d like to note that although Patricia Crone has the retracted the conclusion mad

e in Hagarism she still considers the ahadith to be problematic. Consider the fo

llowing excerpt from her article "What do we know about Muhammad" in Open Democr
acy (2008).
"The purpose of such reports was to validate Islamic law and doctrine, not to re
cord history in the modern sense, and since they were transmitted orally, as ver
y short statements, they easily drifted away from their original meaning as cond
itions changed. (They were also easily fabricated, but this is actually less of
a problem.) They testify to intense conflicts over what was or was not true Isla
m in the period up to the 9th century, when the material was collected and stabi
lised; these debates obscured the historical nature of the figures invoked as au
thorities, while telling us much about later perceptions"
In my opinion this does not mean we should be pessimistic about ahadith reliabil
ity. But a new approach is required to examine the hadiths. I find the common li
nk approach of Schacht and Juynboll to be a step foreword. Motzki's combined isn
ad and matn approach is also interesting. Now modern hadith specialist are widel
y divergent on these issues. I still think we look at these approaches to get a
holistic understanding of ahadith and the early history. So it does makes sense
to read about people who disagree on these issues. In the hope of that there mig
ht a synthetic methodology developed in the future that scholars can agree on.
June 2, 2013 at 12:41 AM
Asadullah Ali said...
ABCshake,
I agree that she has not retracted her conclusions entirely and she still holds
to the idea that the hadith are not fully reliable. She is still among the Revis
ionists scholars.
And I agree with you that there should be a more holistic account of how hadith
are interpreted. This has already begun, however, in the traditional school of t
hought. There are several studies already released from a traditional perspectiv
e dealing with hadith criticism.
Further, one such madhab is primarily more concerned with this than any other the school of Medina (Maliki), since we prioritize the historical realities of a
community moreso than mere transmissions. Even if a hadith is considered "authe
ntic" we do not adopt it if it does not accord with the historical reality of th
e Amal of Medina. As such, this technique has been further projected into other
studies in our school.
June 2, 2013 at 2:22 AM
ABCshake said...
Are you talking about the modern Maliki school or the ancient one? I wonder if t
hey've taken modern redaction criticism into account. Then that's pretty progres
sive.
June 2, 2013 at 8:12 AM
Anonymous said...
Asadullah Ali,
"Since we prioritize the historical realities of a community moreso than mere tr
ansmissions" - What exactly is meant by 'the historical realities of a community
'? How are these realities ascertained, in particular the Amal of Medina, if not
through tradition?
Regards
June 2, 2013 at 11:18 AM

CaptainDisguise said...
Self named "Lion-of-God", I am fully aware of that history. Furthermore, the sam
e title was also shared by Ali the cousin of Muhammad. It is something I learned
in Islamic studies classes back in elementary school.
Yet, this still would not change the point behind my side ridicule of your prete
ntiousness. In other words, given the person you are, one would expect you to do
something such as naming yourself "Lion-of-God". By your own justification, you
say you wanted to show appreciation for Hamza, yet you named yourself "Lion-ofGod" rather than, let's say, "Hamza". Telling in a way I think.
Moving on to more important points, here we go again with your trivial obsession
w/ selected phrases or words; all the while completely missing the main point t
hat is being stated.
To say that for an "accurate" study of Islam, one should consult such and such s
cholars; is NOT to say that the said scholars must agree with each other on ever
y syllable.
How hard is it to get this simple point into whatever you have for a mind?
It seems you just like to grasp at such silly straws, all the while projecting y
our hatred, desperation, irresponsibility and irrationality on to others. And pr
ojecting your own weaknesses on to other seems like the only think you are truly
fond of.
P.S. I am discussing topics that are of interest to me, and having to defend Kli
ngschor at times is merely an incidental part of defending my own position. Perh
aps, you'd like to stop grasping at straws now?
June 2, 2013 at 3:11 PM
Asadullah Ali said...
ABC and Anonymous,
I'm referring to the traditional school of Maliki that has evolved quite conside
rably over time.
Further, transmissions and the Amal of Medina can be different. Transmissions th
at may have come from other locals but were contrary to the practices of the peo
ple of Medina and our methods were to be rejected despite how sound the narratio
ns were.
June 3, 2013 at 12:16 AM
Asadullah Ali said...
CaptainDis,
Please. Spare me your psychoanalysis. I chose Hamza's nickname instead of "Hamza
" by suggestion of my previous Sheikh. I won't argue with you any further on thi
s because of your pettiness to attack me for a name choice in projection of your
own egoism.
Further, there is no 'trivial obsession with words', but mere academic integrity
being practiced here. For a person who hails himself as an aspiring scholar and
attempts to write academic material, Klingschor should be careful with the word
s and sources he uses.
Once again, as I've pointing out on numerous occasions -- both in video and here
-- I am well aware of academic disagreements and Im not against presenting dive

rse views as long as their general methodologies and base theories do not contra
dict to the point of canceling each other out entirely.
You just have yet to admit or come to terms with the fact that Klingschor is onl
y choosing a select group of scholars because they present information that is p
rimarily skeptical of the Islamic source material or confirm his already preconc
eived notions. No where does he select people like, Hamza Yusuf, who is FAR more
educated on the subject of Islam than most of his listed scholars, despite not
being hailed in academic circles.
This obsession he and you seem to have with secular trained academics is a bias
you still have yet to support and, as it appears, will continue not to support g
iven your loyalty to the dogma of anti-theism or anti-Islam.
Your counter responses are merely pathetic attempts at some sort of rebuttal, ma
king it clear that in every exchange we've had up until this point you have fail
ed to understand the complexities of the debate and overestimated your abilities
as any sort of intellectual.
This also explains why you constantly have to defend Klingschor, because despite
his gross errors, he is clearly more capable rationally than you are -- and you
know that.
The best course of action for you, however, is to merely sit back and continue t
ackling your "hard subjects", like the topics of "embryology in the Qur'an", sin
ce youre incapable of doing anything more than criticizing a poor mans apologeti
cs.
When you decide to educate yourself and stop pretending that you have something
important to say as a product of your ex-Muslim status, then by that time we may
be able to have a equal conversation. Until then, Im tired of lecturing you.
Have a nice day.
June 3, 2013 at 12:27 AM
CaptainDisguise said...
Self-named Lion of God,
I certainly will refrain from commenting about a person who in one breath says "
spare me your psychoanalysis" and in the next breath, goes on to do the same him
self. In fact it seems most of your post only reflects your own inability to tak
e your own advice. Moving on...
Of course it is a very trivial obsession with selected words or phrases; an obse
ssion borne out of your contempt for those critical of the delusion you chose to
adhere to.
For at no point did Klingschor actually say that every statement or view made by
those on the list of scholars are entirely accurate. At no point was it stated
that everyone on the list follows a same or similar methodology to every last le
tter.
These were merely your strawman claims (your favorite activity I suppose) that y
ou either projected on to or uncharitably extrapolated from what Klingschor actu
ally said. I am guessing you could not find anything substantial so you had to g
rasp for these straws and the proceeded to construct a strawman (which is starti
ng to seem like your only skill). The very fact you appear to not grasp such ele
mentary concepts really reveals the depth of your frustration, hatred or irratio
nality.

Regarding the hodgepodge you are trying to brew with phrases like "the bias of s
ecularism" or "the dogma of anti-theism", get a clue for once. The worst form of
stupidity/ dishonesty, in my opinion, is when one misuses language to make absu
rd claims look substantial.
It is like saying those who want to be truthful have a "bias for truth" and ther
efore are no better or worse than those who have a "bias for lies". In such an e
xample, there is a complete misuse of the word "bias" and you are tying to stand
on a similar misuse. Pitiful!
Regarding the "dogma of anti-theism", you have once again not understood what Kl
ingschor or I or several others are actually advocating. We have not once sugges
ted that anyone start from an a priori position that theism if false.
Rather, what we advocate is better described as the "presumption of Atheism". As
the philosopher Anthony Flew put it,
"The presumption of atheism ... lays it down that thorough and systematic inquir
y must start from a position of negative atheism, and that the burden of proof l
ies on the theist proposition. Yet this is not at all the same thing as demandin
g that the debate should proceed on either a positive or a negative atheist assu
mption, which must preclude a theist conclusion. Counsel for theism no more betr
ays his client by accepting the framework determined by this presumption than co
unsel for the prosecution betrays the state by conceding the legal presumption o
f innocence."
And here is Anthony Flew's bit on delusional people like you,
"But I know from experience that many do find it difficult to grasp, at least in
its application to the present highly controversial case. Theists fear that if
once they allow this procedural presumption they will have sold the pass to the
atheist enemy. Most especially when the proponent of this procedure happens to b
e a known opponent of theism, the theist is inclined to mistake it that the proc
edure itself prejudicially assumes an atheist conclusion. But this, as the compa
rison with the legal presumption of innocence surely makes clear, is wrong. Such
presumptions are procedural and not substantive; they assume no conclusion, eit
her positive or negative."
Like I said, get a clue for once! You make it inescapably apparent in almost eve
ry statement you make that as hard as you try, you still cannot hide from the ir
rational fundamentalist "poor man's apologist" that you are.
June 3, 2013 at 4:21 PM
CaptainDisguise said...
As stated in a previous post, at times I have defended Klingschor (much the same
way he has done for me), which is in the larger picture, an incidental aspect o
f defending my own positions. It is still unclear to me why you persist on grasp
ing at this straw. I smell some jealousy in that Klingschor gets someone like my
self to defend him while you are left with morons like Ramey.
And indeed, let Klingschor be more rational, educated, eloquent and whatever els
e than I am; I am most happy for him. BUT there is something both Kling and I do
know for sure, and that is the fact that we are both more rational and honest t
han you ever were.
Regarding the "hard subjects" like "embryology in the Quran" that I deal with, o
nce again, get a clue!
In fact, I have stated several times that these miracle apologetics, whether sci
ence in the quran or inimitability of the quran, are retarded. Dealing with them

is a cakewalk, they are the very opposite of "hard subjects".

And don't forget that you belong on the same list of the silly apologists. You c
ertainly demonstrated that with your "flat earth" video! (Can I suggest that you
clean your own mess up before I do it for you?)
Unfortunately though, even if you are in denial of this, most of your Muslim bro
thers and sisters (including my own literal ones) are retards who buy into such
"poor man's apologetics".
If that wasn't the case, I never would have stepped on to this debating platform
since that is sort of the boundary of my interest pertaining to Islam. Unlike K
lingshor, I have no interest in making a career out of being an Academic. What I
do for a living and where my actual career is going is in a polar opposite dire
ction to that of klingschor's.
Of course, I still have enough respect for academic theology. It is due to that
respect that in all the years I have been on youtube, I have not once made a vid
eo on the topic and only stick with the "retarded" apologetics that most muslims
follow. It is due to that respect that I admire Klingschor's work and it is for
the same respect that I think you are a joke!
P.S. Nice; 'those not in your imagined monocle-wearing elitist academic bubble,
are not your equals'. This is why people think you are delusional nutjob who nee
ds to seek professional help.
Oh Have a nice day too!
June 3, 2013 at 4:31 PM
Asadullah Ali said...
CaptainDis,
Once again, you prove your incapable of entering this discussion.
No where did I claim he believed them to be entirely accurate. I make this expli
cit in my previous analysis and here. I was merely pointing out his inability to
be fair in the discourse and to pick people simple based on his anti-theistic/a
nti-islam tendencies, which he does quite readily by rejecting people because he
believes their religion makes them unreliable and "skews their worldview", whic
h shows he has one he is upholding in its stead.
Further, Im quite aware of Flew. My entire thesis is critiquing that perspective
. Please refrain from actually thinking you know the full extent of his ideas in
the Presumption of Atheism, much less the implications -- which are backed by s
everal positive beliefs. Perhaps you'd like to study up on Alvin Platinga or Mic
hael Heumer and their perspectives. Or maybe you'd like to look into Syed Muhamm
ad Naqib al-Attas? I don't know. Im sure you won't dare go near them given their
shared theism...since, you know, theists can't 'get it right' by default.
Further, I have no jealousy with people as yourself and Klingschor, the former c
ompletely untrained and the other thinking himself credible despite going agains
t most of his professors and still being an undergraduate with no where to go an
d only YT as his greatest achievement. So please, stop flattering yourself.
And it's nice you think I'm a "delusional nutjob". Im sure you're highly respect
ed given your trust in non-authorities and your obsession with poor man's apolog
etics.
Done with you. Like always, you'll remain a bag of hot air and nothing more with
no where to go and no achievements...and I feel satisfied with that alone.

So yes, I certainly will have a nice day :)

June 3, 2013 at 5:41 PM

Asadullah Ali said...
Oh, and "you're". Sorry for the typo :)
June 3, 2013 at 5:42 PM
Norman Dates said...
Who would have known that a simple interview regarding a book would cause such a
bitch fight :P
June 4, 2013 at 7:13 AM
CaptainDisguise said...
Self-named Lion of God,
Highlighting yet another trait you share with the poor man's Muslim apologists,
you display a common tactic among dawahgandists called "back-pedaling".
After all, it was you who made an entire video on the basis that certain names o
n Klingschor's list disagreed with each other and as such this point was then us
ed to derive your non-sequitur conclusion that Klingschor was logically inconsis
tent while ironically revealing you do not even possess a basic intuition of log
ic, let alone any significant analytical skills. Even here you had stated the fo
llowing in a previous post,
"[Klingschor] has claimed that all the scholars he appeals to are generally "acc
urate" regarding Islam, but most of them discredit each other to such an extent
that it's hard to take that claim seriously unless he counts massive contradicti
ons in foundational theories as "accurate".
Yet now you wish to clear your name by denying that your prior implication was e
ver the case as you state the following,
No where did I claim [Klingschor] believed [the adademics on the list] to be ent
irely accurate."
(I will predict your next step in backpedaling would involve the use of your wor
ds "generally" and "entirely".)
Of course, it was clear to all and it certainly should have been clearer to you
then that it matters not for Klingschor's claims that there exists disagreements
between his own preferred scholars.
What was a very simple point, grasped by those who can listen, was then bent out
of proportion for what I can only assume was your ill-will towards those like K
lingschor, to then produce a senseless response made of straws. Yet now you wish
to be obscure when your silly pettiness has been exposed.
Furthermore, as yet another example of your inability to analyze or comprehend w
hat others are stating, you completely dodge the point I made regarding Anthony
Flew's principle called the presumption of Atheism; very specifically negative a
theism. It matters not what you may or may not have been aware of since I was sp
ecifically pointing to the fact that you are factually incorrect in stating that
I or others like me follow a "dogma of anti-theism". Instead, I correctly show
that an accurate representation would be Flew's view. Yet here you are dodging t
he fact that you were misrepresenting us by proceeding to irrelevant name-droppi

ng followed by more projections and false assumptions (perhaps you figured your
sole refuge here is sophistry and sophistry alone).
You certainly have a bright future as yet another feebleminded Islamic apologist
. I am sure iERA is hiring and paying good money.
It is absolutely not nice to have to say that you are a "delusional nutjob". How
- See more at: http://awaisaftab.blogspot.com/2013/05/lorientalist-on-history-of
-quran.html#sthash.qToNEfuA.dpuf