<thread🧵>
A short thread on how there are no good arguments against Islam.
When attempting to argue against Islam they will either end up proving Islam true or prove anti-Islam arguments are illogical.
Relevant paper to keep in mind while you read.
sciencedirect.com
A short thread on how there are no good arguments against Islam.
When attempting to argue against Islam they will either end up proving Islam true or prove anti-Islam arguments are illogical.
Relevant paper to keep in mind while you read.
sciencedirect.com
These arguments fall into two categories. The 1st type of the arguments is usually always something that is based on the Hadith.
It's usually some illogical moral argument, like Muhammad's marriages or his actions (ﷺ) in statecraft. But they always gloss over one fact.
It's usually some illogical moral argument, like Muhammad's marriages or his actions (ﷺ) in statecraft. But they always gloss over one fact.
The way they know these things happened is because the Sahih Hadith said so.
In short the Sahih Hadith as essentially historical records of things that happened back then.
In other words they have accepted that the Sahih Hadith are a valid record of history.
In short the Sahih Hadith as essentially historical records of things that happened back then.
In other words they have accepted that the Sahih Hadith are a valid record of history.
And the Sahih Hadith record that Muhammad (ﷺ) preformed miracles that was witnessed by everyone including his opponents.
So it doesn't really matter what actions Muhammad (ﷺ) did, who he married, etc.
The fact is that he preformed miracles & therefore is the messenger of God.
So it doesn't really matter what actions Muhammad (ﷺ) did, who he married, etc.
The fact is that he preformed miracles & therefore is the messenger of God.
You can't pick and choose which Hadith you want to accept & which you don't. They are all graded with the same methodology.
By saying one Sahih Hadith is inaccurate you are saying the methodology & anything based on said methodology is also inaccurate.
By saying one Sahih Hadith is inaccurate you are saying the methodology & anything based on said methodology is also inaccurate.
Now that brings us to the 2nd type of these arguments.
Ones that are based on denying the Hadith/Quran (since both use this methodology for preservation)
AKA: the "Revisionist School of Islamic Studies"; a very fringe form of Orientalism that borders on conspiracy theories
Ones that are based on denying the Hadith/Quran (since both use this methodology for preservation)
AKA: the "Revisionist School of Islamic Studies"; a very fringe form of Orientalism that borders on conspiracy theories
The first and most obvious problem with doing this, is that you might as well deny all history if your gonna deny the hadith as an accurate source of historical records.
Especially when not even Western historiography is as rigorous as the isnad system.
brill.com
Especially when not even Western historiography is as rigorous as the isnad system.
brill.com
The reason they deny it is because they have an inherent bias where they just cannot accept that Muhammad (ﷺ) preformed miracles.
If they were true to themselves and actually accepted this history, they'd have no choice but to accept Muhammad (ﷺ) is the Messenger of God.
If they were true to themselves and actually accepted this history, they'd have no choice but to accept Muhammad (ﷺ) is the Messenger of God.
This notion of denying Hadith is so wrong that a revisionist Orientalist, Patricia Crone herself later dismissed her own ideas in "Hagarism", as one of her students, Robert Hoyland, had shown that *non-Islamic* sources on early Islam *coincide* with Islam's own historiography.
Farid made a good video on it here, it's a short 5 minute video you should take your time watching.
You'll see how so much rigorous work was put into the Hadith to make sure it was reliable, something Western historiography does not even come close to.
youtube.com
You'll see how so much rigorous work was put into the Hadith to make sure it was reliable, something Western historiography does not even come close to.
youtube.com
And that's it.
Either:
a) they use the Hadith & also have to also accept Muhammad (ﷺ) preformed miracles
*or*
b) deny all of history & anything they have not witnessed themselves
Anti-Islam arguments are very illogical, and not based on reasonable thinking.
</thread🧵>
Either:
a) they use the Hadith & also have to also accept Muhammad (ﷺ) preformed miracles
*or*
b) deny all of history & anything they have not witnessed themselves
Anti-Islam arguments are very illogical, and not based on reasonable thinking.
</thread🧵>
Loading suggestions...