Most of you have heard about the latest audio release by Imam Anwar Al-Awlaki (the audio and a response). In the past few years, many of those in the West who found immense inspiration in his audio series on the Lives of the Prophets, the life of Abu Bakr, and the Hereafter have become disillusioned with his transformation to a revolutionary supporter of Jihad.
One of the common arguments used against Awlaki is that he once espoused universalist messages of Islam (“Islam is peace”, “Muslims are against terrorism”, etc.) and then (after the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq), he transformed into the exact opposite. The argument continues that such a revolution of thought is a sign of instability and misguidance.
Regardless of where you may stand on his views, there is one point that we should all agree upon – an evolution of thought does not always indicate a deficient understanding of the truth.
Similar arguments are made against Sheikh Hamza Yusuf, who took a somewhat inverted approach to Awlaki’s journey, going from a firebrand speaker, calling on Muslims in the West to disassociate themselves from the wayward mores of Western society, to an assimilationist, preaching a more tolerant message of Islam in the West.
I find many people negatively critical of individuals who go through intellectual renovations. The implication being that those persons who consistently stick to the same worldview have a more solid base and represent a more balanced frame of mind.
Nonsense.
These same people refuse to study and analyze thoughts and teachings espoused by anyone outside their outlook, fearful of diluting their ‘intellectual purity’. They claim that guidance can only come from their ‘authentic’ scholars and unabashedly reject all others as deviant.
The irony is that these folks are actually the ones on weak foundations since they’re too afraid to be intellectually challenged by foreign ideas.
Imam Ghazali is the most famous example of intellectual evolution, going from a more exoteric life as an Islamic judge (Qadi) to a more esoteric life of Ihsan and spiritual excellence. In the process, he embraced the challenges posed by other methodologies, such as contemporary philosophy (Falsafa) and extreme theology (Bataniyya, Mutazila).
Personally, I’ve never shied from reading works by authors outside my personal point of view. And in the process, I’ve come to adjust and reinvent my outlook, while always keeping my foundation fixed firmly on the fundamental principles of Islam.
Sure, some of my colleagues have been critical of my intellectual ebbs and flows but I personally find myself stronger in my convictions after having challenged them against countering ideas.
Not sure why so many people are afraid/critical of the maturation process of one's personal thought. I guess it's easier to stand behind the cover of select scholars, blindly regurgitating their words than to withstand the barrage of intellectual arrows in the battlefield of ideas.
WAW
5 days ago
18 comments:
BismillahirRahmanirRahim
Salamu'alaykum,
Strawman.
I read plenty of other peoples point of views. And I still think that I highly value a lifetime of consistency of growth in faith and practice and methodology.
When Imam Ghazali (R) is writing a book titled "Deliverance from Error", do you think he advocates a focus on his early life story as an example to follow?
One might as well tell one's kids that the lessons we are teaching from life experience can largely be ignored, and that we fully expect them to make the same mistakes we did, and additional ones of their own. This isn't progress.
Regardless, the argument against Awlaki is more subtle than this.
One, Awlaki is not the gatekeeper of Jihad, he is a supporter of killing of innocents and bombers such as Amrozi and the underwear bomber etc.
Talking about him as if he has a 'view' which is legitimately entertained is slightly ridiculous.
Two, the point with him is that armed with the knowledge that he had, he was unable to come to a sufficient response to the terrorist ideology attacking innocent women and children in Muslim and Non-Muslim lands, an obviously morally and spiritually bankrupt approach.
Wow! It is a rather tremendous accusation to accuse people who prefer consistent views of refusing "to study and analyze thoughts and teachings espoused by anyone outside their outlook" and "on weak foundations since they’re too afraid to be intellectually challenged by foreign idea". Your generalizations regarding people who prefer consistency and what motivates this preference are broad-sweeping and unsubstantiated speculation, and are far more egregious than the accusations you claim such people make.
It is absurd to say that "an evolution of thought does not indicate a deficient understanding of the truth" because it indeed can indicate such things. Is that an absolute? No. Can it be an indicator of such? Yes.
It *is* misguidance to condone and encourage the killing of unarmed women and children - including Muslims! To compare this transformation to Sh. Hamza's alleged transformation or Imam Ghazali's to attempt to further your point is appalling.
Also, Sh. Hamza has spoken against the the claims that he has "changed" and called them untrue. His denial should be sufficient and the claims that he has changed should cease.
AA- Yursil,
Strawman? Odd, since normally there needs to be an *original* argument that is side-stepped in order to create and refute a concocted strawman argument. Pray tell, my friend, what is the original argument that I failed to address?
My post was about the narrow-minded attitude of people who automatically reject someone based not on the perversion of their thoughts, but due to their merely changing opinions. I made no value judgments on the opinions themselves.
"I read plenty of other peoples point of views. And I still think that I highly value a lifetime of consistency of growth in faith and practice and methodology."
That's great! Now, do you discount those who may not necessarily find consistency in their practice and methodology?
If so, my thoughts apply to you as well.
If not, then you aren't the target of my rant.
Please re-read the post. I did state: "The irony is that these folks are actually the ones on weak foundations since they’re too afraid to be intellectually challenged by foreign ideas."
----
"Two, the point with him is that armed with the knowledge that he had, he was unable to come to a sufficient response to the terrorist ideology attacking innocent women and children in Muslim and Non-Muslim lands, an obviously morally and spiritually bankrupt approach."
Well said and I fully concur with your assessment. I am very disgusted by his support for attacking innocents. And the weak logic used to justify this (US is democracy with citizens who voted in their leaders and voted in support of US foreign policies, thus they are equally blameworthy as the soldiers in the battlefield) is a stretch that no true Muslim scholar would ever make.
But as I said, my post wasn't about his views, but about the *transformation* of his views.
AA- Anon,
Wow! Did you actually read my post? :-)
Seriously, where in my post did I criticize someone for choosing consistency?
My rant was against those who perch themselves on their pedestals of consistency while deriding those whose thoughts flow through a process of evolution as they become exposed to outside ideas.
My rant was against those who militantly refuse to expose themselves to foreign ideas out of fear of becoming misguided.
My rant was against those who are so weak in their beliefs that a lecture or a book by someone of slightly different beliefs is treated as kryptonite.
"It is absurd to say that "an evolution of thought does not indicate a deficient understanding of the truth" because it indeed can indicate such things. Is that an absolute? No. Can it be an indicator of such? Yes."
Good point. But would you agree that can equally be said of someone so insecure with their worldview that they refuse to entertain other thoughts?
Would it better if I re-worded it to say: "an evolution of thought does not always indicate a deficient understanding of the truth"?
Done.
"It *is* misguidance to condone and encourage the killing of unarmed women and children - including Muslims!"
I was very careful to avoid Awlaki's views, instead focusing on the transformation. I didn't feel the need to explicitly state the obvious.
Yes, such a view is misguidance, but let's stick to criticizing his errant opinions instead of calling him out on his change from a mainstream imam to an extremist jihadi. Because its a slippery slope when we begin writing off people for changing their views.
This is quite a complex discussion we have here! Here are just my thoughts on this from my own experience. For myself I feel that I am not qualified other points of view/opinions and judging their veracity/falsehood based on my very limited knowledge of Deen. I am in the process of learning Arabic and of trying to learn (at least) the basics of Islamic jurisprudence. I don't feel I am in any way qualified to read other people's literature upon a certain matter without resorting to discussing it with a scholar that I trust. That is why I stay away from reading about literature advocating views/opinions that I have never found to be based on Islam. For example I have heard really errant opinions being given out upon subjects that in reality are clear in Islam (eg. opinions that actually allow the permissibility of Muslims to engage in riba, that claim that Muslim women can marry non-Muslims, and even that homosexuality is condoned in Islam!) Now are you saying brother that I should read first how people advocating such opinions came to their opinions before deciding that these opinions are wrong?? Because based on even my very limited Islamic understanding I know these opinions have absolutely no basis in Islam. If I was to ever engage in discussions with people advocating such errant opinions I would try to learn from a scholar how to clearly refute their opinions based on daleel (Islamic evidences) and then I would also read up in more detail about how they came to advocate their opinions ( the so-called "evidences" they used to conclude their opinions, etc). Otherwise if I never come across people directly with such opinions I don't feel it is necessary for me to learn and study up on their opinions in detail.
Now as for what you say about writing people off, I agree I don't think it's productive to do that. Using my above mentioned example of people holding opinions contradicting Shariah, I wouldn't start actively avoiding or openly ridiculing these people and their opinions. Islam stresses that we act more civil than that. Instead I would continue to remain friends with them and simply bring up other topics for discussion. I learned that as Muslims instead of dwelling upon issues that divide us we should discuss and find commonality in issues that unite us (such as the basics of Islam or aqueeda). Of course I know even with the aqueeda some Muslims hold problematic ideas but even with them I'm sure there's something we can find in common to discuss. So I don't know if I've strayed from your topic of discussion or not (this is what happens often with complex discussions like this!) but that's just my understanding of this situation.
I forgot to mention another reason why I don't find it necessary to learn about anything and everything under the sun. For me it simply comes down to not letting myself go astray with thinking and believing things that are in reality not in accordance with Islam. The way I understand it, as Muslims this is the way we are supposed to gain knowledge. I'd like the use learning the theory of evolution as an example.
We shouldn't avoid learning the theory at all and neither should we just learn it as is as though it can be taken as "clear facts". We as Muslims can learn about this theory but along with that we should learn about and understand what Islam regards this theory as being (whether we can take it wholly as fact, or parts of it, or not regard it as facts at all). I believe that if it wasn't for Brother Harun Yahya's insightful and engaging literature and website, I would still be confused today about what Islam regards the theory of evolution as being.
BismillahirRahmanirRahim
Salamu'alaykum
A strawman needs no active original debate.
One can setup a strawman of the opposing view, which you did for those who you describe as "people (who are) negatively critical of individuals who go through intellectual renovations.".
You then the strawman view to this group as the "same people (who) refuse to study and analyze thoughts and teachings espoused by anyone outside their outlook".
This is a misrepresentation of the former groups', which I identify with, position.
From there you tear down the group which adheres to consistent teachers by undermining their intellectual fortitude.
This is all surprising as you've often written positively about simplistic approaches towards living and hence building faith.
Anwar Awlakis approach was one of connecting to the inconsistent. He made direct interpretive statements from his sources to make CD sets and later he did the same to yield to a stupid ideology.
Intellectual approaches? Fail for him.
You ask:
"That's great! Now, do you discount those who may not necessarily find consistency in their practice and methodology?"
If I am entrusting my akhirat in someones interpretation of Islam, yes.
I'd like for one indication in their life to be consistent faith in belief, methodology, and in practice, yes.
In fact, I think I demand it.
In fact, I demand centuries of consistency behind them reaching to the Prophet (AS).
This is what I understand my duty to be to find truth.
Do I discount the views of people who are inconsistent? Yes, largely. Because until they connect themselves to the consistent they can be understood as flip floppers or worse, inventors of new approaches when it comes to matters of faith.
Such an approach opens the door to the variety of strange ideas we have seen in the past 100 years from 'homosexual muslims' to 'female imams' to 'secular Islam'.
Does each approach need to be intellectually argued against before a villager can latch onto Haqq?
Or are there proofs in the company of the Saliheen that are tacit yet much more powerful?
I admire consistency even in those who I believe are in error, but usually their consistency is of a category lower than what I have committed myself to following.
--
The logic for Awlaki is not weak to him. It led him from being a fairly normal person to one who can not shed a tear upon the death of children. This is the apex of the danger of inconsistency.
Subhan'Allah this discussion is making me think (Jazak'Allah brother for that!) Yet ANOTHER thing I just thought of related to this is in regards to scholars that hold differing opinions/views, some of which contradict Islam wholeheartedly.
For me I wouldn't write them off completely. If I found their opinions and knowledge to be based on Islam, I would try to understand and analyze those from them. Their problematic opinions I wouldn't look at (unless it was in trying to refute it in front of someone else who supported those opinions) even though I would tell other people about it (like so and so has some good opinions based on Islam and some bad ones not based on it). I wouldn't start publicly deriding their opinions and/or personally attack them because that's not in the spirit of Islam.
correction:
"You then the strawman"
"You then setup the strawman"
AA-
@R, I should say that I limit my discussion to ideas within the confines of the Shariah. Although I've exposed myself to these other views (making halal riba, homosexuality,etc.), I would never allow them to be considered acceptable opinions.
I was actually referring to the countless strains of thought found within the wide spectrum of Islamic thought, ranging from Salafism to Ikhwani to Sufi to Tablighi and so on.
I've encountered brothers subscribing to the above-mentioned groups who simply refuse to read any material from 'opposing' groups.
Fine, they need not 'flip-flop', but why the hesitation to simply read alternative points of view?
@Yursil, "From there you tear down the group which adheres to consistent teachers by undermining their intellectual fortitude."
I ask you exactly what I asked Anon above: "where in my post did I criticize someone for choosing consistency?"
My criticism is of those who choose consistency by way of closing their eyes and ears to alternative opinions and simultaneously scoffing at those who experience evolution in thought.
How is that undermining your intellectual fortitude?
I appreciate your attachment to those who have displayed consistency and I too 'demand centuries of consistency behind them reaching to the Prophet (AS)', but even within their ranks, there are differences of opinions and approaches.
What is so wrong with shifting from one approach to another?
Not everyone is as blessed as you to find inner peace with their first and only love. For some (many?) this life-long journey consists of multiple stops, countless connecting flights, and many tiring layovers, while others have it lucky and get a non-stop ticket in first class on the Concorde.
Let's not snicker at those in economy class.
BismillahirRahmanirRahim
Salamu'alaykum,
--
Although I've exposed myself to these other views (making halal riba, homosexuality,etc.), I would never allow them to be considered acceptable opinions.
--
Why not? Why do you draw the line with some intellectual revisitations and approaches and not others? Why not require investigate and immersive thought when it comes to evolutionary biology? These are all 'ideas' out in the ether, each claiming to be truth, or at least, closer to the truth than any other. Some even claim to be better Sharias than any other.
--I've encountered brothers subscribing to the above-mentioned groups who simply refuse to read any material from 'opposing' groups.--
And I commend them for not wasting their time. When they feel their faith is strong enough to endure constant doubt and judgement, inshaAllah they will see Haqq.
And it may or may not come to them through reading a book. It may just be from seeing the nur in one persons face.
Argument extinguishes the light of faith, and it may be best for them to grow their faith until they see a better way manifest to them.
Allah is the one who guides.
--I ask you exactly what I asked Anon above: "where in my post did I criticize someone for choosing consistency?"--
As I stated, you made a category of people who support consistency and then undermined the reasonings behind their approach by sweeping a broad brush on their characteristics and motives.
Some of the 'consistent group' are ready to tackle intellectual arguments head on, others are not. Regardless, when they see 'truth', if they are sincere, Allah says it will be clear to them in the Quran.
With that guarantee we can now move on from idle chatter on topics which hold little value and concern ourselves with whether our sincerity is at the level we need it to be. And whether we are ready to acknowledge the manifest signs that Allah is sending to us constantly.
Now, I certainly do understand that there are groups of people who seem to hold to their view due to ego, but this is not for us to judge. In fact its very difficult for us to judge via discussion. The heart speaks clearer on this matter.
If Allah happens to have us cross their paths, and we taste the dirtiness of ego in their approach, we need to move on for our own sake. However the existence of this group does not preclude the existence of sincere people who avoid intellectual bickerings for positive reasons. In fact, such people are probably smarter and better off than most of us on the internet-o-sphere.
-Not everyone is as blessed as you to find inner peace with their first and only love.-
Most people are able to make marriages work, once they realize what needs to change about themselves and what really has to change about the other. Through this, we find that people who give excuses as to why suitor after suitor is unsuitable are largely facing large problems with their own egos and sincerity and not the ones seeking their hand.
asalamu alaikum,
You asked: "Seriously, where in my post did I criticize someone for choosing consistency?". Yursil has already answered and I agree - it is because the category you put them in. The generalizations of consistency seekers as if they are a monolithic group, all "fearful of diluting their purity", all on "weak foundations" is the criticism. I agree that this is a subset of consistency-seekers, but don't feel it is representative of the group.
You asked: "But would you agree that can equally be said of someone so insecure with their worldview that they refuse to entertain other thoughts?". Yes, if their reason for refusing to entertain other thoughts is rooted in insecurity, though I think for most people, not wanting to entertain other thoughts probably stems from other reasons.
I believe there is also a difference between growth/refinement and radical transformation. The latter is troubling to me. The prior, for me, reflects how we should grow and be strengthened in our faith, particularly when accompanied with the acquisition of more knowledge. If the "changes" an established scholar are glaringly obvious, it should give us pause. Someone newly converted or recently practicing more seriously is more likely to experience apparent shifts.
Oh ok that's good brother for a minute there I thought you were telling us to be more "open-minded" about everything :) And now that you've made your point more clear I totally agree with what you're saying. I have also studied some of the ideas propagated by the various groups (like Tablighi Jam'aat, Salafi, ICNA/ISNA, Jam'aati Islami, and Ikwan). I don't agree with all their ideas (particularly their stance on politics, which range from having no political voice to supporting existing governments through political participation), but I have at least tried to understand where they are coming from. In this case I thought it would be beneficial to understand their political stance because I had several friends from these groups and I thought it best to engage them in discussion in order to make them understand the flaws on these groups' political stances. Also, I have found some of their ideas to be good and in accordance with Islam (such as Tablighi's emphasis on giving and receiving dawah consistently). Besides they're groups calling for Islam and even though they may not be going about it the correct way doesn't mean I should deride their efforts; instead I should engage in meaningful discussions so that we can eventually come to the right conclusions on certain important matters Insha'Allah.
I forgot to mention that in studying the ideas propagated by these groups I'm in no way saying I judged their opinions' veracity/falsehood based on my own limited understanding of Deen or upon using my own rational thinking skills, but upon reading up what scholars that I have come to trust say about these opinions. Also I want to say that I think it's good to study up on these groups calling for Islam because unlike groups or individuals calling upon unIslamic ideas the Islamic groups would have more relevance in my life being that I am a Muslim sincerely trying to practice the faith and not someone mixing Islam with Kufr (I pray I can stay this way until death).
"Argument extinguishes the light of faith, and it may be best for them to grow their faith until they see a better way manifest to them."
On this I agree with you Brother Yursil you've said it beautifully. If discussions turn into arguments, then it's time to disengage. No use trying to "win" any arguments when it comes to the Deen.
While hunting for a specific hadith, I came across another in Sahih Bukhari that seems relevant to this discussion:
Volume 9, Book 93, Number 558:
Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "The example of a believer is that of a fresh green plant the leaves of which move in whatever direction the wind forces them to move and when the wind becomes still, it stand straight. Such is the similitude of the believer: He is disturbed by calamities (but is like the fresh plant he regains his normal state soon). And the example of a disbeliever is that of a pine tree (which remains) hard and straight till Allah cuts it down when He will." (See Hadith No. 546 and 547, Vol. 7).
AA-
@Yursil, "Argument extinguishes the light of faith, and it may be best for them to grow their faith until they see a better way manifest to them."
But am I calling for argumentation? I'm simply asking that the consistency folks respect those who find the need to search for truths outside their current worldview.
@JD, thanks for the hadith bro, but how do you see this applicable to my post or the ensuing discussion?
I get the point of the post and I believe it is perfectly appropriate. Steadfastness is not a guarantee of haqq, neither is movement a guarantee of baatil. The haqq and baatil have to be judged of the state (whichever a person is in) must be judged against the texts.
Post a Comment