The authentic-chasing camp mischaracterise the medieval Muslim debates on epistemological certainty, apodictic knowledge, and historical truth. The ḥadīth scholars of early Islam understood the nuances of this debate -- unlike the dimwits of Twitter, however. Philosophy is key. https://twitter.com/shahanSean/status/1387851977774747651

The measures of the contemporary ahl al-ḥadīth is fine in so far as aims to discover notions of the past. The problem is with categories, however. Unless a ḥadīth is massively corroborated and widely transmitted, it can never qualify as apodicitc knowledge...

or epistemological certainly. Too many philosophically-illiterate Twitter accounts fail to grasp the intricacies of ḥadīth in relation to epistemology and historiography. Instead Twitter debates resort to third-rate Rankean positivism masquerading as isnād criticism...

It would be funny if it wasn't sad, largely because of the damage these toxic and ideologically-charged debates inflict on young impressionable minds and decent young Muslims trying to understand their faith. I blame the unbridled positivism of the Twitter buffoons.

Medieval Muslim legalists, ahl al-ḥadīth, theologians, and jurists understood the issue better than most. We even find clear principles of Stoic logic, Aristotelian epistemology, and late ancient influences in the early Sunni and Shiʿi ḥadīth writings...

It is high time one takes notice of the detriment brought about by Twitter morons who impose rankean positivism on their heritage while mistakenly conflating their methodology with sound epistemology. The medieval Muslim tradition would be ashamed of them, no doubt.

What I find odd, on this website, is despite the rich, dynamic, and centuries-old Muslim traditions of historiography and institutions of learning, a young man hiding behind a pseudonym in their parents bedroom thinks he can reinvent the wheel by touting a few lines from Albānī.