@ZiadElLabban This is kora not itachi. Keep in mind most of these guys are autodidactic kids that came up on TikTok, they’ll get manners in a few years, rn they’re just a reflection of that environment they grew up engaging in.
@BenSchettler@Spainkiller@EvangelicalDW “quite a few…of the papers…weren’t actually things I ended up submitting” is something he said in the “apology” video. If “quite a few” weren’t submitted, others would have been.
@khalilandani has a thread, he repeatedly took credit for work done by others.
@NickQuient He unlisted it, he needs to think about how much he has to modify his excuses now that there’s like 10 examples including from time in PhD program to just regular content theft outside of the academy
@jaketheflash@Brosephos In life or death circumstances, harboring Anne Frank, war, etc. sure.
Lying about your research with no extenuating circumstance is hardly the same. And among Muslim scholars, some don’t even permit it for scholars / scholarship even at point of coercion…
@1athariarchive@dmontetheno1 You gave IHs explanation for hadith 100 - maybe I’m misunderstanding. Are you saying that this hadith is one of the 2/200ish that IH said there was tafarud on? So he says there’s tafarud and then says there isn’t?
@1athariarchive@dmontetheno1 >why he included this one aswell, we don’t have this information.
And I’m saying this is a problem, if you accept the accusation against Ismail. There’s no explanation for why he’s drawing from a liar, as you can’t derive textual benefit and he didn’t benefit in uluw.
@1athariarchive@dmontetheno1 You quoted IH that there is tafarud in 2 ahadith of Ismail that Bukhari brought, (remaining 100+ are supported)
Then you brought examples of why there’s no tafarud on hadith 100. I’m not disputing that *this hadith* is well established to Hisham.
@1athariarchive@dmontetheno1 You’re replying about the hadith the hadith rejector brought; that one already has a mutaba’ah from the Hadith rejectors own screenshot lol. You don’t need to look further than his own post for the answer to that one…
@1athariarchive@dmontetheno1 > So the authenticity of a narration does not depend on its presence in Ismāʿīl's manuscripts
And if he’s just picking ones that have mutaba’at, + you want to affirm Ismail is wadda’ simultaneously, you need to account for the point of choosing his path to begin with vs others
@1athariarchive@dmontetheno1 What you brought from IH earlier:
> Bukhārī included only two narrations in which Ismāʿīl was alone in transmitting the report (tafarrud), while Muslim…
So the idea that these two reports have mutaba’at then sounds like it’s pure speculation by IH to deal with the ishkal
@sawyer_dm Exactly! All these people coming out with ethical concerns, a little bit of plagiarizing here, some stolen content there, etc. totally missed the plot.
Wes was selected by God for a purpose, and we’ll be gosh darned before we let a bit of dishonesty cause him to be cancelled.
@1athariarchive@dmontetheno1 If he’s a fabricator, how do narrations he has written down in a book suddenly become authentic just because they were selected afterwards from it? Unless the accusation against him was false that makes zero sense.
@i_bbyyy@ZouhairsMurid Ibn Arabi’s position is that they become acclimated to the fire and it softens, they never leave it / it never actually terminates being the fire.
IT/IQ didn’t comment on what happens to them after the fire ends explicitly IIRC
@EphraimChrist14@JoshuaBarzon Maybe nobody else does, but Wes Huff did, as he explained to us after he got caught.
Are you trying to suggest he’s just making up an ad hoc excuse? Are you without sin to cast the first stone?
@JoshuaBarzon Exactly! All these people coming out with ethical concerns, a little bit of plagiarizing here, some stolen content there, etc. totally missed the plot.
Wes was selected by God for a purpose, and we’ll be gosh darned before we let a bit of dishonesty cause him to be cancelled.