MEGA DEBATE: Traditional Muslim vs. Reformist Harvard Academic
- Thread starter AMusee
- Start date
The Historical Critical Method (HCM) in Christianity and Islam: How a Mix of Shiism and Liberalism Is Masquerading as Academic Critique of Sunni Islam
HCM was first developed as a tool for studying the origins and historical development of Christian texts and doctrines (especially the Bible).
HCM holds that, all things being equal, the direct disciples of a religious teacher preserve his ideas and practices.
In the study of early Christianity, it is held that many of Jesus's original ideas and practices were preserved by his direct disciplines Peter and James. For example, Peter and James held that Christians should revere the Jewish law (Torah) and adopt its norms (e.g., circumcision, dietary rules). From this it is inferred that Jesus originally taught reverence of the Torah and practice of its norms. The perspective of Jesus, Peter, and James may be contrasted with Paul, who never met Jesus. Paul claimed to receive revelations, and on the basis of these revelations, rejected reverence of the Torah and practice of its norms.
Faux Academics, like my recent debate opponent JaFed Hashemi, claim that they wish to apply HCM to early Islam, but then reject the notion that the direct disciples of a religious teacher preserve his ideas and practices. For Javad, the direct disciples of Muhammad ﷺ (unlike those of Jesus) immediately rejected his fundamental ideas and practices (e.g., religious freedom, abolition of slavery, rejection of offensive warfare).
In reality, Javad's position has nothing to do with HCM. Rather it reflects the mixed influence of liberalism and Shiism. Liberalism endorses religious freedom, the abolition of slavery, etc. Javad wants Muslims to adopt these ideas, so he attributes them to the Prophet ﷺ. Javad knows that such ideas were rejected by the Prophet's direct disciples, the Sahaba and the Khukafa, so he claims that these individuals rejected the Prophet's fundamental ideas and practices immediately after his death.
The notion that the Prophet's direct disciples rejected the Prophet's ﷺ fundamental ideas and practices immediately after his death is actually a bizarre theological claim that taken from Shiism.
Shiites put forth this claim to support their doctrine that after the Prophet's death, all of the Companions rejected the Prophet's ﷺ fundamental teaching that Ali was to be his successor - and was an infallible supernaturally guided Imam. Presumably Javad has taken these Shiite ideas, at least partly, from his mentor, an ismaili kafir: Khalil Andani.
Properly understood, Javad's analysis of early Islam derives less from academic HCM than from an odd amalgam of liberalism and Shiism.
https://twitter.com/Haqiqatjou/status/1674467138831101960
HCM was first developed as a tool for studying the origins and historical development of Christian texts and doctrines (especially the Bible).
HCM holds that, all things being equal, the direct disciples of a religious teacher preserve his ideas and practices.
In the study of early Christianity, it is held that many of Jesus's original ideas and practices were preserved by his direct disciplines Peter and James. For example, Peter and James held that Christians should revere the Jewish law (Torah) and adopt its norms (e.g., circumcision, dietary rules). From this it is inferred that Jesus originally taught reverence of the Torah and practice of its norms. The perspective of Jesus, Peter, and James may be contrasted with Paul, who never met Jesus. Paul claimed to receive revelations, and on the basis of these revelations, rejected reverence of the Torah and practice of its norms.
Faux Academics, like my recent debate opponent JaFed Hashemi, claim that they wish to apply HCM to early Islam, but then reject the notion that the direct disciples of a religious teacher preserve his ideas and practices. For Javad, the direct disciples of Muhammad ﷺ (unlike those of Jesus) immediately rejected his fundamental ideas and practices (e.g., religious freedom, abolition of slavery, rejection of offensive warfare).
In reality, Javad's position has nothing to do with HCM. Rather it reflects the mixed influence of liberalism and Shiism. Liberalism endorses religious freedom, the abolition of slavery, etc. Javad wants Muslims to adopt these ideas, so he attributes them to the Prophet ﷺ. Javad knows that such ideas were rejected by the Prophet's direct disciples, the Sahaba and the Khukafa, so he claims that these individuals rejected the Prophet's fundamental ideas and practices immediately after his death.
The notion that the Prophet's direct disciples rejected the Prophet's ﷺ fundamental ideas and practices immediately after his death is actually a bizarre theological claim that taken from Shiism.
Shiites put forth this claim to support their doctrine that after the Prophet's death, all of the Companions rejected the Prophet's ﷺ fundamental teaching that Ali was to be his successor - and was an infallible supernaturally guided Imam. Presumably Javad has taken these Shiite ideas, at least partly, from his mentor, an ismaili kafir: Khalil Andani.
Properly understood, Javad's analysis of early Islam derives less from academic HCM than from an odd amalgam of liberalism and Shiism.
https://twitter.com/Haqiqatjou/status/1674467138831101960
xiin-finiin
general of ciidamada sida raha ubooda
i watched about 2 hours and Daniel is getting cooked 
i watched about 2 hours and Daniel is getting cooked
Delusional atheists, the murtad liberal was dismantled in the opening statements.
Trending
-
-
Is it time for Muslims to leave Germany for their own safety?
- Started by Fobnimo Till I Dhimo
- Replies: 27
Latest posts
-
Dhmaadka Casriga Cabsida Dunida Muslimka | Qirashada Siisii in uu Baqaayo
- Latest: Fobnimo Till I Dhimo
-
