On The Origins of Jihad | Dr. Javad T. Hashmi

[@DrJavadTHashmi]

Hey Derek. Thanks so much for the chance to come on your show. It was a real pleasure and a blast! Sorry for being so verbose. You’re a great host.

[@MythVisionPodcast]

I was having a blast and hope to do this again my friend.

[@atifbangash]

You were brilliant. Probably one of the best speakers on this topic in our era. You got the gift of speaking.

[@suelingsusu1339]

You were wonderful and did a great job 👌👏🙏🖖.... but I have a question.... isn't a book that purports to be the word of the almighty creator of the universe supposed to be human misinterpretation and fiddling and exploitation proof?? Or the Almighty Creator of the universe could show up and correct all the abuse of it and at least issue a new edition that is less prone to misunderstanding and does not need PhDs to glean correctly what it says??And since it is clearly not... then it is clearly just the product of human limitations and the times it was written in??

[@atifbangash]

@@suelingsusu1339 The Quran speaks about this world to be a place of test & selection. You are being tested to see if you are from amongst the elevated or those who just become a part of the broken system put up by the egotistical man. What happens to people in regards to Good or Bad is partly their doing and in parts a test to be given an elevated station in the Afterlife. The Quran is a hidden message, dig deep and see if you are selected. Not every seed you plant grows and some seeds grow even in the toughest terrains. You always discard the bad seeds and keep the best. Thats how it works.

[@nonomnismoriar9051]

@@atifbangash > The Quran is a hidden message, dig deep and see if you are selected. > The Quran is clear and detailed (e.g. 16:89, 6:114,...) Pick one

[@M_A_R_I_A_M399_5]

Brilliant. I just discovered Dr Hashmi today. At last a modernist muslim scholar who debates in English. All the modernists I follow speak Arabic only. We need many more like this scholar, not the salafy/wahabi scholars that dominate the religion and distort it

[@stevenv6463]

Who is like this that is only in the Arabic speaking world ?

[@FAGU-7j]

​@@stevenv6463man all of the middle east is full of great scholars who are modernist, we tasted the extremism we know how evil and zombie like salafis can be, it's just sad that western muslims even the converts are falling in the trap of salafis it's sad and IT'S DANGEROUS for western ppl weather they are Christians, muslims or atheists. They kinda feel they are cornered so they are getting more extreme sadly. I hope scholars like dr hashmi rise because world needs ppl like him in English speaking world, that's how we can go for better world when Christians Jews muslims atheist can live in peace and harmony without beheading and fighting eachother, but as long west let ppl like Mohammed hijab and Daniel haqiqatjou spewing their daeshi beliefs and fooling ppl there is a dark future ahead of us. May Allah help us

[@obijack08]

you think the guy who rejects all hadiths is a true muslim

[@FAGU-7j]

@@stevenv6463 muslims in the west loves hadiths books because it's kinda fashionable in the west, they never had to face the consequences of that corrupted hadiths books like ppl in middleeast. In middleeast muslims don't believe in hadiths even if they do they don't shove it down the throats of other muslims, but in the west its deferent, may God bless countries in the west so they have never have to live under hadiths books which will be a literal hell.

[@irbis_rosh]

​@@obijack08it's about a balanced perspective. If Wahhabis get to speak, so should other modernists.

[@SuperAmir2011]

I didn’t always agree with javed but after this I really gained a lot of respect for him. He’s a blessing to our ummah

[@harlanlang6556]

This is very enlightening!!!! Cultural prejudice is hard to dislodge, but Dr. Hashmi is the one to do it. Concerning whether the authors of holy scripture actually intended a metaphorical understanding of their stories, here's one great example from the Bible concerning the return of Elijah: "For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and... all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch... And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do [this], saith the LORD of hosts.... Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD" -Malachi 4:1-5 The Jewish religious leaders of Jesus' day were well aware of the 'return of Elijah' prophecy. At one time the rabbis had asked Jesus' disciples to explain how Jesus could possibly have been the Messiah when it was obvious that Elijah had not returned from heaven yet. The Apostles couldn't answer this question, so they asked Jesus: "Why do the Jewish leaders insist Elijah must return before the Messiah comes?" Jesus answered by first affirming that this question was valid and that this prophecy indeed was true. He said: "They are right. Elijah must come and set everything in order..." But then, to everyone's surprise, Jesus explained: "In fact, he [Elijah] already has come, but he wasn't recognized, and was badly mistreated by many... Then the disciples realized he was speaking of John the Baptist."-Matthew 17:10-13 So Jesus interpreted the prophecies concerning the return of Elijah metaphorically, or spiritually. Jesus understood John the Baptist to be the return of Elijah. This brings to mind the Christian expectation of the return of Christ, when literalists expect Christ to fly down from heaven physically in the body He possessed 2,000 years ago. Wouldn't the pattern of His understanding of the return of Elijah also apply to His own return? Or perhaps the Muslim expectation of the return of Jesus by the Sunnis, or the Qa'im by the Shiites could be understood in the same way.

[@bhavinmehta1490]

Derek I have a lot of respect for you, I’m not someone who hold to the institutional version of whatever “Islam” is claimed to be, but I do have personal thoughts on the Qur’an in that I think it is perhaps divine or special, nevertheless without all the dogmatic material and organized religious practices, I see the book to be universal and general, of course I could be wrong but who knows. Dr. Javad Hashmi is one of my favorite Islamic scholars along with a few others like him and as a person who thinks the Qur’an is from a divine source, though not in the manner most Muslims might, I do love the fact that you brought him on your show. From a theist to atheist, and a critical thinker and skeptic myself, God Bless you my guy! I mean it (:

[@argentum3919]

There is nothing divine or special about the quran. It's just another religious text with incessant damnation for those the Quranic writers didn't like ie those that didn't believe the lasted religious nonsense they came up with and much of it plagiarised from that horrible book the bible. Really, come on, people sleeping in a cave for 300 years. It was plagiarised anyway. The sun doesn't chase the moon.

[@FAGU-7j]

Mashallah ❤ exactly Quran is divine speech of Allah and we need only Quran as a Muslim, now compare it with hadiths joke book 😢 I'm embarrassed about sahih al bukhari lol. Dont go near it

[@maxtryme1508]

No.​@@FAGU-7j

[@obijack08]

@@FAGU-7j well if u reject hadith you reject the quran

[@BLACK.ANGEL.]

2:45:41 "I do think that Prophet Muhammad was an *apocalyptic Prophet.* I agree with that. *I do agree with the idea that the Quran seems to indicate that the end time is nigh and it's even here. And it's imminent. Or it's already started. So I do think the idea that the Prophet's companions thought that the end time would be in their lifetime is the most obvious reading and understanding of it!"* - Dr. Javad T.Hashmi

[@ttt3258]

End of days , Hamza Yusuf 🌼 watch on youtube

[@danielschaeffer1294]

The world will end, all right, when the sun turns into a red giant. In billions of years.

[@ttt3258]

The After Life , Hamza Yusuf 🌼 watch on youtube

[@knowstitches7958]

Yes Muhammad did say the end will be within the lifespan of a boy who was about 11/12yrs old.islam like all Abrahamic religions got it wrong

[@ttt3258]

How Islam Saved Western Civilization , The Austin School 🌼 watch on youtube 👍

[@hiroki3454]

The problem is you can still commit aggressive violence thinking you are defending your religion. That's not unique to Islam, of course.

[@merlinx8703]

One can also commit aggressive violence thinking you are defending your country/freedoms, an example would be the Iraq War which was and still is a war crime

[@hiroki3454]

@@merlinx8703 Yeah. There are many similar instances in human history. "Defense excuses" can easily be exploited and abused.

[@noorahamid3376]

Love this!

[@jeremynelson3517]

Derek you have helped me so much to expand my knowledge of early religion. Thank you.

[@GnosticInformant]

this was FIRE

[@Alpha-gw5ws]

How? He just duped derek. Very unfortunate. Please let javed debate with someone who knows Arabic like Christian prince. Debating a white dude who knows nothing about Arabic or Islam is a farce on the part of javed. A cheap tricks.

[@bangkomar009]

@@Alpha-gw5ws who christian prince decide what's Islam is...he just stupid infidel who don't have authority in Islam and his voice cannot be heard as a witness... prophet Muhammad ordered Muslim to follow majority consensus...and majority consensus stating that's jihad was Fardu kifayah not ain...google it

[@Apollo05]

Christian prince is a joke 😂

[@kkassam]

Dr. Hashmi has demonstrated that he’s quite open to debating critics of Islam, including issuing a number of outstanding challenges If you can convince Christian Prince to engage I think there’s a good chance Dr. Hashmi would be eager for the opportunity.

[@MythVisionPodcast]

@@Alpha-gw5ws this video today wasn't a debate. What would make you think it was? Weird.

[@salahuddinrazi8403]

Derek great presentation one of the best. Dr.Hashmi you are the best. I am so proud of you

[@nonomnismoriar9051]

Why does Dr Hashmi not mention Sura 9:28-30, which certainly does not fall under the category of merely "not practicing what they preach", and ignores the historical context by those immediately following Muhammad (not opportunistic, unrelated kings centuries afterwards trying to appropriate the original ideology) , who conquered everything from Iberia to the borders of India and China within little more than a century? The context is absolutely clear: at best, it was a concession by Muhammad to certain pagan tribes who were earning revenue by a pagan or otherwise disapproved pilgrimage (historically obscure, since modern studies have shown paganism was gone in Arabia by then), and now lost this revenue. Muhammad then changes his claims of unity and coexistence and conceded that fighting Jews and Christians and extorting or looting them, under the guise of theological disapproval, was a legitimate way for his newly found (probably powerful local elite) followers to regain their income.

[@BenM61]

Then you have to explain how he had less money when he died than what he started with at the onset of his mission as a prophet of God.

[@nonomnismoriar9051]

@@BenM61 Whether he did or he didn't is absolutely irrelevant. And I have no reason to trust later sources that have an enormous interest in claiming that either. Furthermore, this wouldn't even concern him, but supposedly the recently-converted Quraysh or whoever the historical context really was about. So Muhammad himself may have not wanted any money at all, but done this to convince the Quraysh and others. And it wouldn't necessarily imply that Muhammad was being dishonest or following worldly interests consciously, although it certainly could. ALL of that is beyond the point here: the point is Dr Hashmi simply does not address this vital command in 9:28-30 (even if money was not mentioned at all, and it was purely ideological, as it is described as in the folloiwng verses from 30 to 33, the problem would be the same) and he does not explain by what measure he can criticize the traditionalist concept of abrogation, when this concept is explicitly enshrined in the Quran (S.2:106), nor why he disagrees with the traditionalist sequence that places Sura 9, and therefore too this open-ended command to wage unprovoked, expansionist war against Jews and Christians, at the very end of Muhammad's career.

[@BenM61]

@@nonomnismoriar9051 I don’t have a problem with Muslim expansion in other lands. God saw to it that Islam would prevail and be available to whomever desired it. The Muslims conquered lands under the Byzantine empire and the Sassanid empire. And those under their yokes would have loved to see them go. The Byzantine Christians forced their trinity dogma by force on the pain of death since 381. In Egypt for instance the Romans installed their brand of Christianity on the Coptic Christians. The Coptic patriarch went into hiding for decades until the Muslims came in and kicked those pesky Romans out of Egypt and granted the Coptic Christians their religious freedom. The Coptic patriarch was granted safe return. They have continued to practice their religion to this day. Those Coptic Christians were grateful for the Muslims who saved them from the Roman oppression. Also they didn’t have to pay as much in taxes like they used to under their Christian‘brethren.’ The peoples of North Africa were also under the Roman occupation and didn’t care for them and they loved to see them go. The Muslims let their people free to practice their religion. So what is the issue here? If you had given people a choice between the bloody Romans and the Muslims they would have chosen to live under the control of the Muslims. And thank God for those brave men who brought Islam to the people of the world. I am very grateful to them. I bet you wouldn’t have liked to live under those Romans if you didn’t share their beliefs. I bet you would have been grateful to the Muslims to come in and rid you of those bloody Romans. Also, Jerusalem was made holy again. The Muslims cleaned up the old temple precincts and built a mosque there. That place was unkept and treated as a dump since the destruction of the temple by the Romans. The Jews were allowed to live in Jerusalem again as free people practicing their religion. The Romans did not care for the jewish people as they saw them as the killers of their god. Again, the jewish people were glad to see those Romans gone and to welcome the Muslims in. Yes, every body wins under the Muslim rule except those oppressive Romans. The judgment of God on them was true: 9:29 Fight those People of the Book who do not believe in God and the Last Day, those who do not forbid that which has been forbidden by God and His Messenger, and do not follow the religion of Truth, until they pay the exemption tax after having been subdued. I say Amen to that.

[@nonomnismoriar9051]

@@BenM61 You've wasted whole paragraphs on a useless strawman. You've switched from: 1) addressing a side issue, the WHY of the Quran's proclamation of Sura 9:28-33, and even then presenting rather poor counter-arguments as to why the material incentive analysis - which again, was not my point for the purposes of the debate - could not work, without addressing whether the fundamental accusation being made i.e. that it was indeed a call for unprovoked war, to now: 2) openly admitting that it was, but it was justified. I don't care at all whether the Muslim invaders were better or not than what was there before in that particular case, for the purposes of this debate (although that itself is debatable to say the least). What mattered was the legitimacy of its unprovoked expansion, which set the precedent. That was the whole basic point, which went unaddressed by Dr Hashmi.

[@nonomnismoriar9051]

@@mmss3199 There's zero evidence of polytheism in 6th or 7th century Arabia. Try again. Mecca itself, if it existed at all, was nothing like what the Muslim chronicles written 200 or 300 years after the fact described it as. Vast swathes of Muslim tradition are entirely unreliable. It's extremely hard to make any sense out of its origins. But now back to the important issue, what Ibn Hajar says is irrelevant to me, as I can quote you a bunch of other later scholars who disagree and claim that it is a duty to expand the Islamic polity by warfare. And regardless of legal minutiae, that is indeed the clear plan reading of this the pericope of 9:28-33, unaddressed by Dr Hashmi in this video. Even his cited 'mentor', Dr Juan Cole, admits in his book that his is a "radical reinterpretation" of Sura 9:29. So even if he's right, this would just prove once again that Allah is once again a ridiculously bad communicator or a deceiver. Now, I don't know what it is with you Muslim apologists bringing up Christianity as a kneejerk reaction all the damn time. I'm not a Christian, and even here your mention of Christianity is completely incoherent, you switch from ethics of warfare to doctrinal salvation theory... It's completely absurd and frankly bizarre behavior! Calm down. But also, if you say that Christianity is false, Islam is false, because your god confirmed the inspiration, preservation and full authority of the Bible as it stood in the hands of the Jews and Christians of the 7th century, as I'm sure you uncomfortably are aware of, and we know exactly what those Bibles looked like (e.g. Suras 2:41, 2:91, 2:101, 2:113, 2:121, 3:3, 3:93, 7:157, 10:94, 62:5, etc, plus Jami at-Tirmidhi 2653, Sunan Abu Dawud 4449). You lose either way! But that's once again a completely unrelated topic you brought up, so I won't be delving into that here.

[@arizonaboy59]

Great guest! Historical critical scholarship works.

[@ColpoRosso]

Enjoyed the discussion, but religious teachings are almost always an interpretation of religious texts. Everything Javad said could be interpreted in whatever way, even to justify a militaristic jihad. We could pat our backs all day saying "look, is pacifistic in nature", but there will always be other groups of people that will take that given religion as justification for violence.

[@danielschaeffer1294]

Precisely, and this is especially the case with Islam. All we get from the moderates is the usual “not true Islam” stuff.

[@BeNGALi4LFE]

Not really. There is such a thing as a bad or inconsistent interpretation from the Quran.

[@DrJavadTHashmi]

@@danielschaeffer1294ironically it is extremely post-modernist of you to take this view.

[@BLACK.ANGEL.]

2:48:58 Not accusing him of lying, but to say that Taqiya is an "islamophobic concept" is nonsense. It's 100% Sharia. Derek you should invite *Lloyd De Jongh* when it comes to Sharia btw. His insides are mindblowing.

[@Stardust475]

The mujtahid imams ( Hanafi, Shafi, Maliki schools) that went into great detail explaining the different types of permissible and obligatory lying in Sharia must be Islamophobic too! The very books used to observe other rules to this day!

[@TingTong2568]

He's mostlame. So he lies

[@superhydra8873]

It was literally used that way He was accused of lying the whole time, and the Islamic definition of taqiyya is lying under the threat of death, not lying because you want to hide something

[@Stardust475]

@Super Hydra who's he? Because in Sharia textbooks, there's degrees of lying.

[@merlinx8703]

Lloyd De Jongh - the Christian apologist who just made a video showing how atheist cannot define atheism

[@wonderbucket1242]

👉"Jihad" means "My Struggle" in arabic, so does Hitler's book "Mein Kampf", Hitler was influenced by Islam (if it wasn't obvious).

[@keksi6844]

Hahaha...how can Hitler be influenced by Islam when by Islamic law he would be punished and he is in H e l l for being Hitler?

[@DrJavadTHashmi]

Hitler was influenced by Christianity as were the Nazis. Entire church formed around it. But yeah still blame Islam.

[@BLACK.ANGEL.]

@@DrJavadTHashmi Hitler was bashing Christianity and praising Islam, or as he rightfully called it "Mohammedan religion"! Check out APOSTATE PROPHET'S: *Why Did Carl Jung Compare Hitler To Muhammad?*

[@nonomnismoriar9051]

@@DrJavadTHashmi There's absolutely no doubt Christianity (particularly through the 'orthodox' lens of tradition and the Church Fathers) formed a large part of ideological basis for European anti-Semitism that culminated in its most virulent form in Nazism, but Islam inherited virtually the same anti-Semitism from its largely Christian Middle Eastern, late-antique millieau. We see all kinds of anti-Semitic tropes taken directly from them in the Quran and ahadith. The fact that the Holocaust took place in Europe has far more to do with later historical circumstances that shaped anti-Semitism in a particular way, the rise to prominence of many Jews in post-Enlightenment Europe (which fed paranoia and conspiracy theories), which was not possible in the Muslim world, since they did not rise in society anywhere due to the rigidity of Muslim society (when they did rise rarely, like in medieval al-Andalus, they were victims of pogroms like in the late 11th century, for instance) not on the fact that Islam toned down this ideological background at all for the communities that adopted it.

[@danielschaeffer1294]

Apostate Prophet has a video on which he lists just some of the similarities between Mohammed and Hitler.

[@bobbycalifornia7077]

Would be great to have Juan Cole on here one day.

[@BLACK.ANGEL.]

52:23 JIHAD: "We cannot deny on the other hand that it is used in a military context aswell in the Quran. *And that might be the more dominant use of it in the Quran* !" - Dr. Javad T.Hashmi

[@DrJavadTHashmi]

Yes but not in aggressive way. Only in self defense.

[@BLACK.ANGEL.]

@@DrJavadTHashmi Yeah, they were all just chilling in Medina, minding their business and trying to defend themselves.

[@georgeeinarsson5956]

@@DrJavadTHashmi That’s not true, Jihad could be defensive, Offensive and preemptive. Surah 9:29 made it clear that Muhammad called for a military campaign against Christians and Jews to bring them under the rule of Islam. The immediate followers of Muhammad subsequently conquered large territories and formed a large empire within a decade after his death, You don’t conquer such large territories with self defense. Or are you saying they misunderstood what Jihad is all about?

[@nonomnismoriar9051]

@@DrJavadTHashmi Sura 9:28-30 blows that theory out of the water. There is simply no way to take that as anything but a concession to Muhammad's interlocutors that attacking Jews and Christians (not a particular community of them who attacked you is given) to compensate for a sudden income loss is permissible and in fact righteous.

[@superhydra8873]

@@georgeeinarsson5956 there is a consensus of scholars that the verse is referring to tabuk, a DEFENSIVE war The reason conquering was frequent after Muhammad (SAW) died was because it was an expanding battlefield, it was either act first or die first and if they had not attacked then they would have been conquered by other empires

[@Vampy_Rhombus5006]

1:20:00 alright, gonna pick this up some other time 1:44:46 Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't this just a TOTAL LIE???? If the Quran isn't the word of God/Allah, then why even bother emphasizing it's importance..... 1:46:15 So they tell their laymen that it's the word of God/Allah, but it actually isn't.... Surely this doesn't come off as suspicious/underhanded.... 2:31:00 W O W.....just, wow. So even if non-believers stop fighting or even avoided fighting in the first place, that just only creates a scenario where Muslims ARE STILL OBLIGATED TO FIGHT NON-BELIEVERS!!!!!! (It's like Islam is LOOKING for a reason TO FIGHT!!!!!!)

[@donwolff6463]

Question: if Paul's attempt was to get away from the practice of Jewish law, why are Christians so zealous over the decalogue? [Setting aside the issue of which set] Love to hear a myriad of answers (please don't criticize answers given, I just want folks to feel free give their oppinions). Thanks folks.

[@deewesthill6966]

I would like to see a discussion of jihad, holy war that is part of Muslims' religious obligations, versus the concept of a morally right war as expounded in the Hindu scripture Bhagavad Gita. There are good reasons to believe jihad came from the BG.

[@merlinx8703]

Even Buddhism has a just war theory

[@merlinx8703]

I believe Krishna commands Arjun to fight his relatives in The BG even when Arjuna is reluctant

[@deewesthill6966]

@@merlinx8703 Yes, it is sort of like the American Civil War.

[@Zarghaam12]

Quran compilations and the Caliphs - part1 -------------------------------------------------------------------- Some mantras are repeated endlessly, like: The Quran was first compiled by Uthman or there are no verses in the Quran about Ali or the others so-called rashiduun calpihs. It has long been known within the Muslim world, since classical times, that there were variant readings of Quran and that *the FIRST COMPILATIONS were at the time of the Prophet and he himself may have promoted the idea that at least some variants were fine as long as the meaning was not altered* . *The FIRST THREE compilers of the Quran were* : 1) *Ali ibn Abi Talib* , 2) *Abdullah ibn Mas'uud* 3) *Ubayy ibn K'ab* *Scholars like Shady (you had him as a guest) is totally wrong in saying that only in the Shia tradition is there mention of an original Quran or urtext* . The following are examples of TWO SUNNI scholars talking about how a section of verse 67, Surah al-Maa'idah, was DELETED by Uthman's ad hoc Quran committee* . The history of the collection and compilation of the Quran has been dealt with in classical Islamic literature and some quite important works were produced discussing this. Sulaiman ibn Abi Daw'uud as-Sijistani (the son of Abu Daw'ood of "Sunan Abi-Da'wuud" fame, one of this six canonical Sunni hadiith collections) wrote a book called "Kitab-ul-Masahif" where he discusses variant readings and compilations, the earliest and later. *The earliest Quran compilations were by Ali ibn Abi Talib (عَلِيّ ٱبْن أَبِي طَالِب, d. 661 CE), the Prophet's cousin and later son-in-law; Ubayy ibn Ka'ab (أبي بن كعب, died 649 CE), a close companion and Abdullāh ibn Masʿūd (عبدالله بن مسعود; d.653 CE) another close companion. All these predated the so-called "edited" Uthman version that many keep mentioning* . *Although these three earliest compilation were lost in the Middle ages, we do know what they contained. The 10th century bookseller and bibliographer Abū al-Faraj Muḥammad ibn Ishāq al-Nadīm al-Baghdadi (ابو الفرج محمد بن إسحاق النديم) in his still extant work called "al-Fihrist" (الفهرست) describes them in varying detail; the one by Ibn mas'uud in a lot of detail. The other, by Ali Ibn Abi Talib, in some detail. He mentions that Quran compiled by Ali ibn Abi Talib was in a chronological order and therefore had Surah al-'Alaq (العلق),as its FIRST surah, which is 96 in the Quran we have now. He also mentions many other details since he saw some pages from this when visiting his friend in Kufah who possessed this copy (or a partial copy) even as late as the 10th century as it was used by circles in Kufah, Basrah, Madina and Mecca by the followers of the Ahlul Bayt ( أَهْل ٱلْبَيْت, meaning the Prophet's immediate blood relations)* . *Ibn Nadeem gives a really detailed account of the Quran compilation of Abdullah ibn Mas'uud. This Quran compilation, by Ibn Mas'uud, was still being used as a very common text in some regions, specially the city of Kufah, NOT the Uthmanic 'muthHaf'* ! The Quran compilation of Abdullah ibn Mas'uud was also discussed by *Jalaaluddeen as-Suyuuti (Abd-ur-Rahman Jalaal-ud-Diin al-Khudhayrii as-Suyuutii جلال الدين عبد الرحمن الخضيري السيوطي ; d.1505 CE); ) in his famous Quranic exegesis (tafseer تفسير) called "Al-Durr Al-Manthuur Fi Tafsiir Bil-Ma'thuur" (الدر المنثور في التفسير بالماثور) and by Muhammad ash-Shawkani (محمد الشوكاني, d.1839) in his exegesis called "Fathul-Qadir" (فتح القدير ). Both mention variant readings of some verses.* *Jalaaluddin al-Suyuuti was a well-known SUNNI Shaafi'i scholar, died 1505 CE, refers to the original codex of Abdullah ibn Mas'uud where Ali's name was mentioned in certain verses. Read the tafaaseer of al-Suyuuti (Sunni tafseer) called "al-Durr-ul-Manthuur" and that of al-Shaukaani (also Sunni), and you find this* : اخرج ابن ابي حاتم, وابن مردوية, وابن عساكر, عن ابن ابي سعيد الخدري قال : نزلت هذه الاية : (يا ايها .... ما انزل اليك ) على رسول الله (ص) يوم غدير خم, في علي بن ابي طالب رضي الله عنه. واخرج ابن مردوية, عن ابن مسعود قال: كنا نقرا على عهد رسول الله (ص): يا ايها الرسول بلغ ما انزل اليك من ربك ان عليا مولى المؤمنين وان لم تفعل فما بلغت رسالته والله يعصمك من النلس ) تفسير القدير للشوكاني ص: ٣٨٤ *Ibn Abi Haatim took from Ibn Mardawaiyah. from Ibn 'Asaakir, from Ibn Abi Sa'eed al-Khudri, who said: This verse was revealed on the Prophet (s) on the Day of Ghadeer Khumm about Ali Ibn Abi Taalib,radhiallah 'anho, and Ibn Mardawiyah took from Adullah Ibn Mas'uud, who said: We used to read (this) in the time of the Prophet as* : يا ايها الرسول بلغ ما انزل اليك من ربك ان عليا مولى المؤمنين وان لم تفعل فما بلغت رسالته والله يعصمك من النلس Surah al-Maa'idah, 67, Tafseer al-Qadiir by Shuakaani pg. 384. Jalaaluddin al-Suyuuti's tafseer, "al-Durr-ul-Manthuur" says exactly the same! *Here is a longer excerpt from Jalaaluddin al-Suyuuti's tafseer "al-Durr-ul-Manthuur* { يَـٰأَيُّهَا ٱلرَّسُولُ بَلِّغْ مَآ أُنزِلَ إِلَيْكَ مِن رَّبِّكَ وَإِن لَّمْ تَفْعَلْ فَمَا بَلَّغْتَ رِسَالَتَهُ وَٱللَّهُ يَعْصِمُكَ مِنَ ٱلنَّاسِ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ لاَ يَهْدِي ٱلْقَوْمَ ٱلْكَافِرِينَ } أخرج أبو الشيخ عن الحسن أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال " إن الله بعثني برسالة فضقت بها ذرعاً، وعرفت أن الناس مكذبي، فوعدني لأبلغن أو ليعذبني، فأنزل { يا أيها الرسول بلِّغ ما أنزل إليك من ربك } ". وأخرج عبد بن حميد وابن جرير وابن أبي حاتم وأبو الشيخ عن مجاهد قال: لما نزلت { بلغ ما أنزل إليك من ربك } قال: يا رب، إنما أنا واحد كيف أصنع ليجتمع عليّ الناس؟، فنزلت { وإن لم تفعل فما بلغت رسالته }. وأخرج ابن أبي حاتم وابن مردويه وابن عساكر عن أبي سعيد الخدري قال: نزلت هذه الآية { يا أيها الرسول بلغ ما أنزل إليك من ربك } على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يوم غدير خم، في علي بن أبي طالب. وأخرج ابن مردويه عن ابن مسعود قال: كنا نقرأ على عهد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم { يا أيها الرسول بلغ ما أنزل إليك من ربك } أن علياً مولى المؤمنين { وإن لم تفعل فما بلغت رسالته والله يعصمك من الناس }. www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=2&tTafsirNo=26&tSoraNo=5&tAyahNo=67&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1 *O' Prophet Convey what has been revealed to you from your Lord that Ali is the mawlaa, i.e.leader, of the believers and if you do not then you have conveyed God's message, a God will protect you from the people (who mean harm)* " There are several accounts of the Event of al-Ghadeer that mention Umar ibn al-Khattab congratulating Imam Ali thus: !ٍ بخ بخ لك یا علی اصبحتَ مولایَ و مولی کل ِمؤمن ٍ و مؤمنة "Congratulations to you O' Ali, you have become my 'mawla' and the 'mawla' of every Muslim man and woman!" This ties in with the full verse 67, of the Quran *The scholar al-Amiini, wrote an 11 volume encyclopedia called "Al-Ghadīr fī l-kitāb wa l-sunna wa l-adab" (الغدير في الکتاب و السنة و الأدب ) where all this, and much more is mentioned* . inahj.org/elib/346

[@syedmustafa8406]

Islam is much simple than Hashmi trying to pictured. In the 6th century all the great civilizations used to earn glory and prosperity through wining the wars, subjugating enemies. The prophet was an extremely intelligent person, he learned this ground reality . Actually the 2nd year of his mayorship he was loosing his public/ political support because of non deliverance that the economical improvement wasn’t been achieved. At that time he ordered the prohibition of manual pollination of date palms flowered ( because he thought that Arab farmers were doing his practice as a superstition). The crops failed that year aggravated the situation for Muhammed’s political career. At that time the prophet managed the situation by raiding and plundering a trade caravan passing closed to Madina. That gave the idea of a multinational solution for his people . Therefore last 7 years of his life as a ruler he focused to create a perfect militant society and he succeeded in his mission too.

[@khurmiful]

I think he’s partly right about Sam’s quoting of verses. As for where he got the translations? That’s another can of worms. What Sam quoted is also translations by various apologists, he wasn’t drunk.

[@BLACK.ANGEL.]

19:21 *"I argue that the Quran was later piously manipulated."* - Dr. Javad T.Hashmi

[@DrJavadTHashmi]

I’m not implying that the text was tampered. Rather, exegetical tools were used to manipulate its meanings.

[@vincekelly5233]

@@DrJavadTHashmi just like he was trying to twist your words into meaning something you didn't mean them to mean lol...

[@georgeeinarsson5956]

@@DrJavadTHashmi There were added verses in the Quran after Muhammad.

[@apolloniusoftyana7049]

@@georgeeinarsson5956 How do you know that?

[@merlinx8703]

@@jimcartmell4295 kzbin.info/www/bejne/gGaUeoOEYrV5gtE i donot know where you heard that but no Hadith can abrogate the Quran

[@chadafiy]

Damn my respect for this channel grew

[@johnmcgrath6192]

Historically corcion in religion in the Catholic church was justified by Jes saying "compelle intrare," make thenm come in. Taken quite out of context in a oparable where the rich man (god) throws a feast and invites his favorites. The favorites do not show up, so the rich an orders his servants to invite in anyone they meet in the streets, including beggars. The servants are told "compelle intrare," compel them to enter or make them enter. No suggestion of force, just strong persuasion. The soft interpretation was to force the Jews to listen to Chrsitian sern=mons on a regular schedule, maybe once a month, I am not at all sure, just on a regul ar basis, The hard interpretation was to give peopel the option of Baptist or death.

[@suelingsusu1339]

@Derek... minutes 1:38:48 "1930s America between blacks and whites"... exactly... also... up to May 1990 South Africa and their Apartheid....👏👏👏👍👍👍👌👌👌🖖🖖🖖🖖

[@James-ip1tc]

Great conversation maybe you could have him back to discuss about Jihad in the current Palestinian Israeli conflict because there seems to be two entrenched sides on this.

[@laylaali5977]

Palestinian situation’s main issue is not religion it’s about land and it has been going over 100 years since Palestinians has been massacred and ethnically cleansed and continues apartheid/genocide

[@mrtransmogrify]

44:31 Interesting... Cos I thought that was one of the principles of the traditional exegesis as well.. tafsir of Quran with the Quran

[@johnmcgrath6192]

An official Mormon scholar of the Bible say the the inspire of the Bible is linguistically wrong. The statement should be "inspiring" (to humans) rather than "inspired" (by God).

[@Vreidyfarm]

Hey Derek, Please host Hamza Yusuf or Abdul Hakeem Murad, please!

[@BenM61]

Dr Hashmi, I don’t understand your concept of how God communicates with his messengers and prophets. I know the three possible ways God gets his message across: It is not ˹possible˺ for a human being to have Allah communicate with them, except through inspiration, or from behind a veil, or by sending a messenger-angel to reveal whatever He wills by His permission. He is surely Most High, All-Wise. Quran 42:51 But in 4:164 God Speke to Moses directly: “There are messengers whose stories We have told you already and others We have not. And to Moses Allah spoke directly.” The Arabic is even more specific by repeating the word ‘speak’. How do you understand that? Also, when Moses spent forty days up the mountain, whom was he talking to? We appointed for Moses thirty nights then added another ten-completing his Lord’s term of forty nights. Quran 7:142 How God deals with the temporal is complicated and our minds are not equipped to grasp the concept. But we can try. شُكرا

[@debbydetermined]

I think it's unfair to say that he's only picking on Islam because it's the 'other'. That completely disregards and dismisses all the people in the world who are suffering because of the religious practice of islam i.e. honour killings, FGM, child marriage, apostacy laws, whats going on in Iran etc. I thought that was really messed up. It's not bigotry to be upset about these things and point them out as awful and violent.

[@alexlarsen6413]

Rocking that beard like a boss, Derek! That's all. Won't comment on this guy but I appreciate you gave him the opportunity to speak.

[@MrBerto800]

Call me crazy, but isn’t the, Arab Conquest of Jerusalem and other lands, COLONIAL CONQUEST? and the Muslim Empires that followed, Emperialism? Not to justify any wrong doings by any peoples, but wouldn’t the Jewish conquest that followed, be the same thing? If not “tit for tat” as the Quran is stating? Jerusalem is literately a historical Jewish city, and arguably the most important city since it’s beginning. Is there an expiration date on when a people’s can come execute conquest on their cities and implement the “tit for tat” rule? Asking for a friend lol.

[@merlinx8703]

1) The Muslims did not take the land from the jews the Romans were the ones who destroyed the temple 2)The Byzantines and the Persians at the time started waging war against the newly formed Arab State as a reselt the Arabs had to defend themselves 3)Funny how you tried to flip the switch and make the arabs the bad guys and jews the good guys, and using a holy text to do that, sounds like religious fundamentalism to me 4)Funny how you are willing to excuse israel, dont you believe that the exodus didnt hapen? 5) since you believe in the tit for tat rule now, is it now okay for other countries such as vietnam to invade the USA as the USA has invaded many countries throughout their history

[@MrBerto800]

@@merlinx8703 🤔 hmmm okay. This discussion seems like it will get interesting. Let’s do it 😅 … First I want to say, my comment was just referencing some of the stuff the guest said. One, the idea that the “Jewish Colonial settler movement” is this unique and alien concept to Arabs/Muslims. And two, the “tit for tat” rule the guest brought up from the Quran. Also and aside from that, I loved his interview by the way. So since you used subject bullets, I’ll do the same 😉. 1) no one said the Muslims “took” the land from Jews. That’s to vague of a statement. And yes, the Romans destroyed the temple…. Now, The Arab conquest did “take” the lands they conquered. That’s what a conquest is by definition. And any Jews or Christians or anybody there, were conquered. Many were then converted as well. Jerusalem included. 2) This bullet comment is ridiculous. The conquest of the Middle East and North Africa was not a defensive move to the Byzantine and Persian Empires. And the history surrounding these events is to long and complex to write in this response. 3) I’m not painting Arabs to be the bad guys. Neither group is good or bad. Like everything in life, there is a complex story here that can’t ever be characterized with such simple terms. And I’m only quoting the “holy text” from the Quran, that the guest used. But yes, the “tit for tat” rule is in many ancient peoples texts. I just found the point to be ironic. 4) I’m not excusing Israel or any people’s for their wrong doings. Again, just stating the irony through the lenses brought up in the discussion. As far as the exodus is concerned, it’s not relevant to the real history of the Jews or region. Romulus and Remus don’t have to be real to know Rome is a real place. (I’m not sure why you brought that up though as if we’ve had some past conversation before. You may be mistaking me with someone else 🤷🏼‍♂️ ) 5) I don’t believe in the “tit for tat” rule. Again, I was mentioning it in irony because the guest is mentioning the “Quran tit or tat” rule and brought up the Israel Colonial subject. Solely on that point, I see the irony in the whole conquest subject.

[@skepticalbaby7300]

U have good question, but u misrepresent what the guest said. The guest did not mention the talion rule in relation to Israel. What he said was that Sam Harris excuses Jewish religious violence because of his background and claims that Muslim religious violence is exceptional. That is not a discussion of whether Jewish or Muslim religious violence is based on talion. The guest did not say whether Israel's occupation or resistance to Israel is based on talion. There is an interesting question of whether the Arab conquest was a settler colonial project or how does the talion rule apply to the israel-Arab conflict but the guest did not address those questions. Now, u raise some interesting questions. Related to the guest's actual thesis, you ask if there are time constraints on the rules for jihad. It's a good question and I don't know the answer and wouldn't speak for the guest. Another question u imply I whether the Arab conquests were settler colonialism and, if so, then isn't Israel applying the talion rule? U suggest that if these things are true, then there may be a double standard. First, on settler colonialism, i think most conquests in the pre-industrial Era were settler colonialism and the Arab Conquests were no different. I however, I don't think that u can simply declare them to be the same and then jump to whether the act is acceptable or justified or that resistance is acceptable or justified. I am not saying u support settler colonialism. I am saying that u are making a judgment (i.e. it is ironic) about the position that anti-zionists hold. However, I think that this judgment is misguided because of the context. Modern international law finds settler colonialism as a crime. And it is not on the basis of talion. The question is "is settler colonialism justified today?" The answer is no. To give a simpler illustration, imagine during the six Day war both Israelis enslaved their POWs. Would u argue that the Arabs are hypocrites to say that enslaving POWs is wrong because the Israelis are just following tit for tat and POWs were enslaved during the Arab conquests in the 7th century? No, of course u wouldn't because u judge them by today's standards. Now, I know the response is well "but I am using their rationale for jihad. Aren't they being hypocrites?", however, the guest did not address modern day applications of jihad. He is simply stating the doctrine as it existed in the 7th century. Furthermore, no Israeli would use an Islamic doctrine to justify their acts. This would be admission that the doctrine is legitimate. So, there can't be hypocrisy because the Israelis are applying a different doctrine altogether. The Israeli doctrine is simply "God gave us this land" the doctrine is not based on talion. It is not an argument that you took it from us, so we take it for you. That logic wouldn't make sense because, as the other commentor was trying to express, the political authority was Roman, not Jewish, at the time of conquest. Even if the political authority was Jewish, the justification for any settler colonialism would not be "we are following talion as in the doctrine of jihad"

[@MrBerto800]

@@skepticalbaby7300 I think your misunderstanding my whole point. But that may be my fault, do to just throwing out a quick comment as a funny little jab. I wasn’t talking about a lot of what you bring up. I’m not saying the guest brought up the talion rule in regards to Israel. And you bring up a bunch of subjects I wasn’t talking about either, but I’m up for the convo. I’m just bringing up the irony of him saying Israel is a colonial settler project and never bringing up the fact that the Arab conquest was the same thing. They literately destroyed and changed the cultures of so many peoples. Religions, languages, cultures, etc, were lost do to it. The majority of these peoples who refer to themselves as the moniker “Arab”, aren’t even technically Arabs. Their original names being erased to history, just another consequence to the colonial settler Arab conquest. Instead, he speaks about a defensive rule and a talion rule in regards to Islam. So I just used the same rule standards in regards to the Israel/Arab conflicts as a quick ironic jab. All that said, I found him enjoyable and very interesting. Islamic Secular studies is a very needed academic subject that we have too little of today. For reasons I can only role my eyes at. At the end of the day, taking in all the information (which is way to much to type out) and taking logic, rational, and reasonable thinking into consideration, both peoples have a right to the land for different reasons. The best scenario that could have happened, is that both Jews and Arabs would have came together under one nationality and protected each other as national brethren and Abrahamic cousins. Sadly, It didn’t happen, and wars broke out. Now, seeing where we’re at today, the big question is how can both tribes come to a compromise and live in peace? How can either side be trusted? What saddens me is why didn’t the Palestinians take their half in 1948? Why didn’t they take any deal offered, after each time the offer got worse and worse. It appears their leadership steered them in the wrong direction at each turn. Why didn’t Jordan or Egypt create a Palestinian state when they were occupying Gaza and the West Bank? Aren’t they all Arab brethren? Even Israel offers citizenship and safe haven for their own brethren across the world and give them a home within the state. There are around 50 Muslim states and around 22 of them are Arab states. Only 1 Jewish state. And when they came back to their homeland, it was to never live under the rule of another, including a Muslim caliphate. The whole situation is very sad. But at this point, I highly doubt, the 1 Jewish state is going to make any deal without considering all outcomes of its self preservation.

[@skepticalbaby7300]

@@MrBerto800 I understand and understood ur point. I just didn't think it was a good one for reasons in the previous post. It falls flat. This is my opinion and we can differ. On Israel Palestine, we really differ. I don't think that a settler colonialism state has any rights to the land. International Law is very clear on this. Given that, I think the answer to your question about why the Palestinian leadership rejected the various unequal treaties is obvious. They felt that they were entitled to the entire territory. With hindsight, you can say that it would be more expedient or pragmatic for them to accept the unequal treaties, but it was not irrational to reject them. Yes, over the short term, it would lead to more stability. But over the long term it presents an existential threat. Once u admit that a settler state can convince you to cede your land, then the settler state will just take more land in the future knowing that it can negotiate it. That is what happens with all settler states. How many treaties were made, broken, remade between Americans and Native Americans? Where is a Native American state? Nowhere. U may say that this couldn't happen in Palestine. Yet, the zionist vision was a state from the euphrates to the Nile. Israel has never declared what are its borders. The fact is that Israel didn't accept the UN borders either. It declared independence and in the ensuing war it simply took as much land as it could. The Israel borders after that war are not the UN drawn borders. Israel didn't return the land outside the UN borders because they too felt entitled to the whole territory or justified this land grab through right of conquest which is rejected by international law. This is similar to the occupation of the Sinai, which Israel claimed but was forced out by the Americans, and the post 1967 situation. Israel could have withdrawn to the green line but chose not to. These are illustrations of the incremental disposession that is characteristic of settler colonialism. So asking Palestinians to give up land each time is just extortion. On citizenship, yes, Arab nations could, and some have, grant citizenship to Palestinians. But that changes little. Just as Israelis can hold both Israeli and American citizenship, Palestinians could do the same (if they had a state). That really doesn't solve the issues. Palestinians still have a claim to Palestine. Now, u may ask, well, what can be done now? If we accept that Israel is just here to stay, what can be done? Well, just follow the principles of international law. 1. The area is divided according to the UN borders. 2. Palestinian refugees must be allowed to return to their homes and be compensated. 3. Israeli settlers in the west Bank must return to Israel. 4. The Palestinian state must have full sovereignty. 5. Israeli apartheid must cease. Equal citizenship for Israeli Arabs. Or, in other words, the dismantling of the mechanisms of the settler state. U may say what does Israel get from this? What they always claimed they wanted, a refuge for Jewish people worldwide and peace. Israel can continue its policy of citizenship for people of Jewish descent, but it cannot treat other citizens of the state as second class citizens. Without genocide and crimes against humanity, Israel is not sustainable. The points I have laid out above are the best way to have two non-settler modern states in that very small territory.

[@stevenv6463]

Didn't mythvision have Hythem Sidky and Nasser Shady? I believe the former is Muslim and the latter definitely has a Muslim background but I'm less aware of his personal beliefs.

[@tanzilmuslehudd9403]

hythem is muslim or nasser ?

[@francislankester805]

There is a fundamental issue which Dr, Hashmi does not address in his otherwise cogent presentation. Why do the Meccan mushrikun persecute the believers (as the Quran claims-we don't have their side)? They reject the messenger as a mad poet and the last day he keeps promising never arrives. So why not just let him be as he doesn't make many converts? Muhammad claims that the Kaaba was originally the standing place of Abraham and not a pagan shrine. So his clear aim is to appropriate it and eliminate the Meccans' religion completely. If this is the case, then no wonder they resist. The Quran claims "you are only a warner," "you are not a guardian over them" etc more than 30 times. Methinks the messenger doth protest too much. The Meccans understand that he does intend to rule over them.

[@AndromedaBARNARDINO555]

But the Qur'an says, you must obey the scholars.

[@DavidHillman01]

I agree with all that you say about settler colonialism - ongoing - and apartheid but i disagree that Harris pro Zionism results from his Jewishness. There is a long and honourable tradition of antiZionism amongst secular Jews and within religious Judaism. Could say more on this.

[@merlinx8703]

no one is denying that in fact many strong supporters of palestine are anti-zionist jews examples are noam chomsky, norman finkelstein, max bluementhal

[@laylaali5977]

But Harris is Zionist supremacist his views of Islam is based on Palestinian and Israeli conflict

[@saeedpakiari7446]

2:09:00 onwards. He is intellectually dishonest and he knows he is. In all these verses he translates the word 'Mushrik' as 'Idolaters', therefore totally changes the purpose and the meaning of it. Mushrik means a 'a person who thinks God has any assistants or relatives' a mushrik can be interpreted as idolater or a Chirstian who thinks Jesus is God or son of God. These are verses that are encouraging vialonce and bigotry against anyone who believes otherwise than what Islam preaches. I am not trying to hold Islam to 21st century standards. However, I am against misrepresentation of it to the people who don't know.

[@SubtitledArabicSongs]

False, for example the Quran explicitly forbids marriage to idolators see Baqara 221 "do not marry mushrikat", but marrying christians is allowed. His translation and iterpretation is accurate and not controversial. He quoted multiple verses that paint Christians positively in which god promises them heaven. I fell like you're the one who is not being honest with the text.

[@saeedpakiari7446]

@SubtitledArabicSongs I don't disagree that Quran has positive view of Jesus and Mary. Islam itself is very close to the Nastorian chirstians or Eboinic jews. Also, it sees Roman's who are Christian in a positive light. It does not mean that Islam was not in serious disagreement with some secs of Christianity and Jews. All I am saying is it is inaccurate to translate Mushrik as Idolater and I still believe it. A mushrik is not necessarily limited to Idolaters. In Islamic terms todays Catholics are Mushrik. Also Shiah Muslims are mushrik. So Does it mean that Catholics and Shia's are idolators the way allegedly pre-Islamic polythiestic Arabs were? Arguably no.

[@SubtitledArabicSongs]

@@saeedpakiari7446 I did not say the Quran had a positive of view of Jesus, I said the Quran explicitly mentions Christians and Jews (and any people who believes in God and the day of Judgement) who do good deeds as people who will have their reward with God ie will have salvation. He quoted that verse along with others in his presentation that talk positively about christians. As I said the Quran allows marriage to Christians but not to Mushrikeen and sets Ahl el kitab apart from thr Mushrikeen in many verses so your accusation that he is being disingenuous with his translation, which like I said is not controversial and not inaccurate and I doubt its his personal translation as opposed to a standard one, is not well substantiated at all.

[@SubtitledArabicSongs]

@@saeedpakiari7446 I dunno why my comments seems to have been deleted but I did not mention Jesus, the reference was to Christians who are distinguished from mushrikeen. The Quran disallows marrying the latter but accepts marrying the former. These marriages to Trinitarian Christians were allowed throughout Islamic history and I am not aware of any Muslim country that does not accept these marriages today.

[@saeedpakiari7446]

@SubtitledArabicSongs I understand your point. You are presenting an argument that the word Mushrik does not refer to the Christians as we know today. therefore, it perhaps refers to Idolaters. Your opinion and reasoning is respectable. However, it is subject to scholarly debate. Again going back to my first comment, my objection is that he deliberately TRANSLATES the word Mushrik to Idolater which is totally false. Doing so, he is throughing a piece of misinformation to anyone who trusts his knowledge of Arabic and Quran, therefore he by making this false translation, he closes the door to any skepticism and debate.

[@syedmustafa8406]

You know Quran itself is quite incomplete, incapable to provide definitions that Islam was based upon. No, Islam can’t ignore Hadith.

[@laylaali5977]

Early Islam Hadiths have been used as literature based how sound they were no one took them as something prophet said it was much later that Hadith centric Muslims accepted them as true

[@mounirkaddoura8512]

Are you the son of Ahmad Hashmi?

[@Vreidyfarm]

Wow! This is really an intellectually nutritious conversation. Please give us more of the same or along these lines. Could you guys do a similar session on the case for Islam vs previous monotheistic religions? For instance the Muslim belief that Islam is a synthetic approach that wraps up, clarifies, and most importantly rectifies the vagaries of, former religions.

[@francislankester805]

There is also a problem that after Surah 22 al Hajj we hear nothing more of the imminent last day. We then have the suggestion that God would not destroy Mecca with the messenger still in it. But in Medina he is safe, so why not now? Then we get the idea that God will punish the Meccans at the hands of the Believers-a very useful way of getting out of the clear situation that the end has not come despite the messenger's many predictions. No mistake like Jehovah's Witness John Taize Russell in specifying a date. See also God, Muhammad & the Unbelievers by Marshall and Marc Durie's The Quran & its Biblical reflexes for the "eschatological crisis" (ie the eschaton doesn't come).

[@leongreen5332]

Very disappointed that this descended into the bs narrative about the zionist white settler colonialist state. I was really impressed with him until then. Very erudite and articulate. The truth about Israel/Palestine is much more complex and nuanced. Jews connection to land is 2000 years old. Arabs have been there 700 800 years. But that's not the point. I feel Dr Hashmi should stick to his area expertise

[@SubtitledArabicSongs]

Lmao, The westren wall was built by an Arab king, Herod. You have no clue what you're talking about.

[@debbydetermined]

I dont understand how this ideology is not still problematic in todays time even with his understanding...

[@ernestschroeder9762]

A lot of " what aboutism ".

[@DrJavadTHashmi]

The entire thesis being negated is the idea that Islam is exceptionally violent, which by its very necessity requires a comparative approach to test. To then claim “whataboutism “ is itself pure deflection and to render the thesis unfalsifiable.

[@ernestschroeder9762]

@@DrJavadTHashmi the fact today that we definitely see a lot more Islamic terrorism than any other sect tells us something. You can't just say " hey, they were worse " ,a ridiculous argument. And when someone says " colllonial masters ", as if muslims weren't colllonial masters. Really?

[@superhydra8873]

You don’t understand what that means.

[@ernestschroeder9762]

@@superhydra8873 and what about you?

[@superhydra8873]

@@ernestschroeder9762 lol, by your definition you just committed the fallacy of whataboutism

[@miasma5733]

You should get a real expert on jihad (Robert Spencer) not a liberal muslim apologist.

[@casualmaille1749]

A year later, things overall seem worse, the Dawah Boys seem louder. The people who need to hear your message don't seem to be listening.

[@uwaizmohamedy1472]

Yay 3 hours of listening to Javad show how he understands nothing about Islam. Great 🤦🏽‍♂️

[@ecology1st]

As soon as this guest said he's actually practicing religion, I turned this interview off.

[@DrJavadTHashmi]

Very open minded of you.

[@salahuddinrazi8403]

Your loss!!! You missed an excellent discussion. Try not to do close minded in the future.

[@stevenv6463]

Literally, every critical study of religion benefits from having people practicing that religion contribute to the field. Ideally we have non believers, believers of other religions and different sects and understandings contributing to balance any possible biases.