trying to push a strong agenda. He does not do an honest inquiry. If he were honest he would show a spirit of humility. You can see he doesn't have that spirit of love or care. He's smirking, insulting and dogmatic.