Can Faithful Muslims Follow the Historical-Critical Method?
In this podcast interview for a Turkish language channel (Dini Cevaplar, / @dinicevaplarcom , Dr. Hashmi discusses the historical-critical method, an approach used by Western historians and scholars in order to understand the Quran and other early Islamic sources. How should Muslims respond?
---
The Impactful Scholar, MPAC's official KZhead podcast, is brought to you by the MPAC Research Bureau, a part of MPAC (Muslim Public Affairs Council).
Please make sure to like, subscribe, comment and share!
Subscribe to The Impactful Scholar:
/ @drjavadthashmi
Follow The Impactful Scholar on Twitter:
twitter.com/drjavadthashmi?la...
MPAC (Muslim Public Affairs Council)
Subscribe to MPAC's channel: bit.ly/MPACKZhead
Like MPAC on Facebook: fb.com/mpacnational
Follow MPAC on Twitter: / mpac_national
Follow MPAC on Instagram: / mpac_national
Visit MPAC's website: mpac.org
About the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC):
We improve public understanding and policies that impact American Muslims by engaging our government, media, and communities.
MPAC and The Impactful Scholar need your help! Please make a donation today: mpac.org/give.
Make sure to let us know that you donated to help The Impactful Scholar.
I am a convert who grew up in western paganism, I fell in love with the Quran but when I went to the hadith I nearly lost my sense of self and my faith. The historical critical method pulled me back toward Allah. Thank you for the sharing of these insights,doing so must have taken incredible courage.
I am not Muslim, but I have done some study of Islam and the Quran. I wish you success in your endeavor. I believe that it is needed at this time, and can be of great help to the believers.
Thank you for a detailed lecture on this topic. It’s much needed.
i like that "historical critial method"- because its a very honest approach to text. its like Qur'an command to be just.
what???
Thank you very much for the work you are putting out. It’s highly appreciated.
Thank you!
I find the historical critical method enhances my knowledge and my faith and for me personally does not threaten my relationship with the Qur’an or the Bible nor my faith in Allah.
Finally a Muslim like me
Excellent program
Fantastically well-said brother! I first approached the historical-critical method with a degree of trepidation but ended up falling in love with it. It has actually strengthened my trust in the Qur'an and enhanced my understanding of it no end. You have articulated so well the compatibility between being a believing Muslim and embracing the historical-critical method. Bravo and Peace!
Hello. Thank you for the explanation. I wanted to ask, to what extent are debates about the authorship of the Quran an essential part of the application of Historical critical method (HCM) as it pertains to the Quran? And in showing fidelity to the HCM, would a Muslim also first have to suspend judgment about the authorship of the Quran - and wouldn't Muslims become committed to an almost perpetual agnosticism about the provenance of the Quran every time they read the Quran and find that some parts of it are stylistically different or borrow words from other languages, or refer to some thing or concept not found in Arabia? Doesn't it put the believing Muslim under a kind of undue evidentialist fever?
Care to elaborate what you mean by authorship of the Quran?
@@miranwar6288 I was referring to the point that many non-Muslim scholars who practice the HCM in the academy of course don't think that the Quran is from God. But remarkably they don't all agree it is even from (Prophet) Muhammad. So some of them claim that the stylistic variations of some Surahs justify them to assert that these are later accretions. I was asking Dr Hashmi whether the HCM is fraught with this sort of a problem. If it is, then shouldn't Muslims reject HCM?
@The Impactful Scholar , is there an English translation Quran that you’d recommend for accuracy or beauty?
Yes, I recommend The Study Quran's translation. (Keep in mind I am only speaking of their translation, not the commentary, which I have more complex views about, i.e. mixed views).
@@DrJavadTHashmi thank you! 🙏
@The Impactful Scholar How do you balance conclusions of the HCM, such as there being grammatical errors in the quran, foreign loanwords and interpolations in a timeless book, with the quran's claims of eternality, let alone divine perfection? Thank you for the great video.
Thanks for this question. First, I think the way you are wording it is a bit oversimplified. The question about "grammatical errors," "foreign loanwords," and "interpolations" is far from settled. For example, it's unlikely that the Quran was using a foreign word that it's immediate audience was wholly unfamiliar with. Similarly, as far as Quranic grammar mistakes, classical grammar rules were established after the Quran and based on it; different recitations would have or not have the same construction, etc. As for interpolations, this is theoretical; in other words, the working assumption in the field is that a given Quranic verse does indeed go back to the Prophet. However, all of these things are certainly possible and cannot be ruled out a priori. So, your comment still deserves an answer. Well, I would simply say that the Quran does not claim to be pre-eternal or uncreated, etc. Rather, the Quran speaks of a Kitāb with God, which is what the Quran we have now is an instantiation of. It is "THAT Book," not "THIS Book," as it is often incorrectly translated. Overall, then, the historical-critical method does indeed compel many Muslim academics to reconsider their theory of revelation, but it is not something insurmountable.
@@DrJavadTHashmi Thank you for your wonderful reply. In truth I am so ignorant of the quran not to mention the hcm that i probably didn't deserve it. My ignorant initial response is that you are not taking the claims the quran makes about itself seriously. Inimiatible, mubeen, miraculous, the quran just seems to demand to be considered divine perfection (or extremely close it) or be basically lying. Is this a fair way for me to look at it? I intent to let the text speak for itself here. Again, I really don't deserve a response, but I would love to hear only if you are not busy. The way I see it merely abrogation contradicts what the quran says about itself. I did not know that only sunnis believe the quran was uncreated - thanks very much for the info. Do you think the HCM is incompatible with sunni islam in this way? The question of interpolations (i misused this term, I believe i mean incorporations of surrounding non-muslim narratives) and grammatical errors is again out of my depth. But my impression is that the HCM focuses not on if, but on how many of both exist in the quran. Most of my info from this is coming from the wiki article criticism of the quran - how much I wish I could hear your commentary on such an article! The article seemingly lists dozens of such errors and adaptations. Are all these claims flawed or out of context?
What do you mean when you say that the Hanbali view of the Quran being the literal word of God has problems? Could you make a video on this?
It becomes a problem according to the speaker when you want to hold to the Hanbali believe and apply HCM.
I have to say! sometimes I wander what's local/regional traditions and what's sunnah! as muslimes we are constantly remainded that inovation in religion is a sin since the masses can't tell if it's a path to evil( to hell) or to goodness (to heaven )
This innovation idea is from Salafis.
I think I rely on the historical-critical method kind of by default. Usually when I discuss Islamic history with non-Muslims, I discuss it in such a way. I'm curious if you're familiar with the work of the late Muslim scholar *Shahad Ahmed's work on "text, subtext & context"? I wonder if his approach Islam (which is perhaps more focused in "fiqh" than history) corroborates with the "historical-critical method". Though his life was cut short, I found his work to be extremely interesting and useful for the ummah though I don't imagine he gained much attention from the "traditionalists".
Shahab Ahmed was an amazing scholar and his work, "What is Islam?," is a classic. I sometimes only half-jokingly say that my entire academic career has been exegesis of his book. I agree with his approach of text, subtext, and context.
@@DrJavadTHashmii dont know too much about the author, so perhaps im speaking out of place, but i know Dr Khaled abou el fadl (one of the few scholars actually trying to make a legitimate and faithful difference) has some strong words against him and his book.
1. Doctor, I'm not proficient in English but anyway, what about the issue oh hijab? Can or did Dr Joshua Little or anybody else research on this? Those who follow hadith will say this is mandatory but a quranist will say it's not based on surah an nissa. But then again people like Ali Nouman Khan explains it in such a way that it seems mandatory. But there's such person, Khaleed Abou El Fadl, who has access to old documents, some as early as 56 Hijri/Hijrah and he found out that head covering is not compulsory in Islam, citing Fatimah al Kubra, the daughter of Hassan bin Ali r.a. as an example. Hijab became mandatory because past ulamas make it as a fatwa. He brought this to the attention of his peers, but he was shunned because they rather follow the hadith. 2. I'm afraid present muslims have become lazy thinkers and rather be taklid. An example, my sister told me that her mosque online chat group quote a false hadith. When my sister pointed this out, the person replied that the ustaz said as long as it is for good, the hadith can be used. As my sister studied law including shariah law at the local university, she knew this is wrong. When she mentioned the truth, she was blocked from the group chat. So now just because a person has a title of an ustaz, people will believe 100% of what he says. And by blocking my sister, there will be no communication, meaning people will stay in their comfort zone and remain taklid.
Can you show me where Fatima said this?
I would suggest to watch mufti Abu layth's video on surah nur hijab where he proves hijab can't be forced, wearing hijab is not a must but what is must is modesty
@@phiuzu5487 Thank you, I already watched the video before, what I'm asking is whether the historical critical method can be applied regarding hijab. As I said before, some people use the quran to argue against wearing hijab, but others use the same ayat to justify wearing the hijab, this is all based on human interpretation. I prefer any alternative method which is not based on Quran or Hadith, but historical or physical evidence or anything else besides. Btw, I'm a fan of the Mufti. He uses historical evidence and logic to explain his conclusion regarding hukm.
@@lizaazman6243 you're immensely welcome. Glad to hear you've watched the mufti and agree with him. Hopefully you'll find further historical evidence. Take care.
I like your spirit in doing the research. But, I am not sure any rational method is enough to know the truth. What would Rumi say of HCM to reach God?
I admire your sincere effort in explaining and exploring the historical critical method (HCM) in analysing religion. However, I wonder how is the HCM being validated/verified within the academic circle? Specifically on the field of religion analysis, If the HCM is being approved only within the secular academic circle, wouldn't the HCM also is guilty of being biased as what it presupposes of the tradionalist scholars reporting? Wouldn't HCM then only be a mere projection of our current mentality conditioned by our current state of affairs/worldview into the past people that has totally another kind of worldview? Thanks in advance for your clarification/response.
At the 5:48 mark you had to wish for a time machine in order to be able to verify this unmethodical "Historical-Critical Method by both your Traditional Sectarians and Western scholars." Is the God, who you also named Allah, so dependent on your wishes, whims and desires to verify His Way? If that were His Way... then why did Allah send down the Quran as Guidance, as a Mercy, as a Bounty, as an explanation of everything? So, instead of that wishful thinking, why don't you just pick up that Quran and read to understand it? Unless, of course, like all Sectarians, be they of the Sunni or Shiite of which ever variety of Imams/Schools of thought you have been taught to treat the Quran as something "Holy and sacred" and that only selected or chosen "religious scholars" are able to "tafseer/interpret/translate" it to the common folk. Come on... be "stupid and rebellious" and go read to understand the Quran. Your only downside, as a Sectarian, is that you will definitely be rightly guided to the Straight Way, the _"al-seerat al-mustakeem"_ ! salam.
There are so many contradictions here. You wrote, _"Can Faithful Muslims Follow the Historical-Critical Method."_ What exactly do you mean by "Faithful Muslims?" If there were such a thing, then there should also exist an "Unfaithful Muslim," correct? So, the million dollar question is, *"Being faithful or unfaithful"* to what, exactly? Of course, everybody would answer, "Allah or God or Lord," right? But here is the billion-dollar question, "being faithful or unfaithful to Allah, as described by the Quran Alone or infused by "Historical-Critical Method constructed by both the Traditional Sectarians impersonating as Muslims and Western scholars?" Also, how would you define "faith?" Do you think the REAL Islam, as defined by the Quran Alone, is dependent on "pure faith" or on the Natural Mortal _(bashar)_ Laws? Are "shadows" able to be "unfaithful" to the strongest source of light and cast itself towards that strongest source of light instead of away from it? Think... ponder and reflect on the Quran ALONE! salam.
Naturalizing/allegorizing miracles "is not something strange in the islamic tradition": since the overwhelming consensus within the islamic tradition goes against this, this *is* by definition strange. If not then what is meant by "strange"? Many possible reasons could explain why prophets in the Qur’an don’t perform miracles when prompted by disbelievers to do so. A rather obvious one is explicitly mentioned in the Qur’an itself: these disbelievers will explain the miracle away as magic anyway. It’s disingenuous to imply that the reason is necessarily because prophets cannot perform miracles. That's completely incorrect from a logical perspective. "If Muhammad SAWS did prophesize, then the Qur’an must include prophesies too"
"Women walking around dressed yet naked at the same time" You know in many cultures women did not cover there breasts, they covered only there private parts just like the men like India in the past. This whole thing about women need to cover their whole body top to bottom started much later in history. Even now there are tribes in Africa where women only cover their private parts just like the men. So I don't know why you think it is some kind of prophecy about the future. In the time of Prophet, in some part of the world women were dressing up in this way. "People from the desert competing in constructing tall buildings" Is this even a prophecy? Like people before the time of the prophet didn't do this.
There is no downplaying here. The "prophecies" you mentioned really are generic and trivial guesses, and as such suitable to be explained by notions like chance, self-fulfilling prophecies, and insignificant improbabilities. As for evolution, it is based on the principles of the scientific method. Throwing around buzz words like "materialism" is not going to help you much. It is about public accessibility to knowledge. It is about transparency, not like religion where some bloke claims secret revelation from some double right handed sky daddy and demands that everyone do his _taqlid._
I think without fully understand or learn what you mean by "traditional" you shouldn't be critical to the historical method... So my approach is traditional as default... as long as there is no conflicted idea or reality, I won't be critical about it. The danger of fully implement Historical-Critical Method is closing eyes to what islam values the tradition protecting. We need to open between the tradition and historical critical method. And I believe meeting both of scholar of to type is the key toward the true islam.
Historical-critical method is the only way to go. Quran by default is always side with reason, and consistently abhor what majority of people call tradition/ what forefather or earlier generation doing. Because true guidance is by contemplating, engaging & applying the quran ourselves. It can never be achieved by blind following tradition, majority, or scholars of religion.
@@ft7730 I guess my "reasoning" just not really agree with this new historical method if its by default reject sunnah or hadits...
@@dedoyxp its not new. Prophet Ibrahim found the truth from God by critical thinking. He asks question and contemplate, even if he has to go against the established belief & tradition of his people. That is his "sunnah", which Prophet Muhammad and all of us must follow. The default is that this religion is individual responsibility first, not collective. Use God ayats as furqan: we process it with our own aql to differentiate/ judge right or wrong, truth or falsehood about everything. To say something is a prophet tradition, or "the prophet said this and that" treated it as truth by default, is a big claim and only make each one responsibility heavier. For all i know, the prophet never approve/authenticate even a single one of his hadith nevertheless entire library of it. Most people never actually verify themselves, or make decisions about it, or use quran as judge about it. They just take what their scholars said: what is tradition what is heretic, what is authentic/not, what is halal/haram etc. Their "religion" runs with little to none individual contemplation effort on quran at all. Thats how jews & christian treated their priests as lords. Thats why muslim splitted into sunnis, shiis, ibadi, etc. each with their own sets of hadith, scholars and tradition.
@@ft7730if you think using false assumptions your still using reason but in a misguided sense like how with Noah's child in the Quran who said that he will go onto the mountains rather than on the Ark with Noah, he falsely assumed he would be saved by the flood yet ironically believed the flood was going to come
Traditional Islam? that implies there's a modern Islam. I thought we have to strictly follow the Quran and Hadith as guidance.
Stay away from this channel dude, it's full of shirk and blasphemy.
watch his latest video on hadith...
HCM destroyed Catholicism
inspired? We going blindfully go Muʿtazilites?! ok, Can't wait to see comparison between this type of academics vs school of thoughts from Tradionalist sources.