Islamic expansions, Campaigns, The Mongols, Muslim rulers, Sacred history, Historical objectivity, Orientalism, Hadith criticism

We touch on all of this with Hassam Munir.

Hassam Munir is currently pursuing an MA in Mediterranean and Middle East History at the University of Toronto. He is a research fellow at Yaqeen Institute. He has experience in the fields of journalism and public history, and was recognized as an Emerging Historian at the 2017 Heritage Toronto Awards.

Hosts : Tanzim & Rafael

Please email us your comments, feedback, and questions at: info@boysinthecave.com, and leave a review and 5-star rating on iTunes!

Check out our website - boysinthecave.com

Follow us on: Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/boysinthecave/

Instagram – @boysinthecave

Twitter - @boysinthecave

Become a Patreon today! https://www.patreon.com/boysinthecave

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hassam's Online Visibility

https://twitter.com/HassamM_

https://www.ihistory.co/

https://www.facebook.com/hassammm

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shownotes

Intro: 00:00:00

Tanzim: 00:00:16 Welcome back to another episode of boys in the cave. My name is Tanzim and I'm joined by my cohost Rafael and alhamdullilah I'm joined by someone very special today. So Hassam Munir one year is the, is our special guest today and he is currently pursuing an MBA in Mediterranean and Middle East. History at the University of Toronto is a research fellow at Yaqeen Institute. He has experience in the field of journalism and public history and was recognized as an emerging historian as at the 2017 heritage Toronto awards. So Assalam Walaykum Hassan and welcome to boys in the cave.

Hassam: 00:00:52 Walaykum Assalam thank you so much for the invitation

Tanzim: 00:00:56 JazakAllah Khayr for uh coming on accepting our invitation and actually just doing some background research. I saw you were on, um, you've already done a few interviews, you know, you're in involved with Yaqeen institute, so how has your experience been just doing all that sort of stuff when it comes to, you know, putting your material out there even I'm, I've seen some blogs and articles that you've done as well.

Hassam: 00:01:19 Uh, yeah, absolutely. My entire, um, you know, reason for getting into the field of history has always been about just trying to make that knowledge more accessible because there's, you know, a lot of amazing research that's done at universities, uh, by independent researchers, even by some of the traditional, uh, traditionally trained Islamic scholars around the world. And, but it never sort of reaches the public in a way that they can, uh, you know, easily engage with it and learn from it and find inspiration in it. So I just tried to take information from some of these, you know, thick, dusty books in libraries and these journal articles that people generally will not find or go looking for and try to repackage that information and presented in a way that people, uh, are sort of, um, you know, there's a shock value to it that wow, is this also Islamic history? Is this also what Muslims have done or what Muslims have experienced? Um, and, uh, I think it makes for a much more, uh, thorough and, uh, a much more, uh, you know, appreciated understanding of, uh, who we are as Muslims and what our tradition is all about.

Tanzim: 00:02:28 Yeah. I think for sure starting from the very beginning of Islamic history, and I know this is something that a lot of your research has gone into, the kind of spread of Islam and the nature of that. Um, but one of the things that brought me to Islam was actually studying history. So I study history at University of Sydney and um, mashAllah, I was really, yeah, if you saw my marks, you wouldn't be saying that, but I have the low things. Everything's going all right so far. But I suppose one of the things that brought

Rafael: 00:03:00 me to Islam was my fascination with Islamic history. I remember when I was about 13 or 14 years old, I found this dusty old history textbook in the back of a library at school one day. And I just flipped through it cause it's always been my life. History has always been my passion and, and the thing I wanted to make a career out of. So I remember picking up this dusty old textbook and it had in the Islamic world to 1600 and I think I read that 10 page chapter about 150 times and I just couldn't take my eyes and my hands off it. It was the most fascinating thing I'd ever read. I obviously hadn't heard much about Islam growing up too in a, in a non Muslim family in the West. Um, but picking up this textbook, I was kind of entranced by Islam.

Rafael: 00:03:45 It's symbols and the early history and, and, and it's the way it kind of burst forth this tiny isolated peninsula, uh, that had been of little interest to anyone, uh, for, you know, the Romans, the Persians, no one really cared about the Arabian peninsula and, and, and especially the hedgers, um, and then how it spread to become this empire of science and, and culture, uh, being very important as well. So for people who aren't really aware of the beginnings of Islam and how it spread from sort of, you know, a very small group of Arab, um, and Abyssinian, uh, followers in a very isolated part of the world to kind of global religion that flourished from China all the way to the Pyrenees in France. Um, how did that, how did that happen and what were the sort of, you know, what was the sort of breakdown of, of that transformation?

Hassam: 00:04:48 Um, so that's obviously a very, very large complex question that people, um, you know, you could dedicate your entire life to studying it and people have and you only end up scratching the surface. Right? Um, there's many questions within that. Um, you're right in that it was an incredible, um, transportation, uh, sorry TransformNation I should say at the global level. And um, but it was very much, uh, the foundations were very much laid, um, during the lifetime of Prophet Mohammad. So Allahu la was sending himself. And this is something we sometimes, uh, you know, fail to recognize in this larger question of Islamic history and the spread of Islam, et Cetera, is that the principles and the values and, um, the precedents that were set by the profits of the law while they was selling them and his followers around him, um, have remained the, uh, consistently accessible source of inspiration for Muslims throughout history.

Hassam: 00:05:52 So obviously in this question we have many different questions about and um, Muslims conquering certain areas of the world, Islam spreading to certain areas of the world, uh, through other sort of factors and mechanisms such as trade, such as migration, such as intermarriage, such as influential people in different societies converting to Islam and their followers sort of following them into Islam. So there's these many different factors as well as the scientific production of the Muslims, you know, inheriting all this knowledge from the pre Islamic civilizations and developing it, uh, with the purpose of understanding, um, the creation of a loss of hunter who with Eila, and then also sharing it further back with other civilizations. So, you know, it's a very complex, there's so many angles that we can go on here on this question. But I think a key thing to keep in mind as a starting point is that it is the consistency of Islam that has been exceptional throughout history.

Hassam: 00:06:58 A lot of movement start, a lot of developments happen, a lot of new ideas and ideologies emerge in history. But over time, as they spread to different places, they become very drawn out. They become stretched in to the point that whatever you know, connection, um, whatever original source, uh, they had that brought it together initially. Um, it had become so different and so distant from that that it's almost like you have, you know, different ideologies and it's a completely different thing. But Islam has always been Islam and the core on obviously the authoritative source, the Sunnah of The Prophet SAW as the authoritative source. And the Islamic tradition. So well organized right from the very beginning. You know, the process through which Islamic knowledge was produced, that no matter where Islam went, whether it went to China, whether it went to South America, whether it went to Europe, whether it went to small islands in the Pacific, at different points in history, Islam could be practiced keeping those core principles and those core practices of the tradition intact while also taking whatever was acceptable in the local culture and local customs and bringing that into the way Islam was practiced.

Hassam: 00:08:16 And I think that's part of the beauty of our history.

Rafael: 00:08:19 One of the points I kind of wanted to touch upon fall was that that is certainly been the case. Um, I think certainly, I think probably from a later sort of time, a lot of people would argue that early Islamic history was actually quite fractured. Uh, you know, you had the kind of [inaudible] theological differences. For example, you had like my Teslas and Ashley's, which actually became a very political difference during the time of the manner. Uh, but you also had the kind of insurrectionists, uh, hardy. Jeez, you had the [inaudible] movements and then you had the Condo of

Tanzim: 00:08:56 Plethora of impious Caliphs who didn't really seek to do anything except for advanced their own position. So how, how did you know, how does that sort of fit into the understanding that Islam was traditionally maintained to? Because even people say that motel z lights, like if it didn't get backing from the government, then we would have all been from the Airbus. Yeah. From, from [inaudible]. That's where the issue comes is like, do we truly have that, um, tradition intact and are we really, um, continue that tradition that we see from whistle whistle some or was it kind of dictated by the governments or the powers of the time?

Hassam: 00:09:37 Um, if, you know, it's a point that can be argued. Um, and I think there are some arguments, uh, you know, good arguments that could be made on, um, many different perspectives and approaches to how we answered this question. My argument would be that there has still, uh, been that consistency, um, relative to the way that other ideas, other, uh, worldviews, ways of understanding the world have spread throughout history. Within Islam, there has still been that a consistency and still been that, um, regular, um, you know, consistent reference back to the original sources. So yes, there have been many different movements. Um, there have been many different understandings as there continued to be today. Many, you know, accepted and many non accepted differences of opinion. Um, and I think, you know, once again it speaks to diversity, um, that is possible within the Islamic tradition and how, um, sort of Islam can respond to different contexts and different, um, you know, situations without using its essential reality.

Hassam: 00:10:47 Um, but at the same time I would argue that that consistency has remained. Yes, there were very, uh, you know, um, very pronounced sort of differences between people, uh, practicing Islam or claiming to practice Islam in different ways and different forums. Um, and it's, sometimes it is very clear when, um, they seem to have really pushed the boundaries of what we can consider the Islamic tradition. But I would still argue that there has been, um, this, you know, I think historically speaking from a historical lens, the fact that, um, even today a Muslim from Siberia and Russia can travel, um, and find a must Jude in sub Saharan Africa, in west Africa and go inside the Messenger and they wouldn't need an introduction to what they have to do. The fact that they know that they're do certain things that they have to do, the fact that they know where to stand for the prayer, what is being recited, et Cetera, all of these things, um, the fact that we can expect that to be a normative case, I think that is a very exceptional thing about the Islamic tradition within human history. Because rarely, extremely rarely, and to be honest, I wouldn't, um, find any comparable example of that level of, uh, shared, um, you know, core principles, values, beliefs and practices, um, in any other worldview that has existed and spread so far in the world, uh, throughout Islam, throughout human history, I should say.

Rafael: 00:12:21 I would certainly agree with that in the sense that Islam was maintained, uh, from a very early, from a very, very early time in kind of this understanding of traditional knowledge and knowledge of the tsunami that that was, uh, transmitted through various teachers to all the teachers who kept the, the traditional life. Um, and you know, we still have preserved aspects of the early foundational takes of Islamic law for example, um, that have been authentically transmitted and we still use them as a source today. And I don't think that there are really, as you mentioned, any other major religious or cultural traditions that can claim that. But one of the points I really wanted to ask you about was how did religion inform the early conquests of the Muslim empires, particularly? Um, the one that, that first springs to mind, and it was probably the most significant, was the, uh, defeat the invasion and defeat of both the Byzantines empire.

Rafael: 00:13:19 So the Roman Byzantines in Syria and the Persians, cause everyone understand sort of that Muslims defeated the Persians and the Romans. It was always that prophecy with, uh, I'm fairly sure a full loss of la La Hello. Someone mentioned that, you know, the two great empires and pals of the time would be defeated by the Muslims and people kind of laughed at that, but then eventually they did. But how, how did religion inform those movements? So some people would certainly claim that it was a, a kind of Muslims were implored to go out militarily and expand the empire. Was it, was it, was that the case or was it more kind of, I've also heard people say that it just so happened that the Muslims became embroiled in conflicts with these two powers and then, uh, consequently they, those two powers were defeated by Muslim armies and hence Muslims occupied the lands.

Hassam: 00:14:16 Um, so, you know, one of the things I always like to, you know, emphasize in my research, um, for most topics in Islamic history or history in general, is that we often seek, um, very straightforward sort of, uh, you know, simple answers to extremely complicated situations. If we take the life of one individual, whether today or a thousand years ago, if I take my own life and why I make my decisions, how I make my decisions, how my decisions impact my environment, how am I environment responds and impacts my further decisions? It's a very complicated process regardless of what my, uh, stated, uh, purpose, what my stated inspiration might be. Right. So that's one thing to keep in mind, not to say that this isn't a question that needs to be discussed, but I think that's very important to keep in mind before we jump into that discussion.

Hassam: 00:15:12 Now you mentioned the two sort of primary, uh, you know, commonplace perspectives on this question. I think, um, the latter one is more, you know, the, the, the perspective which says that the Muslims, um, became embroiled in the, uh, you know, the political developments in the region. Um, I think that one is just a bit more, um, you know, leaning towards d, You know, a reasonable interpretation of the sources we have available. Let me put it that way. But at the same time, there was this, uh, you know, this impetus, right? There are, these are Heidi from the profits of the law who leu was along himself that predict these, uh, particular conquests of the Byzantines and assassinate Persians, um, in particular and also Islam reaching particular places. So initially I think the most reasonable explanation is that initially during the life of the profits of the law, who, while he was selling them and his early successors, what the idea was that, um, the message of Islam had to be communicated and in cases where there were, um, limitations on the communication of that message.

Hassam: 00:16:35 Um, and you know, part of the communication of that message was the political situation of the Muslims because from the perspective of people in the Byzantine Empire, indecisive and empire, um, they recognize this suddenly emerging threat just because of how, um, fast Islam spread in the Arabian peninsula itself. Right? So for them it was this serious threat. It wasn't the Muslims, like, you know, a fly sort of going and landing on their nose and them trying to like swat it away or something that initially caused these things, but they recognize Islam and we have a Heidi's and narrations that, you know, tell us to that effect as well that they were concerned. And for example, um, you know, when I was Sophie on, uh, before he embraces Islam, he goes to Syria on a trade mission, a heraclitis. He actually, you know, gives him a little interview about who is this person [inaudible] then he's asking all of these questions because they need this information.

Hassam: 00:17:33 So it wasn't a Muslim, you know, insurgency into these empires that started these conflicts initially. Um, there was this, um, idea on, you know, the end on the side of the Muslims within the understanding and the worldview of the Muslims. And this was normative at the time, um, that they had to communicate this message and this worldview and they had to brush aside some of the impediments. Right. But at the same time, you know, on the other side, there was this more political, um, perspective on the situation that this is an emerging sort of regional power and we have to respond to it. So oftentimes you'll find the Roman armies coming two words Arabia rather than the Muslims going to words Roman controlled sham first. Right? So again, it becomes a very complicated situation once the Muslims have actually established their rule there. And even the conquest, I mean, the word conquest is very broad and very easy to use to explain, um, wary complex events again, but not all places were militarily conquered.

Hassam: 00:18:44 Some places, uh, the Muslim armies were actually welcomed by the local people because they were seen as liberator's from more oppressive rulers who had ruled in that region before. Right. And in some places there were treaties made, there was no conflict, there were treaties made, and then the Muslims receded and went back, et cetera. So there were all these different types of scenarios that played out in different situations. Yes, there's no denying. And I think Muslims sometimes do go, you know, overstep when it comes to denying that there was a, a military and there was a violent aspect to the conquest at times. But when you see, for example, you know, one of my favorite examples is business insider. This online blog. Um, they had this animation that they posted a few years ago on Facebook, which shows the spread of different religions and you know, they show when it comes to Islam, obviously it quickly, this little green splotch on the map emerges and you know, around the year six 22 and then it just explodes and spreads all over North Africa, Asia, everything is everywhere all of a sudden.

Hassam: 00:19:55 And the fact too, I think the important thing to really recognize here is that the spread and the movement of Muslim armies can't be equated with the spread of Islam itself. Because the real question here is many historians will recognize that yes, it was normative for one people to conquer another people than for different particular localities. There'll be under one empire, then there'll be under another empire. And this was how the premodern world, um, worked. Right. Um, but the real problematic question is that well, were all those people then forced to convert to Islam at the point of the sword when those armies actually got there and what these maps and these animations kind of, uh, mislead people into thinking is that just because the Muslim armies within a hundred years had reached Spain and had reached the of China and all these places? You know, even at the time in many places in Arabia, Islam hadn't been established in the sense that the majority of the population was Muslim, much less anywhere outside the Arabian peninsula.

Hassam: 00:20:59 And obviously that's a different question, you know, all together about how did Islam actually spread the pace of it, the mechanisms and factors involved. But I think the key thing to keep in mind is that yes, the reconquest yes, at times that were violent at times of are nonviolent, but the conquest themselves do not represent the spread of Islam or the imposition. The forced imposition of Islam on to any of the conquered peoples and such conquests were normative at the time. And when we speak of them, we're speaking of them not in a prescriptive sense, not in the sense that Muslims today have to get up and replicate that situation, but as a historical phenomenon in a descriptive sense that yes, this happened, we're not going to deny it and we're going to take the relative, uh, lessons that we can from it. Uh, from a historical perspective.

Rafael: 00:21:49 Well, you mentioned that there's historians who have the opinion that by the nature of empire empires to expand like they're with you. I don't think you can ever name an empire in history that was content with its influence. It always wanted to grow its influence and, and grow its wealth and its, and prestige of the dynasties that ruled it and so forth. I think someone asked me,

Hassam: 00:22:10 sorry, one thing I'd just like to mention briefly about empires. I think another thing to keep in mind is that there's a lot of, um, you know, anti imperialism sentiment and anti imperialism, movements, et cetera. Uh, nowadays and many people, um, including myself and others, we've sort of learned in an environment where, you know, imperialism is taught to be a very bad thing. But again, from an intellectual perspective, um, we do have to ask questions about, you know, speaking about the expansion of empires as this really horrible thing that occurred in history. And yet, even today, you know, we continue to live in a world that has empires in different forums. There are multinational corporations that exploit people. Um, there are, you know, foreign policy infants,

Rafael: 00:22:57 Susan wanted states governments and was it any different from an empire?

Hassam: 00:23:01 Exactly. They function essentially to the detriment of conquered peoples. They function exactly like pre-modern empires and we continue to benefit even those of us who claim to be against imperialism. We continue to benefit the clothes. We wear, the food we eat, the cars we drive, we benefit from, you know, the suffering of people who are, uh, having these, you know, imperialist ambitions imposed on them without their free will. So I think we have to interrogate ourselves and keep that in mind as well. Um, that before we, you know, step back and start to judge everyone in history for everything they've done. How do those practices continue today and how do we allow those practices to continue and benefit? Yeah.

Rafael: 00:23:42 The kind of subtle empire that, that, you know, alludes our kind of gaze now. But we somehow manage to criticize a every other empire in history. It's, it's strange, isn't it? I mean, you don't have to look very deep to see the, uh, the empires that are at play that the empires were playing the game of chess in the world at the moment. Um, does even, you know, like tributaries and puppet rulers that are established nowadays that are exactly the same as what happened to our history. Exactly the same thing. But I think it's different words, different, different words, different definitions. And this called, we call it something else. Yeah. It's like they're trying to put fancy meanings to those words in order for us to look as if we're smarter and better. No, we've, we've progressed. Yeah. We're on. Yeah. We've politically reminder. Well, that's not exactly true.

Rafael: 00:24:32 The same ideas as back in those times. I actually wrote Hassan a major essay about the expansion of Islam. And um, I answered the question about how is whether Islam was spread by the sword exactly the same as kind of how you mentioned that understanding of the empire being the kind of political system and empires by their nature expanding. And so I said, if you believe that the empires, uh, that did expand in the name of Islam, we're acting Islamically then the real question is actually not did the Muslim empires expand, but was the expansion of the Muslim empires the kind of religiously correct way or the religiously correct manner and more important than that? What did that expansion actually mean? Like you mentioned, uh, the, the misconception that Muslims were forced to convert. It was even, it was even less than Muslims, uh, that, sorry, that normal, some populations were not forced to convert in on my ad times. I actually read that they didn't like, uh, conversions as much and basically they still levied the GCR, which was the, um, tax for the religious tax against certain new converts to Islam from Persian and Christian backgrounds. Such was the discouragement of conversions because the early or Maya the elite didn't really want the, or didn't really consider the need for their actual populace to become Muslim. Is that, is that true? How, how accurate is that?

Hassam: 00:26:05 Um, well, based on all of the sources I've encountered, um, that's exactly right. You know, for the [inaudible] situation in particular at much of that earlier, you know, quick expansion of Islam from Spain to China that we're talking about did you know, occur in d omega yet period between sort of the six sixties and the seven 50, that century was when most of that expansion occurred. Um, and you know, again, from the sources I've, uh, come across and sort of engaged with it is exactly that, that the, uh, as a matter of policy, um, they liked to, um, sort of, uh, keep de non Muslim populations as they were and actually actively discouraged conversion. And you know, this was for one because it wasn't any kind of, um, you know, this was much easier for the conquered populations to accept because it almost became a sort of, um, secularized expansion.

Hassam: 00:27:05 Right. It is just another empire divorced from the worldview that these particular people stand for. Yes, they might believe in it, but they often, you know, the Muslim conquerors, they wouldn't even live in those cities that they conquered. They would have their own little settlements just outside the city, et cetera. And this is how some of the biggest cities that we know of in the Islamic world, such as Cairo, right, was formed. There was an existing city and there was a Muslim settlement of the Muslim forces outside that city. And slowly the two of them, you know, came together and formed this enormous metropolis in Egypt. Right. And, and so there wasn't, um, that sort of active and in the early stages, a not even, um, Darwalla for example, right? Not even invitation to Islam. So all of this was an, we have to slow down the pace and look at it.

Hassam: 00:27:52 This was an extremely gradual process. The Amelia is in particular coming back to their policy. They loved the fact that, um, they could, um, extract the, uh, GCI in some cases it was the GCO which was the, the payment, um, required from the non Muslim population, um, in exchange, uh, for protecting dem, offering protection to them. Um, and, and, and sometimes it wasn't GCO, sometimes other forms and other forms of tribute and other forms of, um, you know, payment. And we're also established and for the conquered people, this was often nothing new, the same kind of attributes that they had paid to rulers in the past and oftentimes much easier on them than what they had paid to, uh, you know, would it be the Romans or the Persians or whoever that particular, um, pre Islamic ruler happened to be. Um, and again, it's just a, you know, it's almost, you know, silly to keep saying this, but at the same time it's just, you know, baffling how often in our discussions we don't keep in mind how complex this movement is.

Hassam: 00:29:04 Again, like I mentioned, and that's why I like to mention this previously one persons, um, decisions are so complicated. Now imagine the decisions of thousands of people as a, you know, and their interactions and the environment they build and how their environment affects them, et cetera. So in the Umayyad case as well, there is this particular environment where they were encouraging expansion. They love the Jessia and it was during the Ommaya time. I think that, um, the leadership really started to behave like, uh, the pre Islamic, uh, sort of rulers and, uh, you know, in I'm one article of way building, you don't have pirate builders and kings and extracting tribute for and expanding their empire for the sake of just having to claim to this enormous land, et cetera. And when you actually look at it and you know, look at their policies about whether they were trying to convert people to Islam, that wasn't the case at all. And it seems like it almost wasn't a priority for them.

Rafael: 00:30:03 Yeah. I've even heard commentators and historians referred to the [inaudible] and even the ambassador, uh, qualify as being almost comparable to secular rulers in the sense that some of them were even nominally Muslim.

Hassam: 00:30:18 I would see lots of examples. Yeah.

Rafael: 00:30:21 That, that they really had no interest in imposing a quote unquote state religion. And that religion didn't even inform the kind of laws that they often, you know, mandated the Baitullah mother. Didn't I have the like, wasn't that sort of things like that sort of justify that they were, you know, um, religiously inclined if some of them were definitely religious, Saint Klein, for example, Amada monopolies eas, no one can really doubt the piety and genuine faith of California would have been Abdelaziz, but there were 100%. There were, there were, um, Caliphs who had very little to do with any kind of religious, uh, promotion in terms of the populace. However, I think this is something that's a distinction. There were kind of creations of Islamic, uh, culture at the time that were done. So not to promote Islam in the society, but to kind of display the prestige on and the glory of the rulers themselves. Would you, would you say, would you say that's correct?

Hassam: 00:31:21 Um, I would say that's absolutely correct. I mean, if we look at, again, you know, the best, uh, of examples of Muslim leadership, um, the profits of the law while he was sending them, there were no, um, you know, just look at the, any of the descriptions of his own mosque during his time. Right. Um, and, uh, you know, just built of, um, very, uh, basic form of sort of raw materials, et Cetera, whatever it was locally available. And then you see examples of even when these Islamic Empire had considerably expanded, um, like during the time of, uh, automotive, no hotdog, but at the Ella Hawaiian, you see the example of, for example, the Roman ambassador coming to Medina and finding him just laying sort of in the dirt outside of Dumbest Shit, right? So you find all of these examples of their, um, a, of their, of their simplicity, not their powerlessness, but their, and not a false, uh, sort of, uh, you know, management on display of humility.

Hassam: 00:32:25 But they're genuine simplicity because they're, they were investing their time and energy elsewhere. And oftentimes in what you see in the later kings is you'll see these, um, grand, a sort of structures that are to establish their own prestige, um, and sometimes even the prestige. So sometimes it's a mix of boats such as the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, right by, um, uh, I've done [inaudible] given that amount of wine who was considered the first empire builder, one of the early, uh, [inaudible] k lifts. Um, but it does become about, you know, Thrones and glittery buildings. And my favorite example from Islamic history is really the, the Taj Mahal. Right? Um, and you see this building, which had really, you know, obviously it's making a lot of money for India today and has for a very long time, but considering the fact that it, there is considerable evidence that it actually, um, you know, brought down to some extent the economy of the Mughal empire at the time, um, complete, you know, waste and for what? Right. And representing what exactly. So, uh, there were, um, many examples I think where rulers did pursue policies and they did pursue projects that had very little to do with Islam and you know, really took a heavy influence from um, what they saw kings and rulers and other parts of the world and those that came before them.

Rafael: 00:33:52 If you are sort of a, an untied this to my audience, if you are sort of a practicing brother or sister and you do want to look into Islamic history and you want to kind of a judgement for which you want you to look into this standard note, that's one of it. If you want to kind of standard through which to understand many of the rulers look at what the great polymer, uh, wrote about many of the governments of the time and the relationship between the ultimate and the government. [inaudible] was very critical. Uh, I only throw him a love was very, very critical of the Omi ed policy towards non Arab Muslims. Um, in my, Malik had a very fractured relationship with the, the government that even culminated in him, him being tortured. I think at some point, three out of the foyer, memes were locked in jail or tortured by rulers.

Rafael: 00:34:42 Right. So if you want to understand how these rulers generally operated in relation to the religion itself, all you need to do is look at the relationship between side and the receipt with the Turkish government. Yes. Some next level stuff that he did, like he got abandoned. You're exhausted and you know, the stuff they wrote in the process and got Gerald and like nor even just like back in those times, but even the, um, recent times they were secular rulers to the Kemalists editor split. The understanding though that, that what has often happened in the name of the Islamic Empire is very different from what the people who are most knowledgeable in terms of the religion would have preferred or what, what they were actually directly calling for. How does the sort of expansion of Islam as an empire compared to other empires directly? For example, people might look, I often used to draw comparisons, the Mongol Empire, which is also a really important example for Muslims because, uh, the Mongols with us kind of scorge of Islam who obviously sacked Baghdad, they killed more Muslims than I think have ever been killed by any other foreign army. A lot of people thought that the Mongols were even your, uh, your agenda. My George [inaudible] was so dramatic and terrible for the Muslims. Um, I don't think many of us would understand how bad it was. Uh, but then they converted to Islam. Three out of the four Mongo is converted to Islam. But yeah. In terms of the expansion and the influence that Islam was able to have on societies compared to say what the Byzantines were able to do, what assassinated Persians were able to do, how does it compare?

Hassam: 00:36:29 Um, well, you know, Ma, every, you know, empire can be a unit of study in itself. Right. And in, in your sort of, within that context, what was going on and, but then the time period during which that empire existed, what was going on? Um, I think in terms of military, um, or even non military, um, you know, just the spread of an empire's influence, um, Islam, uh, or the Islamic empire. Um, I think first of all, we should, uh, interrogate that term itself. What we mean by Islamic Empire because as you've heard us discussing many of these empires while Dever led by Muslims and, um, primarily, um, uh, you know, had Muslim populations, um, as a matter of policymaking. And when it come to some of the, uh, officiating, no empire business, um, it wasn't too much inspired by actual Islamic teachings, right? So we have particular empires such as the who may yet such as the basset such as the later on, you know, that started joke send the mum Luke's and um, the song gay and the Sokoto in West Africa and you know, more of a reds in, in Spain and in many parts of the world, the moguls in India, et cetera.

Hassam: 00:37:46 Right? So we have all of these different empires. Initially, if we're talking about the initial expansion of Islam and I guess during the Omega Dynasty when most of what we now consider the core Muslim lands were, you know, um, unified, uh, at least nominally under one leadership, you know, the, you may it leader who had his seat in Damascus, in Syria. I think, um, in terms of the expansion, there really is no, um, comparison, right? Um, there really is no comparison in terms of the expansion itself of how fast that expansion was other than, and again, we're talking about the movement and expansion of the Muslim armies here. And I think the one exception would be the Mongols. The Mongols are the only sort of comparable the Roman empire. While we do talk about how enormous it was and how influential it was and how many different parts of the world are touched.

Hassam: 00:38:48 Um, we have to look at the scale here. So when the Mongols were just looking at, um, you know, a few decades for most of the expansions in the early Muslim empire, but just looking at a few decades, right. And the Romans had expanded considerably. Um, but their expansion generally was more drawn out over time. So it took a lot of time for these expansions to, um, you know, the empire to expand and then maybe a rebellion, so cave in a little bit and expand further, et cetera. Um, but again, in terms of, um, cultural, when it comes to cultural influence, then we're looking at a different set of criteria. So in that sense, for example, even the Greeks, the Athenian Empire, right? And we have to remember that the people who introduced democracy where themselves and imperialist people, right? If Damien it was a city, but they expanded and they were an empire, they have all the characteristics, right?

Hassam: 00:39:42 Um, they were expansionist, um, they had a huge influence even though are in terms of what they controlled and how far their influence reach two different questions or influenced reach enormously far. Um, but what they controlled was actually not very much. So these, all of these different variables we can play around with. Um, you know, maybe we can come back a bit to the Mongo question in particular. Um, I think the difference was that there is no comparison. Obviously there's a comparison between the timescale and the sort of, uh, area over which the expansion occurred. But I think there's no comparison in the sort of brutality of the Mongo conquest. They were much more, um, from all of the historical sources. And that's also something worth interrogating because we paint the Mongols as sort of like these I, you know, including into Muslim community, but many people who are more or less familiar with history in general like this unparalleled, you know, sometimes like the only people, you know, oftentimes you'll see the Mongo as compared to our, like the Nazis or something.

Hassam: 00:40:50 Like these are the worst of the worst. Like how bad could it possibly get right. Um, but the Muslim conquest were not as disruptive. They were not as destructive. They were not as, um, not nearly as wild Lindt in terms of, um, just the amount of people, um, killed. And the amount of infrastructural damage caused as a Mongo conquest were. And I think there is that interesting question. Right? And then the Mongo conquest, we're further, so there was that aspect among was for much more violent. Um, and the other aspect is that the Mongols within a few generations, as you mentioned, wherever they had expanded to the assimilated into the local culture and customs and religion, et Cetera, three of the four Mongo cognates as you mentioned, embraced Islam. Um, and in, in China they embrace Buddhism, etc. So they sort of assimilate it locally.

Hassam: 00:41:46 Um, and so that's the two distinctions and that was, makes the early Muslim conquest really exceptional where the Muslims, yes, they did obviously take on a local sort of, um, you know, uh, cultures and things of that sort. But their essence, as we mentioned at the beginning of the podcast, um, the essential, um, values and practices of the people remained intact, um, as well as not having to be nearly as violent to achieve the same amount of expansion in a very similar time scale. So I think that's what really makes what the early Muslim conquest so exceptional even when compared to the Mongol conquest.

Tanzim: 00:42:26 Is it true that a halo people say these spy, it's like three quarters of the world's population are descendants of gangs, car recorders. I don't think it's true or something like that. Why isn't there like a stat like that? I don't know how much the truth is it cause my mom's made a name, he's cons. So I'm just thinking am I descendant of gangs Connersville on because I've got explained to,

Hassam: 00:42:51 there's a lot of fake cons out there. Um, I often have a conversation with people, um, the, by stewing people of, of, you know, um, Northwestern Pakistan and Afghanistan, right. And, and the name con is very common amongst them. Um, and they've allowed this very, you know, aggravated conversation about real cons and fake cons, et Cetera, as I need to be in that conversation. But, um, I don't know. I don't know the answer to that. Um, you hear different is definitely okay. Let me tell you, this is definitely not three quarters. Um, I can, I'm pretty sure I'm not like, you know, very familiar with the field of genealogy and whatever science has attached to it, but I'm pretty sure it's not that. Um, but, um, you know, and, and descended from gangas con personally, um, it's, it's, it's a trope, right? And whenever you encounter all of these tropes that are almost accepted as a fact, we have to be really careful about how we talk about it.

Hassam: 00:43:51 Even in a casual conversation. It just, again, as part of this picture of how horrible the Mongols were, how horrible Kangaskhan personally was, gang has gone as at whatever crimes he may have initiated during his leadership. Kangaskhan has a very interesting life story and if you actually read about his life and read about his interests and, um, you know, tried to get a more historical understanding of his personality. He's a very interesting person. He wasn't just some brute from out of nowhere. And I think especially in the Muslim community, we have to recognize this, right? And a lot of what happened to Muslims during the Mongo conquest, the Muslims have to take their fair share of the blame, not just what they were doing, you know, like centuries before and how they were declining and they weren't prepared for the Mongo conquest. But even the decisions taken on the spot where such sometimes you read about it and it's baffling how blind and arrogant could you be to just brush off this threat to, despite knowing that, you know, the city next door had just been completely ruined and raised by this army.

Hassam: 00:45:00 And then they come to your door and you decide to talk up to them and, and you know, be arrogant and not only get yourself, you know, basically finished, but also the innocent people who, whose leader you were, who you were sort of representing their right. So, um, I think again, my main focus, like I think every point it becomes an idiotic to end off every sort of point I make with, it's more complicated than we want it to seem, including the life of Ganglias Con, the Mongo conquest, and literally any topic, right? So whatever topic, people are most interested in it, pick it up, but then make sure you're not just scratching the surface, tried to go a bit deeper and you'll find that there's much more to learn and appreciate.

Rafael: 00:45:40 Yeah. I think quite simply as opposed to complex. I think that the beheading of the Mongol ambassadors by the Horace Smith, um, was it the suit? Yeah, the horrors. Mid Emmy was probably one of the most significant events in Islamic history. It was one of the worst decisions is basically reversing the last 500 years. So basically the Mongol ambassadors came to the Muslim empire and um, it was quite a friendly kind of invitation, like, oh, hey, you know, where the Mongols were in charge of China now. Yeah. I would have just coming up into your Facebook sup, you know? Yeah. In the DM.

Hassam: 00:46:19 I mean, it was an invitation for,

Rafael: 00:46:20 yeah, it was then the corpsmen. Yeah,

Hassam: 00:46:23 hi.

Rafael: 00:46:27 Yeah. And the Mongols invaded Persia and just completely just destroyed the place and the civilization there. Well, it didn't really recover too. You know, it's pre Mongol, Gloria, and they say that often when you talk about the Islamic Golden Age, a lot of people trace the decline of the Islamic golden age to the Mongol invasions. Though I don't necessarily agree with that personally, but it's one point that, you know, has been mentioned. But

Tanzim: 00:46:55 in terms of just unbusy with talking about more about expansions and stuff, I wanted to kind of, uh, direct the conversation to sort of the early civil wars in Islam that existed. So they sort of were pivotal, you know, it's very pivotal because even it's the reason why we have sectarian divide, right? The Sunni and Shia divide and are most specifically, I just wanted to hone in on, you know, the events of early Rodney on who and warrior rather than on who. So would you be able to, you know, we, so the, the narrative, there's one narrative Twitter, right? So the narrative is that, you know, I'm more, we are already on who was like terrible person and you know, just, I went against the Ali Rodney on, on who and um, divisions happened. And that's why I think the, she is cases, right. The SUNY case is more like was taking a step back because you know, while we all wrote down on who had his own issues, he had an [inaudible] who had his own issues he had.

Tanzim: 00:47:55 And a lot of the scholars say that, you know, you get rewarded for your each to hat even though if it's from a sincere place, that sort of stuff. But um, that's more coming from the scholars. Right. So those are the opinions of our scholars and we sort of taken on board. But in terms of a historical sort of point of view, would you be able to shed some light on that event in particular because it would be interesting to gather thoughts and even how you would come to conclusions or how scholars would come to conclusions about in regards to what makes like what exactly happened? Cause I heard the sources aren't the strongest either. I think that this is probably the most complex of things that you're going to have to answer. I'd love love to, yeah, just even scratch the surface would be really good.

Hassam: 00:48:39 Right. So, um, I'll start off with a quick story. Um, I had a new professor when I was doing my undergraduate degree. This was an introduction to Islamic history, sort of introductory class. And I had a professor and, um, he was teaching this class and he was a Muslim. Right. Um, and, uh, you know, there's obviously non Muslims in their class. There's there, so neon Sheol, Muslims in the class. Um, it's, it's sort of a, a mix as it is in universities. And, um, he was a, you know, because he was discussing early Islamic history, he had to at least do one, uh, you know, um, lecture on this particular, uh, topic of this early Islamic history. And, you know, um, it's, it's thrown around in the room. The bomb was not thrown around because it was very introductory and, and we'd be surprised, you know, a lot of people, um, uh, you know, we see these discussions on Twitter and other places and very heated discussion.

Hassam: 00:49:39 And I'll admit to you, when I was, uh, you know, I have close a, she are friends and grew up together. And when we were very young, we used to like, you know, even as teenagers like go back and forth with these very, in hindsight, it's like that was the biggest waste of my time. And so nonsensical because I didn't know what I was talking about and neither did he. And yet we were having these heated conversations, right? Um, and we're still good friends, but I think so with the professor at the end of the class and during the class, you could notice and it was visibly others looking around. He was confusing some of the people in the class, he was sweating, right? And it wasn't a climate controlled room and everything like that, but he is sweating. And at the end of the class when it's done, he's actually wiping his brow and wiping the sweat off his face. And he said, you know, you guys might noticed,

Speaker 5: 00:50:28 um, this is not just as a Muslim, regardless of, you know, there's this idea that historians have to be objective. But this word objectivity is so problematic because nobody is ever truly objective. We all have certain values and beliefs and principles that we stand by, regardless of what the information presented to us is. Right. Um, we will have to try to be fair, but whether we can actually ever really be objective, whether we try or not is a separate question altogether. And he said, you know, for me, I'm an academic, I taught you from an academic perspective, but this is secret history. This isn't just history for me. This is sacred history. And for many of the people in this room, this is sacred history, right? So when we're talking about this particular, um, question, and I think the reason why there's so much heated debate on it and why passions are so high whenever this topic comes up, um, like you said is probably the most difficult question I'll have to ask, you know, discussing this podcast.

Hassam: 00:51:28 Um, it is because it's sacred history for all of the different, um, sort of sides, for lack of a better term, who were involved right now coming to the actual question from a historical perspective. Um, I think in this case, um, most historians, whether they are, um, you know, more traditionally, uh, trained like Islamic scholars who specialize in history, like for example, in Canada, here we have, uh, [inaudible], um, who did a very, I thought it was an incredible series of lectures, you know, nearly I think eight hours of lectures just on this particular topic on the question that we asked. So we have those scholars and then obviously the academic historian, some of them are Muslim, some of them are non Muslim. So you have these three broad categories, um, more or less, they all go back to the same sort of sources, right? They'll all go back to the, um, such as a 30 hot tub buddy and some of these more, uh, recognize and authoritative sources of early Islamic history, right?

Hassam: 00:52:37 Like [inaudible], Wendy high some of these books. And so you'll find that the narrative itself of the events, what event led to what and what happened when et Cetera is very similar across the three categories, right? Um, but when it comes to interpretation and explanation, that's when the differences occur, right? Between the three groups. So how do you, this particular event happen? How do you interpret it? Right? And obviously for the Islamic scholars, the interpretation focuses on how do you, uh, take the relevant lessons, the moral lessons, right. Something you can apply to your own life from this particular situation. So there's obviously an entire to go into

Hassam: 00:53:26 their, you know, the battle of, uh, I mean starts, I think that we took precursor to that starts right during the life of the profits of the law. We send them. What was the relationship of the profit with these particular people involved, such as, um, Emam earlier the allot one who was actually seeding are out of the allot wine. What was the particular relationship, um, as well as the other personalities such as Amato, even yesod let the last one for example. Um, and moving forward, how did you know the entire is sort of narrative about what happened at [inaudible] immediately after the profits of the law, whether he was an passed away and what happened after that? Um, during the, you know, uh, the NAFA of a Aboubacar and Omar or the Allahu one whom, um, and say, you know, it's man and so you'd the one home, right?

Hassam: 00:54:15 It's a very, very broad topic, but we have to trace the history that far back. So when we get to the [inaudible] of, you know, a mom and you know, not your loved one who, um, what has to be established is that we are not in a position nor should be, want to be in a position to make judgements about people. Right? I think for Muslims, and I'm, I'm assuming I'm speaking particularly to a Muslim audience, whether they are Shia or whether they are Sunni, because I have had those heated debates with my friends as I mentioned. I think what the key thing to keep in mind is that could take, do you feel relevant lessons from them, right? True. Take them from trusted, nuanced scholars. And this is something that each of us has to make our decision about and we can't claim to be ignorant, right?

Hassam: 00:55:06 We can tell when a person is really pushing the narrative. None of us are, you know, that stupid that we will it co or I at least I hope nobody considers themselves as stupid because I would assume nobody is, um, that they're just going to take what somebody tells them, even from the member and not sort of interrogate it and try to understand it and try to implement it into their own lives. So whether you are so new, whether you are shy, engaged with the info information that you are being exposed to, um, from the traditional scholars, um, and work with that and keep a focus on what you know, lessons you are going to draw. Because for, you know, for historians it's a different question about providing clarity, right? And who was, who was right, per se, right? For Muslims, I think it's a slightly different question because we know that justice, um, has already been served that allows justice. There's no escape from it. So whoever deserve whatever they deserved a level, take care of it, right? Um, if that process is not already underway, allow, are, and them, regardless of the individual we're thinking about here. Right? So for us it's more about the lessons we can draw and how we can apply them. If the only lesson you can draw is that you to hate a particular

Speaker 5: 00:56:24 group, you have to hate a particular person. You have to spend the rest of your life cursing this person and cursing that person or only defending this person and only singing praises about this person without actually recognizing that they were a human being and human beings can make mistakes and we should learn from them. Then if those are the only sort of set of things that we can draw from, then the problem isn't in the history, then the problem is in our interpretation at that point, I think there's no point for us to go into further questions of what happened because we are not using that history for the right purpose anyways. Right? And oftentimes you'll find historians, uh, sometimes jump on that facts. So there's one book I will call out by Leslie Hazel or particular historian where it's written in a very, um, in narrative form, right?

Speaker 5: 00:57:10 It's written as like a, this epic story. And in fact, she, the subtitle of the book is the epic story of [inaudible] Split. Anytime a historian sort of uses epic in their title, that should be a sort of alarm bell because they're jumping off of this idea that people are very passionate. The people who are going to read this on both sides of the debate or multiple sides of the discussion are very passionate about this topic and they're already coming with passion. So let me try to play with that, pull some strings, make it epic and write in a particular way that this happened and that happened and this unbelievable thing happened. I think we should stay clear of all of that. Um, for that sacred history. Rely on your traditional Islamic scholars unless you actually want to pursue it academically, that's a different conversation for the average person, I think that's not really a priority.

Speaker 5: 00:58:02 Um, and if there's a priority, like please get in touch with me or historians you trust and have that conversation with us. Um, but I feel like for the average Muslim who is just seeking clarity, look at your scholars, look at what other scholars have said, compare contrast, do your due diligence and uh, pray to a lot to give you clarity about our secret history so we can learn their relevant lessons and then trust that a law has already, uh, established justice in the cases of the people who have already passed away and we can move forward seeing what is best for our particular context. What does, whether I'm Shira, whether I'm SUNY, what does the Muslim community as a whole and what does the world as a whole need from me today? What are the lessons I can draw from this history that I will apply to that situation? And if there are no sort of positive, inspiring, um, constructive lessons, then uh, there's really no further conversation, at least from where I stand to be hot in this, uh, situation. Yeah. Yeah.

Rafael: 00:59:02 Fair enough. I think that's a good starting point for people to understand. The kind of approach that we should have to these topics that you mentioned, the difference between Western, how there's western commentators and western historians, and then there's also Muslim commentators and Muslim historians. And I think that's something that especially you mentioned specific of kind of, um, how, how would you describe it? Trying to create a fitness almost or a drama out of Islamic history to portray it as this, you know, this glorious Hollywood film. But I want to ask you about western historians and their view and their, their portrayal of Islam. Uh, I've done a little bit of work on studying orientalist readings of Islamic history, uh, particularly, and I wonder what your thoughts were. I mean, we, we see things written about the Ottomans. Um, for example, a lot is emphasized on their, on their persecution of minorities.

Rafael: 00:59:57 We see a lot written in India and the subcontinent, particularly about emperors, like, uh, old Rung Zip. And then we, this goes all the way back throughout Islamic history, uh, to, as you mentioned, the Muslim civil wars. And even back further to the Caliphs. So do you think that there's a kind of agenda by some western historians to, uh, create these kinds of negative images to render these negative images of Muslim, uh, figures throughout history and Islamic history? Um, do you think it's a concerted effort? Do you think that it's, why is this the case? I guess, why, why have, have these renderings come out of the West? Do you think the Muslims are kind of trying to paper over the cracks of their own floors, for example? Um, do you think that the Ottomans were as a lot of western scholars claim, um, particularly harsh and discriminatory? Or is that, yeah, just an orientalist kind of portrayal and, and the same goes for all wrongs urban. And the kind of a point you mentioned before about the epic schism.

Speaker 5: 01:01:05 Right. Um, so this is a very, very important question. So I'm glad we came to it. Um, I think, uh, again there's a lot of variation, right? So I think generally, um, historians who are actively involved in a project to sort of, um, display and essentially lies Islam and then display it in a very, um, uh, you know, a narrow sort of minded way. Um, there are certainly historians and people, you know, pseudo historian than people who claim to do that. Um, or sorry, people who, um, do do that. Um, and they make their claim in the fact that, um, they are trained historians, et Cetera. Right? So a good example is, um, Daniel Pipes, right? And I'm not sure if many people in Australia or other parts have heard of Daniel pipes. Um, he is one of the world's leading Islamophobes. I mean that the things this person publishes are, um, really like, like atrocious content.

Speaker 5: 01:02:09 And you would wonder why anyone would take him seriously. But if someone were not exposed to what his current politics are and how he speaks about Muslims and the community and how really ugly his discussions are and his perspective is, and they just went back into the sources. Daniel pipes when he initially did his phd and he's done up to a phd in, I believe, Middle Eastern history. Um, he went back and if you go back enough into the 1980s and you just, uh, encounter his academic work, you would take him seriously as a historian, right? Because, and I will admit, I have read that work and it is good historical research that he did about Islamic history. But, um, and so for example, the same goes for, um, you know, Bernard Lewis, who was very famous historian and obviously had some very, uh, essentially rising orientalist views.

Speaker 5: 01:03:03 And later in his life, you know, he did come on the media and say things trying to justify the Iraq war, et cetera. And he used his position as an academic to involve himself in that discussion and then say those particularly, you know, very nasty things, but at the same time, can we completely, you know, uh, ignore his research. I think he made enormous contributions as a researcher to different topics in Islamic history. Right? So the point I'm trying to make is if someone were to, um, not realize the particular, uh, perspective, the particular ideology within which, uh, the person is producing their research, um, then, and if they just look at the research that person, that historian can then use the fact that people have that approach, um, and then exploited and do things like just try to justify the Iraq war. Right. But on a very broader level, I think, um, for a long time.

Speaker 5: 01:04:01 And this question comes back to what we said a bit earlier about objectivity, about can you truly be objective? Can, as a historian, can you really just stay true to the facts and not insert and not influence and shape whatever work you are producing, whatever research or producing, uh, through your own particular biases and your own inclinations and your own experiences. Right. And I think, like we said earlier, there is no such achievable goal as objectivity. You can try to be fair, you can try to present multiple sides of the argument and um, den give your own sort of recommendation about which argument seems to be most reasonable and most accurate. But the claim that I am representing history as it happened, I am true to the facts that these kinds of things you can't really claim to do. Right? So I think for a long time in the Eurocentric context, so I'm talking about Europe and I'm talking about, um, you know, North America and Australia and some of the other, uh, places that were colonized by Europeans, which has many plays.

Speaker 5: 01:05:09 So, so this also includes many, um, universities, um, in parts of what we referred to as the Islamic world where professors and others do have these orientalist perspectives. But this [inaudible] of Islam, this fear of Islam, you know, this ignorance and the fear attached to it about what Muslims are, they are exotic. They are different, they are special. It's essentially dehumanizing, right? They not recognizing Muslims as Muslims are human, like everyone else with a particular worldview. There they are just like Christians are just like Jews and Buddhists and Hindus and Sikhs and Shamanists and everything else. Right? But essentially Muslims in particular and also some of the other peoples in the east such as the Hindus. The Hindus also get a lot of um, you know, orientalist commentary about them. Right? Um, and many other groups do as well. This has how, you know, for a long time, over centuries it has just developed, um, as a sort of, uh, cultural, um, you know, environment within which these scholars are born within which they grow up.

Speaker 5: 01:06:14 The books they read when they initially start learning, right? The language that they're taught to use and universities, et cetera. So it just becomes a cycle that goes on and on. One generation of professors teaches the next generation of professors. So for example, even the university, I go to a University of Toronto, they have departments of history of near and Middle Eastern civilizations. You know, it's recognized as one of the leading universities in North America for anybody who wants to learn about Islam or Islamic history or the Middle East. And I have professors who are Muslim and they have gone in, uh, into the academy, right? They are teaching at this university and they are telling us there are classes about how difficult it is to shift away. You know, even when over lunch meetings, casual, the casual conversation, how difficult it is because at the end of the day, who are the senior professors, who are the agenda setters, who are the gatekeepers of these history departments of these Islamic studies departments.

Speaker 5: 01:07:16 Generally they are old white men who are awfully privileged and they inherited their positions from other old white privileged men. And it's the same perspective that nobody challenges because they're all coming from a particular background and with particular similar experiences to each other. Now that being said, I'll say two more things. Um, first thing is that I think this is, we should still, uh, those of us who are trying to shift away and step away from that essentially rising orientalist perspective, we should still make an effort to, uh, engage with the research. You know, we can't cause the baby out with the bath water as the expression goes. Right. You still want to engage with their research, you still want to take whatever is beneficial and useful from it. You don't want to inherit the perspective. So what that means is when you're doing the engaging, you just have to be extremely careful.

Speaker 5: 01:08:11 Why is this person using this particular word, this particular language? How have they structured their paper or structured their book? Who are they acknowledging, right? What sources are here, what sources are missing? So it's a lot more work, but I think we can still draw a great deal of benefit from the work even if people who are, uh, coming from an orientalist perspective. And secondly, I think the bottom line is of this entire discussion is that Muslims themselves, um, have to first of all make sure they're not just, uh, uh, first of all they have to make sure that um, and they are thinking critically enough to not absorb this, uh, orientalist perspective themselves. And then they have to also go into the academy, right? So there is my Muslim professor at the University of Toronto, he is in that space. He is recognize you has done a lot of work to get to a certain position.

Speaker 5: 01:09:03 And from there he's able to challenge more effectively than all of us who are sitting at a distance. Right? And the same goes for like when we blame the media, when we blame the same goes for the academy for academics, right? For academia. You have to get involved in the process and make sure that in the process of getting involved, you don't lose sight of your own perspective and just end up, you know, swallowing whatever is spoonfed but push back from within. And we have to join the academy. And for those who are committed to that, I think it's a, uh, there needs to be support network from the broader Muslim community. This is something we should encourage as a community, um, for the sake of preserving our identity because these are the kinds of tropes. These are the kinds of narratives. If you go back to the raw material of what informs Islamophobia, which is why I joined the McCain Institute, because they want to respond to this through research, through academic production, which is why I wrote the papers, right? And I do research because we have to respond to Islamophobia and that Islamophobia causes real threats. Muslims face real threats. There is violence, right? There are wars that are started, this horrific, um, damage that is done. And it significant part of that does lead back to these Orient Colis perspectives and tropes. And we have to do whatever is necessary to challenge those, um, within that space.

Rafael: 01:10:29 I think. Yeah, just to sum it up, I agree with everything you said. I think it's, if anyone talking in a historical sense starts a sentence with Muslims, did Islam did, with very few exceptions, I'd shut my brain off at that point because Muslims have often been in a great deal of disagreement as to what they kind of political ventures they ought to be pursuing. And, uh, the, the idea that, that there's a monolith in Islamic history is honestly one of the most absurd ideas, uh, at least politically I'm talking not, not religiously. Um, but the idea that we all have the same kind of political ends, ah, that the Muslim empires were somehow one you United force.

Tanzim: 01:11:14 I mean these are just [inaudible] and you see this language from, from trained academics and you just, you think, how, how did they get there? Absolutely. It's like a, you're similar to, for example, I know the topics bit, you know, controversial and Islamic perspective, but you know, feminism, like people talk about feminism, like it's a monolith by few delve a bit deeper. You know, there's black feminists that actually hate the white middle class feminists and it's like, who you're gonna, they're like on the opposite spectrums, but there they call themselves feminists. It's like the way, you can't just say feminism is Xyz, it's with anything. You can't say Muslims, Xyz. And like you've been saying, everything is more complex than it seems and you're dealing with human beings and we can't even explain our own actions half the time. And you're here trying to explain entire like millions or even billions of people and their collective psychology.

Tanzim: 01:12:10 I do have a question in that the, because in you know, when the orientees look at Muslim sources and and sort of, you know, break it down and write their own papers and what not they shoot. That's really weird is that for example, we'll hone in on the seer, the Ciero, we know the most of the material content that's written is by Eben is hoc and who pretty much even he sham made it into a more, you know, concise version so everyone can sort of have access to it. But those are the, literally the only two sources that we have aren't, I think like we don't have Ebony's hopper. We have pretty much even his sham. And then you have the orientalist that kind of Co get to radical views like very different views to then the orthodox Muslim views that we have in the tradition.

Tanzim: 01:12:59 Right. So in our own orients us, look at our work, they get a code, totally different views. But the thing is, they're looking at the same sources of are as us. And even if you look at the western academics in the western institutions, they're not going to open, you know, even he shams work in software, they're going to open up Montgomery what or people like that, if that makes sense. So it's a bit weird isn't it? Like I find a bit dishonest because it's like trying to say that these western academics did all the work. Um, they were looking at things objectively because you know, they're, they're western and they're not gonna have, you know, sympathy with the religion or the tradition, but they don't point out the fact that they're, they have to by default look at the primary source text, which is, you know, even his hoc, even his shams. So what, that's what I'm a bit confused about, but I would like to get your thoughts about just this whole idea. She did a paper on Patricia Crohn's biography of the profit or like a discussion. Yeah, I actually did a paper on that and I think one of the things that I was confused about, it's the same, she actually addresses even in his hall and she addresses that as a week kind of rendering in this year. But, but one that she didn't do. I

Rafael: 01:14:12 don't know about that personally. I don't know. Maybe you'd be able to shed some light on that. Uh, but for me personally, it was the fact that she discredited all Hadith's scholarship ever without acknowledging the fact that Muslims themselves have quite rigorous and I think very interesting ways of rendering, um, kind of Islamic like the Sierra and the authentic if you want to. It's not like we just Jonathan ACB, it's not like we just, everything is, uh, anything that could be a hadith. We're just going to chuck it in the collection. Yeah, sure. Perhaps there are a couple of hadith that we classified as, sorry, uh, that aren't, it's very possible. But to say that Muslims, every single had Ethan, our Corpus is pretty much a fabrication to me is just one of the most, yeah, it's an absurd claim by oriental scholars. So we'd like to get your thoughts on that. Just everything we've said. I don't know if it's a question.

Hassam: 01:15:14 Um, well to unpack I think is definitely, um, a, a bit disingenuous, uh, I think is a word. Um, what a lot of these callers, uh, turn up, um, being when they're involved in these kinds of projects. Um, okay. When it comes to the question of, uh, sources in particular, I believe there is a, uh, shift, right? So the profession of history, um, you know, just tracing the history of the profession itself really is only about, you know, like you could say 130, 140 years old when history, um, as we historians were referring to I should say, their tradition that they follow. Um, which is, is this tradition that emerged in Europe in the mid 19th century. That is what they say when history became professionalized and is, went through several stages since then. Um, but since the 1960s and, uh, you know, the time afterwards, there has been a sort of, um, literary turn, right.

Hassam: 01:16:20 And there's always been this bias towards, um, the written right and contemporary written, especially written at the time of the event that is being described. Right. But at the same time, um, I think, uh, in recent years, you know, very recently, once again, there was a shift, um, there is a shift from that, uh, the, from the literary turn, from that emphasis on the literature to again, broadening the sources of history. Right? So in more, I mean, Patricia crone is a bit of a dated example. Uh, if you look at some of the more recent works, um, scholars, uh, we'll still have to address this question in their introductions about why they use Heidi sources for, to, you know, inform their work, et Cetera, why they went into those sources. Um, despite previous scholars, for example, Patricia Crone, um, did not want to engage with these sources.

Hassam: 01:17:16 And the reason, and I think it's a very reasonable conclusion that I just took them very long to arrive at is well, you know, even if it's a very important question that even if the f you know, um, let's suppose that these particular sources are not completely reliable or accurate. These had these books, you know, these arguments that these books were compiled like 300 years after the profits of the law who they will send them. And you know, as most of many of the Sierra books were also compiled at least a few decades right after him, et cetera. So how can we rely on these books? There are all these arguments, but one thing that's come up, which I think is very interesting, I don't know how it will play out in the long run, is the fact that some scholars argue that even if these historical sources aren't historically, um, completely accurate, the fact that they inform the decisions and the lives of more than 1.5 billion of the world's people mean that we should still look at them and interrogate them and try to shape our research around them.

Hassam: 01:18:31 And at the very least, not toss them completely out the window. Right? So that's one perspective. And then the other perspective is that, um, we can just use these original sources, um, sort of broaden out our research so we can, you know, just brought in the research so you have access to more resources, right? And then you can draw upon multiple, um, sort of, uh, sources of information and try to piece together. You can't claim it's 100% accurate, but then again, nobody ever can, you know, even if somebody were to write a book about something that happened a week ago, right, in February, 2019, no historian could make a claim that their perspective, what the information they're presenting is 100% accurate and reliable because how do you know, right? How can you have possibly interrogated every single source of information that is available? And you might not even know there are other sources of information that are also available, but you don't even know about them.

Hassam: 01:19:32 So that's last week. I mean, forget about 1400 years ago. Right? So there are these, um, the, the fact that that had become an established fact that we can't rely on Sierra books, can't rely on Hadith's et Cetera, can't rely on the authenticity of any of these things has slowly been challenged because people are still interested in the fact that there are so many Muslims and Islam is such a powerful force both in the present world as well as throughout history. How can we possibly just completely ignore the original sources that these people turn back to and that these people, um, use as a reference point. We can't just completely ignore them, right? We have to engage with them in some way. Now coming to that realization that they had to engage with them in some way, it has broadened the horizons a bit. And then as well as, you know, emphasis on the histories of other people.

Hassam: 01:20:24 So, um, apart from Islamic history, for example, pre-modern African history was often the same because these are oral cultures, oral societies, they pass down their knowledge, their traditions, their history orally, you know, through their generations, many of them. Right? Again, I don't mean to essentially eyes here, but it is quite common in many African societies that this is the way things are done. Does that mean that all the pre prehistoric, I mean, sorry pre modern African history should be ignored because we don't have the, the written sources of that were contemporary to the events that they described. Well, yes you could say that, but then what are you then you're done. The field is closed, then the discussion is over. Right. And the scholars do want to keep up the discussion so they have to eventually tap into these things and oral history, um, you know, non uh, literary sources. Um, increasingly, you know, yes. Recent years when I went to university and study history, we had some of these discussions and the fee, the, you know, the field of vision about what we can rely on as a source is definitely, um, broadening and how it plays out in the long term. Um, with, you know, effect on the field of Islamic history. Um, you know, time will tell,

Tanzim: 01:21:38 oh, Mashallah. Yeah, that's an interesting perspective about the whole fact that people have all the scholars have to look at the primary source texts because it dictates most of, you know, how Muslims live in the current day and age. It's like divinity sort of playing out. Like it's something to Econ shake off the divine, understands them and Muslims actions. You have to understand that hedef whether it's you consider it historically valid or not, it's essential. Yeah. So I think their definition comes kind of becomes narrow cause they're trying to define it in a way where you can kind of shake off the fact that, you know, the Hadith, uh, literature isn't vulnerable thing learner. I think you can just agree with this. Uh, well maybe not, but most contemporary scholars don't disagree with. They actually say that the coriander is the most authentic source on the history of early Islam.

Tanzim: 01:22:34 That, that, that very few, even revisionist orientals criticize the authenticity of the Koran. Clean those like the Topkapi one, they try to refute [inaudible] they, they carbon dated to around six 50, six 40. So they can't really criticize, um, the grant and even, yeah, I remember Patricia Crone saying that, um, the most authentic saas on Elliot Slam was actually the Korean and it's only really like Christian apologists who, um, raised the, that the Quran is not [inaudible] like authentic. Um, so that's interesting that, that they see, they just say that you can't really understand the Quran, like the Quran can't be understood though the, the versus over there actually preserved.

Hassam: 01:23:20 Right. It's a very, it's a very, um, um, broad discussion and, and many things, um, I think are changing, uh, currently, you know, the whole, um, circulation of, and this is beyond his slalom and beyond history and just in general what we see around us, what we rely on as sources of information, you know, everything. I think something to keep in mind is how interrelated the things we encounter on a day to day basis. Um, at the end of the day, it's all still the flow of information, where information comes from, how it is processed, where it ends up, what is the feedback loop, etc. So when it comes to such things as, as fake news as, um, digital media technologies as you know, like for example, this podcast that we're on right now, um, to future historians at 10 or 10, you know, a hundred years down the road, um, is this and authentic source of, um, you know, an of whatever is, is it a good reflection of what's happening in the world around us today about what is the state of the field of Islamic history in the year 20, 19, etc.

Hassam: 01:24:29 So I think there's a lot more questioning and, and uh, broadening again of, um, what is history and how we approach it and engage with it and learn from it. Right. Just a flow of information. So it's a very interesting time to sort of step back and try to pay attention and see how things play out and change over the longterm because I'm very hopeful that there will be a lot of change. Um, certainly and hopefully for the better I should say, because you never know. It could get worse as well.

Tanzim: 01:25:03 SubhanAllah. I think a, we'll might have to wrap up soon. But because Rafael is going to slave away to the capitalist system soon. So,

Hassam: 01:25:11 okay. That's his way of saying I'm going to work. I shall we all,

Tanzim: 01:25:19 SubhanAllah. We usually ask this question to our, when we do remember to all our guests and I think it's a pretty, it's my favorite question to be honest and a gain traction online as well. People love the question, but it will be interesting to hear your thoughts cause you know, you're the historian. So if there were three people in history that you wanted to chill within a cave cause you know, boys in the cave, um, who would they be? It could be anyone that it can be non Muslim. I uh, um, yeah, it's a few rules. I'm no profits because you know, everyone's going to pick profits and on the Sahaba what is the Shim? They're already there too, so we don't, you know, it's not disrespectful, but you can pick like three other people in history.

Hassam: 01:25:58 Well, you know, um, you know, you asking me because a, I'm a historian and you might think might make it easier, but it actually makes it enormously difficult. Right? Just being aware of all these, all these people that I would love to meet. And I always joke with my friends. I'm like, I hope most of the interesting people in history make it to agenda and sort of wise so we can all have, you know, the discussions that I'd love to have with them. Um, if I had to pick a three, I would definitely, uh, uh, Solario Dean, I would definitely be one of them. Um, I think, um, even Holden would be one of them. Um, and uh, it would be the third one. Um, probably I'm going to, I'm going to say like, like even rushed for example. And this is like one of those, you know, in the hall of fame speech when they thank everyone and then they say whoever I forgot to. Thank you. I really appreciate it. It's like one of those moments I was like, I'm sorry to whoever finger I would actually, I just kinda think of them right now. Right?

Tanzim: 01:26:56 Yeah. If in Chawla you get to that they're going to be waiting there with their arms folded. Like you read it, you read so many of my books and yeah, you couldn't think of

Hassam: 01:27:05 inshallah. And I think one more thing that I think just to say in closing is that everything we discuss in podcast, I'm hoping it's assumed but um, it's, it's food for thought. Right. And, and I'd love feedback if there's a way you guys can communicate. Any feedback that comes in back to me and, and a I'd love to further any of the topics, any of the questions we discussed we could discuss so much more. So hopefully this opens up more conversations and definitely is whatever we say is not, you know, the ideal authoritative or final say on anything. Great.

Tanzim: 01:27:37 Yeah. That's why we started the podcast is to get the ideas out there cause it kind of makes people think we sort of fed at times any one narrative when it comes to certain subject matters. But we do want to open, you know, expand your brain cells a bit and get different ideas and thoughts and find new arguments and better audience and get exposed to the right people. So, um, I think that's what you did as well. We asked you in know we went like all around the shop part. I think people gained a lot of insights into different subject matters, history, you know, Koran, Islam, history of Islam specifically. And it's about making people aware about those ideas and concepts that exist and we should be proud of our dean cause we embody it. But at the same time, not just on a ritualistic sense but also on a proper academic discourse. Um, sort of sense. But regardless of the hair, um, Hassan for coming on boys in the cave, it was really a fascinating conversation. I really enjoyed it. Hope you enjoyed it as well.

Hassam: 01:28:36 I really did. Thank you guys. A does. I'll go look Aaron to you as well. And uh, I hope, uh, it does spark some more interesting informative conversation than Charla Inshallah.

Tanzim: 01:28:47 And if people wanted to check out your staff, um, where can they visit you? Um, not your address but like,

Hassam: 01:28:56 but mean someone is not putting, willing to put in that effort. I'm perfectly happy to accommodate. Um, but uh, I do live in very far away live in Canada so we're in the middle of nowhere. Um, but uh, I think the best place a online is probably my blog, so www.ihistory.co not.com [inaudible] dot com which is the best way to sort of reach me with emails and also just check out some of the work that I've done.

Tanzim: 01:29:28 Okay. In shaa Allah, I'll put the links up. All your social media is, oh, cause I know you use Twitter as well. So I'll put all those links in shaa Allah. So from our listeners, thank you for giving us your attention. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to email us at info@boysinthecave.com or find us on Facebook and you can follow our journey through Instagram. We're available on Spotify, soundcloud, stitcher, you name it podcast pocket costs. If you have android, you can, there's different podcasts, apps you can use. So you know, you were on youtube as well. iTunes, we're on pretty much everything, so definitely, um, if you wanna try out, listen to us on different platforms, you definitely can. And he can also leave us a five star rating on iTunes. That greatly helps us and you can support us on patreon. You know, alhamdullilah, we've improved a lot of our production and we actually have huge plans in the makings. Um, we're doing bit by bit by where she got some big ideas coming up and we want to put it into action and we currently do it through your support inshallah. So check out patreon.com/boysinthecave. And so for my special guest Hassam, Rafael and myself, we share the best. This is Tanzim signing up assalamualaykum.

"PELIGROS DE LA IA, DISMINUCIÓN DE EMPLEOS Y MÁS" EP 62 CON DAVID MUÑÓZ