Oases of Wisdom

Check out our new video on Imam Al-Ghazali!! youtu.be/vm5Bw0i4rSM

Western Islamic Studies: Orientalist or Not? A new piece by me & @the_qadrii! A guide for Muslims to engage Western scholarship on Islam without sacrificing faith. Not to delegitimize scholarship or religion. (Link below)

Out now! open.substack.com/pub/oasesofwis…

@gooby_scotus Aquinas argued against some parts of Ibn Sina's philosophy (e.g., the eternity of the created world) and adopted other parts (e.g., the essence/existence distinction, applied to creatures but not to God). That's how philosophical influence usually works.

I genuinely think that one of the problems most people have in understanding these influences is that they seem so utterly esoteric to non- specialists. Here's a nice and succinct list:

@dmontetheno1 @oasis_wisdom Excited for this and much more :))

Very excited to announce the launch of the @oasis_wisdom Substack tomorrow! Our first publication will be a co-written article with my good friend from Oxford, @the_qadrii. This will function as a kind of academic journal, and we will be accepting submissions. More details soon!

@NuriSunnah From one patriarchy to another

Ex Muslim YouTube is such a male dominated field. We need more women voices.

@Hasan6747 @JawharDawood To add to your point, it demonstrates how the Quran was cleverly engaging notions relevant within it’s context (and beyond). As opposed to just appearing in a vacuum disconnected from the philosophical, theological and ethical milieus of its immediate audience.

@JawharDawood This is far from being a reductive lens. Instead, it showcases the Qur'an on its own terms, as can be seen in its creative re-articulation of biblical and post-biblical stories, allowing us to appreciate the originality of the theological points expressed in the Qur'an.

The Qur'an's intertextuality is often spun to strip its originality, framing it as a derivative of the Bible. This overlooks its unique voice & divine revelation. Time to rethink this reductive lens. #QuranicStudies #Orientalism

@MohammedAl72627 @chonkshonk1 @IanCook321 @Deenresponds Just to be clear guys, that’s the channel name referring to the philosophers and scholars we cover. I, personally, am not claiming to be an oasis of wisdom, though I’m sure anyone would love the title 🤣

DEBUNKING "GABRIEL REYNOLDS PSEUDO SCHOLARSHIP EXPOSED" by Muslim apologist @Deenresponds Recently, a Muslim apologist on this platform pumped out a poorly written hitpiece on an established historian of the Quran (Gabriel Said Reynolds). You can view it here: x.com/Deenresponds/s… Despite the comedic accusation of "pseudo-scholarship", Deenresponds only raises two minor points of minor disagreement with Reynolds' book The Quran and the Bible: Text and Commentary, a masterful collection of pre-Islamic Jewish/Christians parallels with the Quran. The first disagreement is about Q 9:111, which says (in the translation Deen posts): "Allah has indeed purchased from the believers their lives and wealth in exchange for Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah and kill or are killed. This is a true promise binding on Him in the Torah, the Gospel, and the Quran. And whose promise is truer than Allah's? So rejoice in the exchange you have made with Him. That is 'truly' the ultimate triumph." Deen focuses on Allah purchasing (1) "lives" and (2) "wealth" in exchange for paradise. The verse then specifies that it's talking about granting paradise to those who die on the battlefield "in the cause of Allah". Commenting on this passage, Reynolds wrote: "It is curious that the Qurʾān insists that the promise of heaven for holy warriors is found in the Torah and the Gospel (or "Evangel"); heaven is not found in the Torah and holy war is not found in the Gospels." Deen agrees that heaven is not found in the Torah, when used in the sense of the five books at the beginning of the Old Testament, but he argues that if we should think of the Quranic "Torah" as including the Jewish oral Torah (i.e. the Mishnah) as argued by Nicolai Sinai. Next, he tries to show that everything that Q 9:111 says is in the Gospel, and Torah, is in fact found in both. Regarding the Gospel, he says: 1. Heaven in exchange for someone's money is found in Matt 13:45-46, Mark 10:21 2. Heaven in exchange for your life is found in Matt 5:10 This unfortunately fails to understand the Quranic passage, which is not just about the exchange of your life for heaven, but is about granting Paradise for those who die on the battlefield "in the cause of Allah". More on this below. Regarding the Torah, he says: 1. Heaven in general is found in the Talmud (Bava Batra 10a) 2. Heaven in exchange for your life is found in 2 Maccabees 7:9 Both references fail. The oral Torah/Mishnah is not the same thing as the Talmud; the first reference is therefore irrelevant. While 2 Macc 7:9 does mention resurrection and eternal life, it does not mention "heaven" in the sense of an other-worldly Paradise that the souls of the righteous dead go to. The word "heaven" is used in v. 11, but only in the Ancient Near Eastern sense of heaven as being the abode of the divine located upwards. Also notice that unlike for the Gospel references above, Deen never provides an example from the Torah of money being taken in exchange for heaven. And once again, Deen provides no examples in the Torah of what Q 9:111 is talking about, even if we assumed 2 Macc 7:9 *was* talking about heaven or if we also included the Talmud into the Torah: the idea of Paradise being granted for those who die on the battlefield in holy war. This is because, to my knowledge, this idea is not actually found in these texts. The idea of Paradise being granted for those who die in holy war is poorly attested before Islam, primarily in the Byzantine war propaganda of the emperor Heraclius, the emperor during Muhammad's time. See Tommaso Tesei, "Heraclius' war propaganda and the Qurʾān's promise of reward for dying in battle," Studia Islamica (2019), pp. 219-247. Comedically, Deen literally knows that he has no references for these ideas either in the Gospel or the Torah, and just copes his way out of it by saying he "i don’t need to" provide such parallels because it's a "general promise" (??). In sum, Deen's arguments really don't give us much reason to doubt what Reynolds said. There's only one more problem Deen raises. In the same commentary by Reynolds on Q 9:111, Reynolds points out that Paul's letters also has the idea of God purchasing the believers. Deen, deeply confused, thinks that Reynolds is saying that this was the direct source for the Quran (he doesnt) and then claims that there are other texts which also have this idea (which is irrelevant; Reynolds' book doesnt claim to comprehensively identify all parallels in existence, Ive personally found dozens of parallels not mentioned in Reynolds book).

@chonkshonk1 @MohammedAl72627 @IanCook321 @Deenresponds Hmm, I would say the majority of academics I work with (I’m doing a PhD) are equally open to both. I don’t know any academic that has declined a chance to speak publicly, or in private to me, even on topics of disagreement. In fact, they seem to be very keen for the chance.

Im much more open to a dialogue with a respectful interlocutor, but ultimately, Id personally still probably not do it because, again, of the attention and sickling in of it by polemicists. In terms of actually discussing the data, Im at my best in written dialogue, so I have no reason to not represent myself in this way. You'll eventually find that even the majority of academics are uninterested in public/live debates even when they're given a respectful possible debate opponent.

@chonkshonk1 @MohammedAl72627 @IanCook321 @Deenresponds I meant that if you were to have a live public discussion with a respectable person, why would the topic be a problem? Even if it’s a matter that apologists and polemicists like, in theory, your respectful interlocutor would avoid the majority of the problems you speak about.

Yup, as I said a written debate is fine on a topic where a public debate isnt. Im pretty sure Ive already explained my method at some length here, but this should help: reddit.com/r/AcademicQura… Even in the last two days, Ive made numerous comments that explain different aspects as to why this preference exists (which my interlocutors have inadvertently proved that I was right about, including Deenresponds, Mohammed al-Firas, and MMADawg).

@chonkshonk1 @MohammedAl72627 @IanCook321 @Deenresponds But if they were to only write to you on those controversial topics, that wouldn’t really be an issue, would it? Im genuinely curious about your method here by the way, not trying to push you in a corner.

@oasis_wisdom @MohammedAl72627 @IanCook321 @Deenresponds Probably not, particularly in the case that we were discussing a subject that gets a lot of attention from polemicists.

@chonkshonk1 @MohammedAl72627 @IanCook321 @Deenresponds What about a public one with the same person?

@oasis_wisdom @MohammedAl72627 @IanCook321 @Deenresponds Yes.

@chonkshonk1 @MohammedAl72627 @IanCook321 @Deenresponds Would you ever have a private, live discussion with someone who you consider sincere and trustworthy?

>Even in a "written debate" ... you can't always fact-check others easily. I dont know why we're pretending that this isnt orders of magnitude more accessible in the course of a written debate as opposed to a live debate even if isnt ALWAYS doable 100% of the time. Sorry, this rebuttal smells of bullshit. >In a live debate, if you're familiar with the topic, you should be able to call out anything that's wrong most of the time. This is obviously false. Unless you're talking about career academics, the vast, vast majority of people who are familiar with a topic will still not be able to field any possible point that could randomly be brought up in the context of a debate. I have had numerous conversations with numerous knowledgeable people — sometimes even academics themselves — and there have been multiple occasions on which I have raised questions or specific references that they were not already familiar with. >I think the issue here is obviously that you just don't feel confident enough to debate someone in person I certainly know I would do better in a debate if I had the ability to take my sweet time composing my response, do any additional/necessary fact-checking, and pull up and quickly reread references on things Im 80% sure on before sending out my comment. So yes, you've admitted that you are specifically pushing a debate format comes at the cost of being able to formulate the strongest possible argument. This is because you're a Muslim apologist, you desperately want to see my get OwNEd instead of whats happening now (basically cooking these apologists in written discussions), and you're trying to gaslight me into it via "hAhA ur just not CONFIDENT enough for a live debate teehee". Obligatory repost — is the reason why Dan McClellan wont do live debates the *reason he says* it is, or is it actually because he, too, is secretly not confident and doesnt know anything without his many PDFs? >both because of lack of knowledge Is that why Ive repeatedly gotten the better of you across numerous written discussions, to the point where you regularly delete your comments from entire conversations with me after the fact because of how poorly it went? Youve deleted more comment replies to me than you actually still have up on your reddit account.

@Abd619Abdullah @chonkshonk1 @lambo_euro_swag @Deenresponds Then why not agree on finding and having a host like that. Besides, I’m sure the audience would be able to decide what isn’t relevant anyway. Also, strictly speaking, a lot of the ‘performative’ objections can be avoided by having a private, live discussion. If that is agreeable.

@oasis_wisdom @chonkshonk1 @lambo_euro_swag @Deenresponds I agree with you, however when coming to live debate it is better that the host is knowledgeable and have experience so they can shut down point and argument that arent relate to the subject at hand. That why debate are hated not because intellecutal discussion rather lack contr

@chonkshonk1 @lambo_euro_swag @Deenresponds Yes, I remember your comparative post. I don’t think live debates/discussions are inherently bad though, or something to be avoided. With a neutral host, it would be a good chance to explain and evaluate ideas over a shorter timespan. It’s better for the audience’s learning.

@oasis_wisdom @lambo_euro_swag @Deenresponds A quick discussion for the sake of it isnt an advantage. There is no shortage of issues with live debates, *especially* with apologists. I have a post on the sub comparing live to written debate.

@chonkshonk1 @lambo_euro_swag @Deenresponds Hey theQadri here from academicquran. I am not familiar with your interlocutor in this exchange and I understand your hesitancy to debate with apologists. However, if there is a neutral moderator, why not have a live debate? It would be quicker and more interesting imho.

@lambo_euro_swag @Deenresponds Whats wrong with a normal written debate? A bit uncomfortable if you cant talk over the other person and bait with gotchas?

@NuriSunnah Wassalaam. We have been following your posts (and others) closely and with interest 🕵️‍♂️. Hope you are well too inshallah, always up for a chat.

@oasis_wisdom Ahmad, you suck at everything, and you will never be anything in your entire life. Also, hope you have been well, my friend! سلام 😊😂🙏🏼

In at least some verses, the Qur'ānic endorsement of biblical literature is selective, not unreserved. Contrary to the claims of some, Q 16:43 appears to be a case in point!

there should be more companies that are 400 years old. it’s fun and makes you feel confident doing business with them

I grew up watching this guy justify atrocities against my native country. So this was very satisfying.