The West's Monopolization of Historical Truth

We've been talking about epistemological sovereignty. And it has come up, I think, in a way in in this recent episode with regards to the the so called academy. Which is such a pretentious way to refer to, you know, a bunch of professors. But that that the so called academy in the West and their so called, what do they call it? Critical historical method.

It doesn't take hadith seriously at all, and just is completely dismissive of hadiths and so forth. And the problem here is isn't the acknowledgement that they have their epistemology and we have our epistemology. The the problem is when you don't understand that one is a correct and is your epistemology. Not that you just move through this epistemology to that one and back and forth. This is like an epistemological relativism.

Mhmm. There isn't that. There is an epistemology that is correct. There's a framework for understanding the world that's correct. And there's a framework for understanding knowledge and determining truth that's correct, and there's one that is incorrect.

And if your epistemology does not regard the science of hadith, the authentication process of hadith, the verification process of hadith. If your epistemology does not regard that as authentic, then all you've done is show the flaws of your epistemology. You didn't show anything about the the authenticity of the hadiths. Yeah. All you did was show that your methodology is wrong.

Your methodology for determining and verifying truth is wrong. Your authentication process is wrong, is flawed, and is inferior. You didn't show anything about whether the hadiths are authentic or not. If you don't understand that they're authentic, then this is a problem in your knowledge, and your framework for for determining knowledge. And and this should be the the the default position of any intelligent Muslim.

Certainly someone who is, you know, allegedly knowledgeable, or who presents himself as knowledgeable, or who believes themselves to be knowledgeable, who is regarded as knowledgeable. This is the default position. I don't need to go into your epistemology if it's flawed.

Again, this is not a matter of just blind faith. We're we're not, you know.

No. This is

About the, Okay. Again, I'm not talking about the lay everyday everyday Muslim here. The one the ones who pursue the sciences of hadith. It's not some pursuit that's changed on just blind faith, you know.

No. Of course not. I mean, because this is why it's called the science of hadith. But, I mean, you have to understand, like, okay, let me let me put it this way. There's no Epstein list.

Officially, that is now the historical record. There is no Epstein list. Okay. You're seeing them rewrite history in real time. And still you believe that they have any kind of an appropriate authentic way of talking about what is real verifiable history.

They're changing history in real time right now in our life, right, as you're as you're looking. They rewrite history daily. And so you're pretending that they have a serious approach to the authentication of history. Their only their only purpose is to delegitimize and invalidate our history.

Yep.

To delegitimize and invalidate our epistemologies. When what what our default position should be, if your epistemology delegitimizes or invalidates what our epistemology legitimizes and validates, All that means is that your epistemology doesn't work.

Yeah.

That's what that means. It is invalid. It is inferior. It doesn't work. It's manipulative.

And it is frankly a colonizer tool for the invalidation of colonized people. Yeah. And and and every other version or source of history that doesn't verify yours. Yeah. You're the ones who came up with the victors write history.

History is written by the victors. You're the ones who came up with that. That's the same culture that that now came up with this so called critical historical method. I see. The same ones who said, the victors write history.

Right. Okay. We know where you're coming from. You'll say that you'll say I'm sorry. You'll say that the that the hadiths are not authentic, but meanwhile, you'll talk about Aristotle like you know anything about the man.

Like there's anything, according to your own method that shows that he even existed. Yeah. Aristotle or Plato or Socrates or whoever, even Abraham Lincoln, you don't know what he actually said. Nine times out of 10, you don't know what he actually said unless you've got it written on paper, something with him, his signature. It's all word-of-mouth.

Everything is word-of-mouth. But you invalidate when anyone who isn't from your people, you know.

See the

I'm sorry. Again, it's the same culture as the same society that puts forward news from unverified anonymous sources like it's fact. Mhmm. This is these are the people who came up with their so called critical historical method. It's the same.

It's the same culture. It's the same society. The same so called civilization that came up with all this.

And the cute, you know, helpless submission to this is their method and as if it's an overarching academic reality. Know, like anyone in academia just has to accept this banner of reality and you're basically arrested by any form of development or thought or counter arguments because this is the established way, you know. And dichotomizing this as a matter of faith and as a matter of just pure rationality is where the whole pretentiousness and disingenuity of the individual that comes forth, you know. Frankly, it's unbecoming of someone of that person's age and stature. I would ex I can expect it from someone who's a who's just coming into the field of study and you're new, you're young, you're ignorant.

Okay. But, you know

I mean, I can't, you know, I can't speak about that individual specifically, but what I can what I can say is that anyone who is actually a, an educated Muslim, who is grounded in Islam, is grounded in the Islamic sciences, who's grounded in Islamic knowledge. If you are still seeing value in what is objectively, and objectively here means from our epistemological perspective, which is objective because the source of our knowledge is Allah. The objective reality is that their epistemology is flawed, is manipulative, is designed for a purpose. It has an objective. It's not objective, it's designed for an objective, Which is to invalidate everyone else, to to delegitimize everyone else and to determine for us and to tell us what real history is.

They get to decide what history is. And if you still see some value in that blatantly flawed, blatantly inferior, so called science or so called discipline. If you still see value in that, I don't know what would make you see value in that except that you have an internalized western supremacy, white supremacy, colonized mentality. Yeah. Because objectively it's foolishness.

Objectively it's foolishness. Yeah. I can't I father, I cannot tell a lie. I'm the one who cut down the cherry tree. That's what they told us about George Washington.

Never happened. George Washington had wooden dentures. He had he had fake dentures that were made from the teeth of a slave. See, they rewrite history all the time and they teach it like it's real. None of these things happened.

Anyway, they didn't happen the way that you said that they happened. You know, Plymouth Rock, Thanksgiving, all of these things, that's the history that you taught us. That's the history that you, through your critical historical method, determined was real and and true and was history. It's just a propaganda tool. And so it's not really surprising that their method, their propaganda tool for the, for the manipulation and the editing of history in their favor would say the hadiths are inauthentic.

Because that's because obviously the hadiths represent a massive part of what Islam is. Of of the Sharia, of even and our understanding and our, you know, a massive part part of that is the sunnah. Yeah. And the sunnah is derived from the hadiths. Yes.

So you want to get a you wanna get rid of all of that.

Yes. In that academic field, that would then go on imposing this on the rest of the Muslims, because apparently this is the rational faction of society, right? So, if we're not going with that side, then we're just foolish, blind faiths, you know, faith followers or something. Know, it's a kind of a strange dichotomy that you're willing to put yourself in, which is again, for a person of your stature, quite odd.

And see this is the thing with that I've talked about before also. About the clearing the table of falsehood before you establish the truth. Because of the the the form the formula of the Shahada. First, we get rid of the false gods, and then we say, we're not saying that there is no god, but there is only Allah. This is the truth, the untruth, the falsehood, there are no Gods, there is no God meaning any other except Allah.

This is the now we establish the truth, the negation and the affirmation. Okay. You're going into this now saying, basically, here's an epistemology and here's an epistemology and I'm not saying which one is right and which one is wrong. I don't know what you're doing with your life. You're supposed to be there telling these people.

Again, I don't mean to pick on a particular person, but for anyone who has this mentality. Because for example, I've seen people tweeting about this saying, you know, like the people who who are the Quranists Yeah. Who who already they want to reject hadith Sure. Who are also part of a colonial project, saying no one in the academy takes the hadith seriously, basically. Okay.

Any Muslim should not feel defensive about that. Yeah. There's no reason to feel defensive about that because you didn't say anything about the authenticity of hadiths with that statement. No. What you did was say that the academy is a kindergarten.

The academy doesn't know what they're doing. So my question is why do you wanna have anything to do with them? And and you have to identify. Your epistemology is inferior. This epistemology is superior.

You have to identify that. Because what has your epistemology brought? What what is the what is the fruit of your epistemology except for continuous propagation of false history that every westerner has to detox themselves from? That's you people. You gave us that false history.

That's what your epistemology and your critical, historical method gave us was nothing but false history, a a history that delegitimized and invalidated, the the the the testimony of your victims. Yeah. That's what your that's what yours does. Because you didn't give us pens and pencils. You didn't give us paper.

You didn't give us parchment. We just had word-of-mouth. So we just passed down our oral histories of what you did to us. No. No.

No. None of that happened. According to the historical critical historical method, blah blah blah. None of that happened. Right.

Because we don't have it on papers. We only have the official documents. That's what real history is. So therefore, there is no Jeffrey Epstein list in reality.

This is a very good title.

Diddy didn't do anything to anyone because the the official record is he he didn't. Yeah. Because you you rewrite history right now in real time and we're still supposed to take you seriously. You know? So I don't know why you think that there's anything prestigious about being a part of the academy when the academy is like a euphemism for, you know, the special kids.

Yeah. And and and the other thing is, as an academician, why is it that you're not able to identify the loop, the the problems, you know, the the the cracks in that that prevents them from seeing the authentication of having that we have arrived at.

You

know? Why do you have to just partition it as a matter of faith and not? Which is, again, fundamentally a problem of yours because you have now, for your own self

Well, I see see see I'm sorry.

That it's a it's a battle of faith now.

Well, no. See, I don't know if he's okay. Yes. Yes and no. But what his argument was that there's this epistemology and this one.

I see.

According to this epistemology, the the the science of hadiths are sufficient Right. For authentication. But according to this one, they're not.

The pseudo one.

Yeah. Yeah. And we know why they're not.

So because it's

This is this is why this is why I'm saying. You have to understand that they are insincere. Yeah. This is a tool. This is a colonizing tool of domination.

Yes. That's what it is. It's a it's a it's a it's a method for validating their domination of other people. Yeah. And making it sound like it's all objective and rational and so forth.

I mean, is the other thing is that is that is that you you really And this kind of goes back to the the other conversation about language and about speaking the language of the oppressor, or not speaking the language of the so that you can communicate. Is that, you don't understand the nature of the so called civilization that developed this methodology of history, of classifying history, categorizing history, you're still thinking that they are coming from anywhere similar to a position like us, where where where history matters and authenticity matters, Authentication verification matters to Muslims. To the point that, you know, as we know, the the stories of the the the lengths that the scholars would go to to verify something that no American, no western historian would ever dream of going to that much trouble to authenticate something. To verify something. Yeah.

They would never go to that much trouble.

Including keeping records of all the falsehoods and the lies that's being spread.

Precisely. You know. You know? You're pretending or you have convinced yourself. And again, I don't know what would prompt you to do that except an internalized white supremacy.

I mean, there was a time when you could we could make an excuse for you because you maybe have a lack of experience with this part of the world. But by now, everyone knows that they're insincere. Everyone knows what they're really about. Everyone knows that they don't take history seriously. They never did.

They don't take the present seriously, they don't take information seriously, they don't take truth seriously. These are the people who came up with moral relativism. These are the people who came up with the idea that there is no objective truth. You know? So you have to understand, You should understand and I don't understand why anyone would not understand that they are not sincere in what they're doing.

And that therefore there is a reason for their invalidation. There's a reason for why they don't include certain things as being verifiable or reliable. You know? It's not just, oh, it's a harmless omission. No.

It's a strategic omission.

It's a nefarious one.

There's a purpose behind it. And if you're going to engage in their so called epistemology, it should be to dismantle it.

Yeah.

It should be to to to like I said, refute, rebuke, and prosecute. Yeah. Their their epistemology. Don't say, I'm gonna code switch. Yes.

And I'm gonna be a sheikh over here, and I'm gonna be an academic over here. You need to decide which one you are because one of them is valid and one of them is invalid. One of them is is real with regards to being based in and promoting and exploring knowledge. And one of them is about covering knowledge. Mhmm.

It's about it it delegitimizing knowledge. It's about hiding knowledge. So which one do you want to be a part of?

Yeah. And and continuing to provide fodder to that segment of falsehood. I I again, it's a bit incomprehensible to me that why you would plug in yourself into that setup if it is not to at the capacity of an academic to expose to them the pseudo science that it is. Yeah. But instead, you just accept it as an overarching reality, and you submit, and you act as if you're arrested by these circumstances, and there's no other way to be.

I mean, you know, all I can think of is because you you still see prestige in it. Yes. You still see that there's prestige in it. And this is what also has to be dismantled. It's not prestigious.

It's disgraceful. Yeah. It's an embarrassment.

It's already showing in in all areas in science, in the sciences and technological development. You guys are no longer setting the benchmark anymore, you know.

Yeah. You know, it's a funny thing. I, you know, I've we've talked about this before. When I when I've criticized the West, which I've done once or twice. And people say, especially like when I if I talk about China for example.

And China's technological developments and advancements. People say China just copied, China just stole and then they made their own version. That's the entirety of your whole technological history.

Yes.

That's the that's the that's the that's your whole philosophical history. That's your whole technological. That's your whole history of science. Everything that you got, you got from someone else.

It's usurped. Yeah. From another civilization.

Yeah. And now you get mad when someone else does it better than you. When someone else took something that you came up with Yes. That is actually something that you took from someone else Yeah. That you made some modifications to.

Maybe you did make some improvements to it, but you didn't start anything. You took everything from someone else Yeah. And now the Chinese have taken from you and are doing it better than you. Yeah.

I'm sorry. This is not a recent thing. No. Like I said, as like in the early eighties, the you know, a lot of the techno camera film technology were fast becoming obsolete. You're talking about the eighties.

You know why? Because the Japanese were coming up this year. New tech, new development that just swept the market.

Right.

Okay? So you people are not capable of innovating and creating. Okay. Everyone else is able to acquire knowledge and develop and innovate and create.

Well, know, you know, here's the thing about that though. I'll I'll say it. I think any people are capable of innovation and creation and so on. But your whole system is designed for monopolization. Yes.

You're design you are it it's it's ironic because supposedly the the whole theory and the whole argument is that capitalism drives innovation. Yeah. It drives creativity and so forth. No, does not. It absolutely stifles it as much as possible.

Yeah. So you monopolize and then you impede developments to Mhmm. The of innovation, which is why Europe is in the state that it is now with, you know, like AI technology and electronic cars and all of these development is all stalled because there's a deliberate impediment. Mhmm. You know?

Design by design Yeah. To prevent them from pursuing the development because you want to monopolize and control. That's what it is.

Yeah. Because everything is profit driven.

Yes.

Everything is for for for centralization and concentration, consolidation of profit and power. And that is the same mentality in the so called academy.

Yes.

This is why you have to understand that that this thread runs through their whole so called civilization. This this whole tendency runs through their whole civilization, so so called. So you see this even in even in their historical method. That which is just a monopolization of control over history. Monopolization and the control over the validation of history and the the legitimization of history is it has to be completely in their hands.

It's just like what they do with patents. So it's not in our interest or shouldn't be of interest to us to try to be legitimized by people who are dedicated to our delegitimization or to seek validation from people who are dedicated to invalidating us or to have any respect whatsoever for any system, any discipline, any approach that they came up with, and the only reason they came up with it was so that they could pursue our invalidation and our delegitimization. We shouldn't have anything to do with that kind of a system, and we certainly shouldn't do anything to validate that system, or pretend like there's any prestige whatsoever involved in being involved in a situation or in a a discipline like that or in their their so called academy. Not only is there no prestige involved in that, it's not even respectable.