Channel: Jamal Badawi
Series: Jamal Badawi - Muhammad
© No part of this transcript may be copied or referenced or transmitted in any way whatsoever. Transcripts are auto-generated and thus will be be inaccurate. We are working on a system to allow volunteers to edit transcripts in a controlled system.
welcome you all to some focus. Today's program inshallah will be our 28th in our series Muhammad, peace be upon us messenger of Allah, and our fifth on methodology of studying Sierra. I'm your hostess admission here once again from St. Mary's University is Dr. Jim overdose as our message of radicalism radicals.
For the benefit of our viewers, could we have a quick summary of last week's program please? Sure. Last time, we continued to refer to the book life of Mohammed by Dr. Hagen's as an example of a certain attitude that began around the 20th century in some Muslim countries. And that was to try to interpret everything in the life of the Prophet according to the criteria of physical sciences which led to the violation of the very scientific approach of analysis. And more specifically, we'll discuss some of the reasons offered by Huygens dr heightened for rejection of any miracle other than the Quran in the life of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. And we indicated why those reasons are
quite questionable. But we said again, that all of this discussion does not mean at all that there is complete irrelevance to extraordinary events in the life of the Prophet.
We discussed also his reference to the Quran, and the reference made by orientis, for that matters, to claim that the Quran does not give any evidence of any American in the lifetime of the Prophet. And we found that the opposite is true. Some of the evidence they use does not necessarily negate miracles in the lifetime of the prophet or other prophets for that matter. And we pointed out two specific references in the Quran that clearly points out to extraordinary things in the lifetime of the Prophet. This is one problem. But the other problem that we haven't even discussed yet, which is both in the writing of Dr. Hagen, and others re interest, and that is the rejection of some
authentic reports, not because of any flow from the historical standpoint, but simply because it does not accord with their own perception. And in the case of hightail, He even went as far as sometimes rejecting authentic hadith, or tradition about the Prophet for no good reason, except that he had a particular theory that he seemed to be interested in proving
this holy cow justifies his rejection of some authentic comedy,
when the topic of course of Hades is a very broad one, and could be either a series or a sub series by itself, and they hope we can get to that later. But at this point, just to familiarize, the viewers might not be familiar, how this actually is a reference to the sayings, actions and approvals of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him,
which relate to the teaching of Islam and its implementation in the day to day life.
of the obviously with this definition, simple as it may be, it includes, as part of it reports about events because of our actions, or the profit events, which might be miraculous, or extraordinary that took place in his life, and were witnessed by his companions, who narrated them. So that spark also had this literature.
Now, because the Hadees was not all written down and collected during the lifetime of the Prophet.
There were attempts on the part of some people who were not very scrupulous to fabricate.
had these are fabricated reports about the life of the Prophet and he's saying there's no question about that the idea of weather or publication of how this is there.
That's why you find that the most careful scholars who collected the Hadith like Bukhari and Muslim the most famous two, for example,
they have existed a great deal of effort to scrutinize these reports before they accepted them. That effort, in fact, was acknowledged by hyken. For example, on page 81, he says, and they quote, they, this collector of hobbyists took the utmost care in scrutinizing these
various reports, rejecting the suspicious and confirming only those which passed the severest tests, that is words, except only those which passed the service test. It is rather strange to me that why Dr. haikal recognizes this methodology, which is at least or the loose description is very scientific, systematic methodology and had this criticism
and connection of any report actually about the life of the Prophet that uses that very same fact that he acknowledges to raise doubts about some authenticated and reliable reports, with the excuse that he's trying to use a purely scientific approach and his analysis. And that raises at least three points. First of all, he says that
Buhari, the most famous collectors of professing saints,
have only verified 4000 hobbyists are seeing the profit or reports out of 600,000 that we're current. And Dr. heiken complains, they say this is a ratio of one, two, or one over 150.
He also said that even after all that scrutinizing effort, some meta scholars did not agree with declassification of some of those reports or hobbies, a sound which was accepted by previous scholars, and they considered it in their opinion, weak.
And he says that,
if this is the case, and had these prophetic traditions, what is the degree of trustworthiness of any other report that came later about the life of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him?
By doing this sort of seminaries, Dr. Hakan, seem to imply that he can, as such gift to himself, the right to accept or reject any report, regardless of its degree of authenticity, even if the most authentic, so long as this is consistent with his particular approach and with his particular preconceived ideas of negation of any metaphysical aspect in the life of the prophet or any American, which I don't believe is a very strong basis. And I don't think it's a scientific approach either. Here you can explain why that is such a poor basis for rejection of such reports, when the very fact that the connectors of Hades or prophetic tradition
were very strict, as Dr. haikal acknowledges, in their criteria that were used to verify the circulating reports about the Prophet and his life is in itself, an indication that those scholars have already or had already, in fact, developed a scientific and systematic methodology for the collection of hobbyists, which is rather amusing that many scholars feel that even after many centuries specialist in the study of hobbies,
feel that they cannot make any significant improvement at all, upon this very meticulous approach, and methodology that was used by those earlier spellers. So that could be actually a source of comfort rather than doubt really not saying that they were 100% right or perfect. But that's a source, a source of strength, not really valid. Secondly, when for example, scholars are connected of collector of prophetic traditions like Buhari, will he chooses one report out of 150
that seems to give us the false impression that the other 149 are untrue, as the term used by doctors, Heikal erroneously. And that does not necessarily mean so I saw
because a scholar could reject one Hadees or one report not because it's unauthentic or total fabrication, some might be but it could be simply because the same or that particular report might have the slightest imperfection or weakness slightest, and in fact, some of those Heidi's in the 149 rejected ones might be almost the same like the one that Buhari accepted coming through another more trustworthy chain of narration even though the content is the same, so does not mean at all that the rejected ones were all untrue as Dr. heiken contents
All we can say about the other 149 is that simply that they did not meet the highest standard of executive exactitude that the scholar is using in this collection.
Now, this also means that some of those rejected reports, were not authentic enough to meet the very tough standards set by Buhari and Muslims. And that explain why, for example, why one particular report may be accepted by a scholar and a collector of prophetic tradition.
But in the meantime,
another one might find that it is authentic enough that he feels that the standards used by his predecessor are too high, or maybe too low for that metric. So we're not saying here that any of the collectors of the prophetic traditions were totally infallible, but one has to acknowledge that great scrutiny and cared the applied in the collection of studies, now is Dr. Hagen or others wish to say or light we are not going to accept this report about x or y. Miracle in the life of Prophet Muhammad peace be open. If they are rejecting a report which had already passed this very rigorous tests of authenticity by giants, like Bukhari or Muslim,
then it's the scientific approach would require them to tell us on what color the grounds
are they disqualifying this report as unreliable or unauthentic. In other words, to go back, for example, and find out what what what was the problem with the chain of narration? How did the great scholars of Hadith arrived in considering the hobbyist authentic even though there are basic flaws in the narration of the Hadees itself. And that's not the case, they have not based their arguments on that. It's simply their
you know, lack of acceptance or lack of
palatability of this particular hobbies. In other words, there must be a specific critique or criticism, either of the texts of the hobbyist or the chain of narration, which leads us to the conclusion rather than speaking broadly that there have been problems or difficulties. You see, the main problem for Hakan and others, is that their criterion for accepting or rejecting
any report, no matter how authentic it is, is simply that it is at odds with their preconceived ideas. And they think that by doing this, they are following an objective and scientific approach. But this is not the case study. Because it's not scientific to mix between Supra reason and soup and contraries. supervisions are things which are beyond the human mind to comprehend, like miracles, for example, like the phenomenon of Revelation, and between things which are contrary reason, something which is self contradictory from the beginning, like someone saying, one plus one is equal to 37. Or that any being can be infinite and finite in the very same time. Well, this are definitely
contrarian, but there are things that are surprising that belongs to the issue of miracles, for example, they mix between the what you might call super science and something being unscientific because when you say something unscientific, it might give the impression of something subjective and erroneous, like seeing the methods shrink with him, which is the opposite. Everybody knows that this is wrong, that's unscientific. But there are things which are super science, that means it's not necessarily false, but they are not subject to the norm and criteria are the normal methods of scientific investigation, as we find in physical sciences, the mix between the scientific methods
and scientism, the scientific method, which is good and positive, which means objectivity, not to be driven simply by blind emotions without analysis without examining the evidence carefully. Yes, that scientific method, but scientism, in a sense of trying to subject everything to the particular rules of a given science, physical sciences, for example, even though it might be like I mentioned before Supra isn't, it is not really necessarily a scientific approach. It's scientism as if science is something to be worshipped, that everything must follow a particular methodology. And this, I believe, are, in essence, silly problems with essential methodology of recession analysis. We've
mentioned a number of times in your answer. I wonder if you would elaborate on this issue of methodology.
Okay, to begin with, we have to realize that there are more than one source for knowledge.
To begin with empirical, or empiricism to get information through empirical research,
examine specific tangible proof is good, it is an illegitimate source, it is necessary, it's absolutely needed in certain areas of research.
Logical Reasoning, whether by induction, or deduction,
is also a legitimate source of knowledge and information. But all I'm seeing here is that these are not the only two sources of information or knowledge, or discerning of the truth. For example, divine revelation, divine revelation, in some form, or the other, some perception or the other, is the cornerstone of many great world religions. That includes Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and others. There are other religions also believe in some sort of divine revelation. This is a universal acceptance that has been there for hundreds of years by multitudes, hundreds of millions of human beings.
But because divine revelation is not something that we cannot fully investigate, via empirical research in a test tube, or by the normal process of reasoning that we normally use in other disciplines, does not mean necessarily that
revelation is unscientific, it has to be dismissed as baseless or superstitious.
In fact, I do agree with Dr. In booty.
In his book, Sierra, I think I made reference to that before that, when he says that it is much more honest and much more scientific, for a scholar to say,
Americans and metaphysics is not my field of specialization,
I cannot reject them altogether. Because to do so, requires sufficient scientific truth, sufficient scientific proof, which I don't have,
nor can I confirm them unless they happen in my presence.
And I was able to examine and analyze them. This is how I look to the future. And I fully agree with this. So this definitely this statement would be a much more humble, much more objective. And I dare say, much more scientific than dismissing anything that does not, or is not subject to the criteria of truth, which might be quite useful and quite legitimate for certain areas of human knowledge, pursuit or search for truth.
Now, how can the historian sort out the different reports?
If reason alone, reason alone, is not the ultimate criteria, which is what my times the use and the ultimate criteria? I think things of ultimate scalability is well taken in the question because I must emphasize again, that this is not an argument against Islam, in fact, isn't is definitely one of the criteria, one of the criteria that the historian should use in his or her analysis. But as the famous scholar, David Hume, as also quoted in a book to say that, basically, that for any sane human being, any sane person, who respect the mind, and respect the truth, there is only one condition for him to accept a report, whether that report relates to something familiar, or
something, which is extraordinary. And that condition, David Hume says, is that, that this report should reach us through sound and objective way. And in conformity with the basic rules of historical narration, historical narration, that means that the report must pass the tests of authenticity.
So what it says basically, is that if the report passes those tests, and is proven to be authentic, than any sane person has to accept, it's whether it deals with something ordinary, or extraordinary once it meets those conditions. And that's what I mean by saying that the methodology used by Dr. haikal and other orientation followed the same or he might have followed them actually, and their approach
is not a scientific approach because it rejects established authentic reports. It
priorities. That's simply because they are describing matters which are in the minds of the writers. Extraordinary and maybe in the minds of some extraordinary or miraculous means superstitious automatically, it is rejected regardless of the historical validity of the report. And as such, we find that the personal likes dislikes the individual perceptions is the basis really and not a an objective or scientific ground for acceptance or rejection. In fact, many times this might lead the writers to inevitable contradictions. And sometimes illogicality is greater than what the musicality is, before they are escaping from it might put them into even more difficulties. As we find, for
example, in the story of the army of Abraham, who came to destroy the Kaaba in the years in which Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him was, was born. The way hightech tried to explain it away is just totally unreasonable I, I would submit, it might be worthwhile, however, to give a brief background on our particular event, the attack by Abraham exactly ever him for the benefit of our viewers. Well, this is an event which was very well known among the herbs and in fact, the Quran also make mention to that it was not even before the revelation of the Quran.
And it is mentioned particularly in Surah, number 105. It's called and feed or the elephant. But basically, without getting into great detail is that in the years in which Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him was born, which is known as the year of the elephant.
That was around 575 71 in the Christian era, something very extraordinary happened.
The King of Abyssinia, which is now Ethiopia, at that time, his name was Abraham.
First, some reason, again, we're not getting into the details background, came with a big army,
accompanied by a number of huge militant
amendments, attacking the second house built by Prophet Abraham, for the worship of the one God, the Kaaba, which is still there in Nakano. And which also was very much adored and respected by the Arabs, even though they deviated from the true monotheistic faith of Abraham.
This army was so big and one,
that the herbs, especially in Mecca, where the Kaaba is situated, says that it was few times to really try to resist and stand against that army. So they withdrew to the overlooking mountains, and hence, and they just use the left abraha and his army Marsh, towards the comma.
Once again, without details, the army of Abraham was all of a sudden, attacked by group after group of birds, small birds, dropping
small stones, many small stones just like dry clay, on the heads of the attacking army. But those small stones thrown by helpless and very small birds, was enough to totally destroy and devastate the army of Abraham. And as the description goes in the Quran, it made them like chewed stroke and stroke, that they will cut into pieces.
Now, both the Muslims as well as the free Islamic herbs, have seen this, always, always seen that as a miraculous thing,
has something to do with the sacredness of the Kaaba.
And, and that actually was reflected in the statements of Abdullah Abdullah before Islam, even when he says, This house has a guard who's going to protect it when the army was marching towards the, towards the Kaaba. Now, Muslims see and that story, and in the fact that it happened in the very years in which Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him was born. A clears, reference, a clear indication that the one who is going to restore this Kaaba to the worship of the one true God, the last prophet Mohammed is around, and that God is going to protect that cabinet for him until he grows up and destroy it again, to the worship of the one God. Now, now, what is Hancock's position on this event?
Well, it appears that Dr. Hakan faces a dilemma in this respect. On one hand, he says in the beginning of his book that he accepts the Quran as his primary and most trusted source about
The life of the Prophet. On the other hand in his comment about that incident, he still try to avoid saying that it is American or else he will contradict what you consider to be a scientific approach.
That's why he resorted to something that was not very useful by speculating that the reason why the army of Abra was destroyed is that they were afflicted with a contagious disease with a smallpox. This kind of speculation is neither scientific nor logical. You're using yourself as a medical doctor. No, that's ridiculous to think of a an epidemic like this, spreading only in the army of Abra around the Kaaba, and not a few yards away to destroy the Arabs also who were dissidents of Mecca. Why was that
flag restricted to this particular location doesn't make any sense medically.
The second, the second reason for hikers mistake and this is that as Shatta Wale explains, that this incident happened
in the lifetime of many of those who oppose the Prophet because it happened at the time of his birth. So many of his contemporaries, or some at least, were eyewitnesses to what's happened. And many of them would bent on trying to discredit Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him and prove that his teaching is false. And the Quran is not true and all of that. And the Quran describes it exactly like this, that there were stones that destroyed the harm. If it did not happen exactly as the Quran described. Those enemies of the Prophet the unbelievers would have had the golden opportunity to discredit the prophet and destroy Islam in no time at all and without being a different but no one
will has ever changed that description in the Quran. Nobody ever said that it was not clay but it was a diseased because I was watching from the top of that in itself so that this theory of smallpox is totally ground this is totally unscientific, but based on personal whims rather than syndicated historical reports. Well, thank you very much, doctor. Thank you very much for joining us again here in SM focus.
Any questions or any comments would be most appreciated.
From all of us here Assalamualaikum and hope to see you next week, inshallah.