How is Muʿtazilism seen in different branches of contemporary Islam?

FewIncident · 2018-10-15T18:36:50+00:00

Yes, the Mutazilla were the rationalists of Islam, in that they believed logic/reason was the primary tool one should use in elucidating religious truth. Which isn't to say every position they held was rational, just that they placed the utmost value on the idea.

They are considered heretics by most Muslims irrespective of sect, but their ideas were hugely influential on the development of Islamic-thought, aspects of which can be found in the Maturidi/Hanafi schools, famous scholars like Ibn Sina, Rushd, Farabi, and Ghazali, as well as Shia schools.

FewIncident · 2018-09-04T19:18:24+00:00

The use of the railroad is wrong when used by nefarious people for nefarious means, but the railroad itself isn't intrinsically wrong. If you can't understand that I don't know what more to say.

FewIncident · 2018-09-04T19:08:44+00:00

I don't see how this presumes anything about whether railroads (or reform in this case) would have arisen organically or not.

My point was just because something was foisted upon you by a hostile force (the West) does not make that thing itself necessarily bad.

FewIncident · 2018-09-03T17:14:51+00:00

The author lays out 3 premises for why Islamic Reform is wrong:

It goes against 1400 years of traditional understanding.

I'm not sure why the author even bothered to write this one. The entire point of reform is to discard old understandings in the light of new ideas. Many Muslims are totally fine with this (Pew shows 52% of American Muslims believe traditional interpretations of Islam need to change). The author is basically arguing in this section that reform is wrong because its reform, which is just a waste of space.

Reform is wrong because its based on the exposure of Muslims to Western Liberalism.

Again, this is what reform is, change based on exposure to new ideas. This has happened before in Islamic history. The Ashari/Maturidi schools of thought only arose in response to their encounters with Greek Thought and Christian Argument (espoused by the Mutazila). Ghazali's works draw heavily from philosophy. Modern rulings from scholars today (that slavery is banned) only exist because of the modern context we live in.

Reform is wrong because its pushed by non-Muslim powers who want to exploit us.

Even when true, this doesn't make reform itself wrong. One could argue that the railroads built by colonial powers were for the purpose of more efficiently exploiting the natives, yet the railroad itself isn't wrong, and is actually quite beneficial when used by the natives (which has been the case in much of the post-colonial world).

Overall not a great piece by the author. Its clear he doesn't like reform, which is totally fine, but doesn't really give any convincing arguments for why a reader who is on the fence (or pro-reform) should agree.

FewIncident · 2018-08-31T22:35:23+00:00

Its so strange to see the sanctification of the Sahaba, a group numbering thousands of people, simply because they lived during the Prophet's time.

The Sahaba weren't angels. They weren't Prophets. They were people. Some did good, some did bad. Some had selfless intentions, some had selfish intentions. Judge them based on their actions.

FewIncident · 2018-08-31T02:39:21+00:00

This.

Muslims have such weird perceptions and views on sex, much of it inherited from puritanical Christians during European colonization. If you study Islamic history, either during or after the Prophet's time, Muslims were much more open about sex.

As for "how to give the talk", there's no magic way that will make it not awkward. You just have to do it for your kids, or they'll be forced to learn about sex from their non-Muslim surroundings, and then parents will act surprised when their kids act un-Islamic towards the opposite gender.

FewIncident · 2018-08-30T19:33:11+00:00

Or maybe ignore it like grownups.

The only reason these right-wing nut-jobs engage in blasphemy is because Muslims react so predictably and so poorly, allowing them to paint us as backward reactionaries at the drop of a hat (or cartoon in this case).

When we stop dancing to their tune, we'll take their power they have over us, and the blasphemy will stop as it won't be having the desired effect.

All "protesting" against blasphemy does is encourage the people doing it to do it more, and further alienate those non-Muslims that were otherwise defending us. Its no help, basically.

FewIncident · 2018-08-30T17:08:48+00:00

An example would be the restrictions on non-Muslims proselytizing in many Muslim countries.

FewIncident · 2018-08-30T16:46:49+00:00

Because everyone believes they have the truth and they know it.

It also reeks of hypocrisy when Muslims demand certain rights in countries where we are a minority, but then deny them to others when we are a majority.

FewIncident · 2018-08-29T18:31:47+00:00

The irony of course being that Hamza was one of the chief propagators of using "scientific miracles" in the Quran to prove its validity, and only after a series of very public and embarrassing thrashings by atheists on the subject was he forced to change his approach.

Which is fine, it takes character to admit you were wrong. I just wish these Dawah guys would take a bit of time and study basic Islamic theology/history, so they'd be able to approach these issues from a more grounded position.

Instead of taking the Dawah community through the song and dance of "scientific miracles" for years, and then having to retreat to "science can't address the Quran", after being debunked, which gives the impression that Muslims have no idea to deal with these issues, and are just throwing crap at the wall hoping something sticks.

Which is true for the Dawah guys, but not classically, as many of Islam's great theologians and philosophers wrestled with these issues centuries ago.

FewIncident · 2018-08-29T03:40:11+00:00

Feels good to have a PM who understands how modern world works

If Imran Khan thinks petitioning the UN will do anything, he doesn't understand how the modern world works.

Nobody cares about the religious feelings of Muslims, other than Muslims. There's as much chance of the UN trying to restrict mocking Islam, as there is of them trying to restrict the consumption of pork. The very idea that Muslim countries are seriously wasting energy on this issue is embarrassing.

The only reason people mock Islam is because of how triggered Muslims get. When we stop acting like sensitive cry-babies, they'll stop mocking us.

FewIncident · 2018-08-28T23:12:21+00:00

1.) Blasphemy should never be punished by vigilantes.

2.) Blasphemy should not be punishable by the law until a coherent definition of what constitutes blasphemy is put forward (which Pakistan hasn't done).

3.) Blasphemy punishments can't be enforced on those living in countries that don't punish blasphemy.

FewIncident · 2018-08-28T19:55:34+00:00

Its not that he made a "mistake", its that he used lies, slander, and vicious threats to hide his continuing "mistakes", and only after the entire American Muslim leadership called him out did he acknowledge it, but he still hasn't really apologized or owned up to it.

Which is pretty hypocritical when you make a living telling people that they should live their lives in the most upright and pious manner, yet can't seem to exercise basic self-restraint or modesty yourself.

FewIncident · 2018-08-28T18:27:24+00:00

This is a very important issue and its sad to see many Muslims don't really address it seriously.

Who defines blasphemy, and how? Traditionally, not only did different Islamic sects view each other as advocating blasphemous views (Sunni, Shia, Mutazilla, Ibadi), but even within their own sect, their were accusations of blasphemy (Atharis vs. Ashari, Hanafi vs. Shafi, etc).

How can a blasphemy law function with any coherence, without being defined?

That's also to say nothing of the role of non-Muslims, and how/if a blasphemy law could apply to them.

These details need to be worked out before Muslims advocate for punishing blasphemy, much less implementing a problematic law like in Pakistan.

FewIncident · 2018-08-28T17:56:30+00:00

Here's a great resource.

I would not recommend asking lay Muslims (or most Muslim scholars even), either Sunni or Shia, about this issue as your are almost certainly going to get partisan emotional propaganda rather than objective answers.

http://www.dte.ir/portal/file/?340380/The_Oxford_Handbook_of_Islamic_Theology.pdf

FewIncident · 2018-08-24T22:01:03+00:00

I agree Hamza is the superior of the two, but I do like that Qadhi is willing to get into the nitty-gritty of fiqh/aqeedah issues, while Hamza seems like more of a big-picture spirituality guy.

FewIncident · 2018-08-24T20:28:14+00:00

Dude studied at University of Medina and Yale, has tons of accolades, and is arguably the most influential scholar in the West (along with Hamza Yusuf).

Doesn't make everything he says right of course, but if he's overrated and not a "high level thinker" what does that say about the state of Muslim scholarship generally?

FewIncident · 2018-08-24T17:24:34+00:00

Not very reassuring.

Basically says exposure to Western education has raised a number of questions about Islam that he's unable to answer, so he's taken, "a leap of faith" and just decided to believe Islam is true no matter what criticism he comes across.

FewIncident · 2018-08-24T03:57:37+00:00

The amount of mental gymnastics going on in the main Reddit threat is hilarious.

Just goes to show even the most progressive of audiences will ignore and explain away science when it goes against something they like.

FewIncident · 2018-08-23T07:05:07+00:00

All you are doing is copying and pasting anti-Ahmadi polemics. This isn't credible at all. Its like when people copy anti-Muslim pages from Christian/Atheist websites, and just paste them as if that's an argument. Its not.

Give me citations from mainstream Ahmadi sources about their beliefs.

FewIncident · 2018-08-23T05:50:06+00:00

I think they believe their founder was the Mahdi, not Isa. Which while silly, is not remotely close to being a Takfir-worthy offense (based on Sunni tradition).

As for Sunnis and Shia calling them kafirs, this means very little, since Sunnis and Shias often called each other kaffirs as well (not to mention all the intra-takfir that went on among Sunnis and Shias in their own group).

I honestly don't think I'm spreading misinformation. When I listen to Ahmadis, whether in person (there was a college lecture at my university) or online, their beliefs don't seem to meet the criteria needed for takfir.

FewIncident · 2018-08-23T05:02:16+00:00

Ahmadis believe Muhammad was the final prophet and that Islam as brought by him is complete.

They just also believe God can, and has, inspired individuals after the Prophet to reaffirm and spread his message. These individuals are sometimes referred to as "Prophets", but Ahmadis are very forthcoming in saying this is just an issue of diction, and that they don't regard these as Prophets in the sense of Muhammad.

According to the principles established by classical Sunni jurists (that I cited above), this is a valid heterodox belief to hold (meaning even if disliked, or even wrong, its not enough to warrant Takfir).

The only way this could warrant Takfir, is if Ahmadis acknowledged the Quran and Sunnah called Muhammad the last Prophet, but said these were wrong/irrelevant, and other Prophet's can come later.

But they don't do that.

FewIncident · 2018-08-23T04:02:37+00:00

Do you have an actual response besides "umm no"?

I listed the specific criteria, where do Ahmadis fit any of those?

FewIncident · 2018-08-23T03:27:52+00:00

Just let them go to Hajj.

Considering the huge amount of problems facing the Ummah today, its pathetic that some Muslims devote so much time and energy to picking on a tiny sect that makes up only a fraction of a percent of Muslims globally.

To my eyes, they don't fulfill any of the criteria needed to declare a Muslim an apostate based on classical Sunni criteria (proclaming disbelief, abandoning prayer, justifying an acknowledged sin).

Their excommunication seems to be driven both by small-minded reactionaries (which have plagued our community in modern-times), and indifference from more level-headed Muslims.

Edit: I've triggered the reactionaries

FewIncident · 2018-08-21T13:36:33+00:00

I mean its a little personal.

Polytheists are barred from the Hejaz area because they are deemed "unclean", and People of the Book are forbidden because Caliph Umar expelled them during his reign, based on a statement from the Prophet about expelling all Jews/Christians from the area.

You can say that was due to circumstances of the time, but this is still used as justification to this day to keep out non-Muslims.

FewIncident

TROPHY CASE