Beautiful, absolutely beautiful. Lovely read. Soroush articulates many similar thoughts I have on Islam in a nice, poetic way. He lays it down wonderfully.
Here we go:
Religious intellectualism is “the way” for religious intellectuals. It is a school of thought that strives to benefit from both human experience and Prophetic experience; and it does not sacrifice either one of these for the other. It believes that, in the modern age, the old revelation still has many things to say and to teach, and that the riches in its stores are by no means exhausted. It would be an injustice to reduce religious intellectualism to a religious sect or a political party, although it can bring about vast changes in both political and religious spheres.
Religious intellectuals are intellectuals because they believe in a reason that is independent of revelation and are nourished by it. And, lamp of reason in hand, they strive to shed light on truth and to sear injustice. And they are religious because their truthful faith is constructed neither on imitation, nor on blind obedience, nor on lineage, nor on coercion, nor on whim, nor on custom, nor on fear, nor on greed, but on a heart led by reason or on spiritual experience; and it is constantly being purified and perfected. Religious intellectualism is a fluid identity because exercising reason, seeking truth and combating superstition can only go hand-in-hand with fluidity. It is a creed with no clerics in which everyone is their own cleric; it is a retreat with no elder inhabited by elders without a retreat.
Concepts such as apostasy, heresy, blasphemy, piety, etc. have no place in it, because these are concepts that are subject to the prevailing political and religious powers, and they belong to the collective identity of utilitarian believers whose religiosity is determined, caused, inherited, pragmatic, identity-based, obedient and imitative. Hundreds of Noah’s floods and spiritual storms tear through the school of religious intellectualism on a daily basis and it is the regular stamping ground of incisive thoughts. So, how could it possibly shut the door to fluidity in the name of blasphemy and heresy, or fear devastation?
I LOVE it! You can read the whole thing here.
SudaneseThinker
SudaneseThinker
{ 33 comments… read them below or add one }
Me like… why don’t they teach that in the madrassas in Pakistan ? Sorry to say, Drima, but I’ve just about had it up to here with the fascist mentality “I’m (Muslim/White/whatever) and everybody else is below me” that quite a few Muslims have towards infidels.
“apostasy, heresy, blasphemy, piety, etc. have no place in it, because these are concepts that are subject to the prevailing political and religious powers” = relative to situation. Brilliant! should be on the cover of the Qu’ran. Well, maybe I’m a Drima too.
Drima, don’t forget to marry and have a truckload of children: sane Muslims need to out-breed the old-thinkers if Islam shall survive.
Is that a mu’tazilite? Sounds like one to me.
“Religious intellectualism is a fluid identity because exercising reason, seeking truth and combating superstition can only go hand-in-hand with fluidity. It is a creed with no clerics in which everyone is their own cleric; it is a retreat with no elder inhabited by elders without a retreat.”
- To that, i will quote a famous islamic statement:
“Ask the people of knowledge”.
The above is in fact everything else than religious intellectualism. Realizing that one is ignorant is the first step on being intellectual. Erecting oneself to a cleric is being arrogant, and i cannot combine arrogance with intellectualism somehow.
“apostasy, heresy, blasphemy, piety, etc. have no place in it, because these are concepts that are subject to the prevailing political and religious powers”
- Only if one define the Quran as a prevailing political power, this is true.
One thing that i cant understand is that people who claim that their wish is to reform the general political and religious approach of muslims always end up seeking to reform Islam. What they attack as innovation is actually often based on Islam. This way, you guys accomplish nothing - you are only portraying the image that one cannot be critical towards the common approach of muslims without altering ones Islam. This turns many people away from the healthy path og dialogue that so many other conservative muslims is working for.
I am puzzled here. Sourush is simply rambling the usual apologetic stance about religion and philosophy. It seems like one only needs to come up with or create a concept “religious intellectualism” (which I think is an oxymoron)for us to think it is quite formidable and innovative scholarship. What is the difference in instances of “religious criticism”. It is simply the rehashing of already known traitises in theology which are quite devoid of anything worth reading and saying. I disagree with Sourush, all religious manuscripts are rubbish, they should be read and studied as texts in order to locate the fallacies and historical lies and deception and genocidal policies in the name of DOG (reverse letters) that humanity was forced to feed on by antiquarian charlatans and tyranical reedemers of death and hatred.
There is no “intellectualism” in matter of religious faiths. One should not even try it, it always gives to a headache. Why suffer the burden of bullcrap. The best option is to delink with religion and study philosophy for all it worth eventhough it does not garantee heavens and sexual gratification in paradise. At least it will teach you how NOT to think unidimentionally.
It sounds like the author…is a very poetic prose, is talking about reformation…like what Christians have done and Jews…
This will led to all the inherent conflicts…how much do we mess with “revelation” and how much do we mess with the folk that, through revelation, told us all the meanings and secret meanings of the orginal revelation.
I mean…I am cool with the author…and I don’t much give a FUCK about religious authorities (tight little group of self-promoting, self-perpetuating, self-insulating clan)who are going say who is an apostate, prophet etc.
Hmmm…maybe I digressed?
No man in our current world has God’s ear or has any special pipeline to God…We are all struggling to know what is Truth. I think the writer is against dogma, and self-proclamation, examination, self-criticism, reasonable cynicism. And if that is what he is trying to say…they I am cool with him
Thank you, Zaki, for showing quite clearly why atheists (specifically of the most arrogant and self-elevating kind) should try and keep away from debates about religion, or from talking to most religious people in general.
Really, just from reading your comment I feel like I’ve been subjected to a long tirade from some Christian missionary about how Jesus is the one true path for me, and how I’ll go to Hell if I don’t take up the faith. And as a Jew, I get tired of those *real* fast.
Yours is the exact path of that missionary, really. You just hide your arrogance and elitism with “rational” sugar-coating. Yes, to you a religious person really can’t think properly about religion until he calls it crap, just like you do. Yes indeedy.
Well, some of us dangerous religious types (which, as a man holding a more extreme version of your world view once told me, should really be deported and/or locked up so that society can advance - all in a democratic manner, of course!) aren’t likely to talk with you much after this brilliant tirade of yours.
And what makes me laugh, time and time again, is this mystical faith you seem to hold about how you’re better than us primitive religious types, particularly in our time and era.
Encore, maestro, encore!
Ahmad,
The conservative religious path of both Sunni Islam and Judaism build a path of seniority and authority in the religion, going back to figures of a certain early time and era and flowing from that point onwards. They both also define certain lines, some flexible, some not, about who can still consider himself Muslim (or Jewish) when holding or spreading certain beliefs.
The problem starts not with the early scholars from which the understanding of the faith flows as much as it does with the people in our time and era who claim to be clerics and authorities. They claim to continue the path, thus they claim the authority and acceptance that comes with continuing the old path.
And this is where the trouble sets, and where the politics enter, and where the people claiming to be clerics can become political leaders with religious authority.
This, I think, is where the internal (and society-level) debate begins for the conservative religious person. Which authority is legitimate, who fits the criteria and should be respected as someone wiser in higher matters of the faith? And who doesn’t?
And this is where religion is manipulated - where the definition of apostasy, heresy, and blasphemy can be twisted and used to advance certain goals, goals that move away from the core of the faith and serve as a distraction…
…or worse still, as a set of shells, that get covered by more shells, and more still, until people start living by the shells rather than by the core, because they haven’t actually seen the core for years… and then the religion becomes but a bitter experience. And nothing else. And this is how religion is destroyed from within, by people claiming to be of it, but who take its authority and betray it.
“No man in our current world has God’s ear or has any special pipeline to God.”
I don’t think anyone ever did, but it is a very common delusion. Many people sincerely believe that God is speaking directly to them. It is a glitch in the way the brain works, like optical illusions.
“We are all struggling to know what is Truth.”
Well, not all of us. Maybe 5% at most. The rest are just getting on with life.
“I feel like I’ve been subjected to a long tirade from some Christian missionary about how Jesus is the one true path for me, and how I’ll go to Hell if I don’t take up the faith.”
I suspect said missionary had probably just had ‘we are the chosen ones’ rammed down his throat by someone who knows little of what that term means- and been subjected to a haughty attitude and unhealthy amounts of misplaced pride.
…you’ve never actually encountered a fire and brimstone missionary preacher, have you, Anna? Just the nice kind that hands out booklets with a smile, that sort of thing, if ever? I have little tolerance for missionaries as it is(”oh, you’ve been wrong for thousands of years - just thought I’d let you know and arrogantly tell you about what I believe you should believe - I’ll give your 9 year old brother a booklet about it when you’re not watching.”), but the ones that threaten you with eternal hellfire, telling you that you’re damned by definition… Meh.
And we understand what being “chosen” means quite well. It is a burden by its very definition, rather than a mark of being better than anyone. Nor do we go around telling everyone how great we are, or how anyone should bow to us, or even emulate us for that matter. We most certainly don’t go around telling people how they should convert to our faith because ours is the One True Path, or anything of the sort.
Our path is just that - our path. We each have our own path in the world. The Jewish scholars of old thought that each nation had its own virtue, its own special contribution to our world…
Ours? One brief moment of being as one, and we’ve had 3000 years to screw it up ever since.
I guess most of you folks know “jesus and mo”. The latest is somehow related to this discussion: http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/06/20/lake/
you are perfectly free to shove the tract back into their hand and walk away. I know quite a few missionaries as it happens, oddly enough none seem to fit the caricature you’ve described. It’s as realistic as the caricatures they have in state papers for jews- you know shifty, mean looking and hunched over a pile of dosh.
dramatic words that have little truth ‘damned by definition’- um, nice ring to that but no truth in it and ‘threatened with hell….’- if that’s indeed true, then they’re empty threats as no one has control over anyone else’s soul.
To Roman Kwalik,
From you response to my comment I can guess that you are either a delusional enlighten Jew or you DO understand English or more specifically my claim.
Atheists are not looking to change the minds of religious nutcakes (orthodox, fundamentalists) or semi-enlightened religious apologists (the moderates, which is an oxymoron) like you. They just say what they think of religious bullshit that has been fed to the mass of people. Atheists expect the reaction like yours. We are not here to “convert” or “change” people. People have to change themselves. Atheists do not have a book for you to read or a manisfesto for you to beleive in or die. They do not have a cook-book style guide book for you to reach the GOD. You get my drift I hope. Atheists give you their thoughts in your face, they do not care if they offend the whimsical twisted religious minds. If they are offended it is their problem. Mono-theistic Religions have thrive on the back of people and done more damage because of this idea that we should respect people’s religious beliefs. I only agree with the idea of respect if they shut the fuck up and stop rambling on how atheists “sugar coat” things (using your words).
As to you claim that atheists do not want to talk with religious people, I can only say that you are either under the spell of some sleeping beauties you are giving you some pills to discover your DOG or you are living in a secluded life in either a Madrassa, Yeshiva or monastical Jesuit retreat. Atheists debate things with religious poeple all the time. Check atheists websites we will see the debates with the religious jews, muslims and christians. As you will see if you bother to check, if these so-called religious nutcakes start to use damnation language and reverting to name calling and silly adverserial comments on the athesists themselves than all hell will break loose, they will get no respect or pat on the back. As they say some times: Fuck them. They get the same shit that they started to spew in the first place. It is kind of funny because it is exclusively and ALWAYS the religious people that lose they composure and I wonder why?
Zaki… if you honestly believe that your current approach (”you’re all brainwashed religious idiots and a menace to yourselves and society”) is a calm and reasonable path that should be treated with either calmness or awe (”yes, why DIDN’T we realize this before!”), then I have a bridge to sell you. Arrogant and patronizing statements are a sure way of getting people to tell you to fuck off - of course, amusingly, you seem to take that as yet another “proof” of the superiority of the atheist mindset.
Note that I did not say that you don’t enter debates - I have simply said that your approach to debates, that of starting it by insulting any and every statement and person that smells of that “great plague” that is religion, is a concrete reason for you *not* to enter such debates.
Because you, Zaki, seem to enter the debate merely fnr the personal gratification of reaffirming your perceived superiority and intellect.
And there had been many atheist “tracts” over the past two centuries, Zaki. I was born in a country that lived by one of them. Or was that but a figment of my inferior religious mind, comrade?
It is you that started the personal attack :
“why atheists (specifically of the most arrogant and self-elevating kind) should try and keep away from debates about religion.”
And the following:
“You just hide your arrogance and elitism with “rational” sugar-coating. Yes, to you a religious person really can’t think properly about religion until he calls it crap, just like you do”.
All I said in my first comment is a claim that religion is bull. And that this intellectualim of Sourish is a disguized theology. If you want to open a discussion then proove to me that the statement about the bullcrap of religion is wrong. Say something ABOUT RELIGION and DO NOT attack me as being arrogant and faciasciously tagging me as a “maestro”.
I explained to your delusional and naive mind that Atheists do not have a book. I do not have anything to prove to you that Athesism is better, I am just saying that religion is a big Crap. This is not a result of superiority as you seem to suggest. Stick with the issue and advance you half-backed claims of your religion of death instead to going after the people who disagree with what you hold to be true.
You are a delusional person. And do not play the victim as if someone trampled on your identity and sense of worth. You are trully a hypocrite and you should be ashamed of yourself. Besides some of your comments do not make sense, just because you “..born in a country that lived by one of them.” What is this supposed to mean? Is this proof that your religious beliefs are better than the old communist Russia? Is that it? What are you rambling about comrade? Why should I be your target practice for your dormant bad expericiencial nightmares of the old russian anti-religious culture? You should write a letter to Putin, maybe you can express your frustration about the so-called Atheist path that Russia had taken in the past, and I am sure writing in Russian language would be better.
Good Luck.
I am with Roman on this one…
I consider myself a religious person but I do not and will not accept “religious authority”. I don’t give a HOOT who they declare heretics. I afford them NO power…NONE. They mean nothing to me from any binding sense. They may have ideas and opinions I respect…I might even be awed at times. But “authority”…Lawd help us…religious authorities, throughout history, have primarily been a source of pain,terror, repression, distortion, greed, death, cruelity. Keep them the FUCK out of any type of political power.
Can I get an “amen” from somebody here?
Zaki,
Assume for a second that I wrote a post saying “Atheism is total bullshit and pure garbage.” That of course doesn’t constitute a direct personal attack on someone but it clearly does imply one indirectly.
When you come here and say things like “genocidal policies in the name of DOG (reverse letters)” don’t expect to receive a warm welcome or a polite reply. You just won’t get one (and neither should you).
If your aim is to have an honest discussion, by all means go ahead but if it is to push your ideas in that provocative manner then you’re wasting your time. You’re neither going to convince me or any one who believes in the supernatural, and if your aim is not to convince but to vent, then it ain’t welcome.
I’d rather sit here all day having a discussion with Don Cox who like you is an atheist but not one who comes with the intention to provoke and spew out hostilities.
Cool?
The rest,
How are you guys?
There are some very interesting comments which I would like to reply to as soon as I have some freaking time.
Busy with a shitload of things, but for now, Roman, let me just say touche to that reply you wrote to Ahmad.
“a set of shells, that get covered by more shells, and more still, until people start living by the shells rather than by the core”
Indeed and that’s what I think has happened to many, if not most Muslims.
Oh and Howie… AMEN!!! My thoughts exactly!
Howie, I would like to point out that I *do* accept religious authorities, but I first pass them through a critical sieve to make sure that they fit the bill. Not anyone who holds the title of Rabbi deserves it, or the respect it usually earns. Nor do I take words spoken by an authority I respect blindly - I seek to understand to the best of my ability.
For me, a “religious authority” is first and foremost an expert on my religion, *not* some kind of leader of crowds.
Okay, this is going to be a LONG one guys…
First,
Zaki: I refuse to comment on what you’ve just said.
And Drimah: Salam ya gameel. Oops, just discovered a very old email of yours
A response is on its way with an explanation.
Dear Roman, i hope you are in a good state of health. Miss you over at my blog.
“The conservative religious path of both Sunni Islam and Judaism build a path of seniority and authority in the religion, going back to figures of a certain early time and era and flowing from that point onwards. They both also define certain lines, some flexible, some not, about who can still consider himself Muslim (or Jewish) when holding or spreading certain beliefs.
The problem starts not with the early scholars from which the understanding of the faith flows as much as it does with the people in our time and era who claim to be clerics and authorities. They claim to continue the path, thus they claim the authority and acceptance that comes with continuing the old path.”
- This is indeed possible, yes. AND a problem, yes. And we should work to minimize the problem. Yes.
That is not what divides me from “Abdulkarim” who wrote what he did.
A very important step towards genuine spiritual enlightment is realizing your own ignorance. Realizing that just reading a book does not make you a scholar. Realizing that our pious precedessors from the Khalaf would spend years just to pass on one single verdict on a particular matter, stressing the necessarity to be sincere in your research.
Realizing that while our minds is limited, Allah Almighty is not.
Elevating oneself to be ones own cleric is not intellectualism. Its mere arrogance.
How much would a non-arabic speaking muslim really know then? How would he know how to pray? Through the Quran and Hadith through their english translations? I could right now bring forward 3 different hadiths, all of them Sahih (authentic), all of them covering the issue of the correct manner of praying, and all 3 of them contradictory! A layperson would then assume that only one of them could be authentic then, and act upon that one (how would he know which one is authentic!?), because in this example he refuses to rely upon our scholars who have already done the work in explaining these issues by viewing them in the light of other hadiths, in analyzing their languages and so forth.
In my example, one of these narrations states that the Prophet (saw) offered prayer in a matter that made the whites of his armpits visible, and only by analyzing a lot of other narrations in their original language and afterwards a linguistic analyze can one reach the true understanding, namely that his armpits were visible in his prostration (Sagda), and that the visibility of his arpits in this case were limited to the prostration, not in the enitre prayer.
How would a layman know this? I have no clue on how to understand the evidences used to derive verdicts by the islamic scholars… No clue!!
Through history, the teaching of Islam have worked with a system that includes:
Igazah (Permission)
and
Igmaa’ (Consencus)
A cleric in my sons computer games seems to be some kind of a sorcery-guy :D, but i assume that it means what is similar to “religious scholar”. In this comment i will use it in that sense.
One thing that was traditionally (today as well but to a lesser degree) necessary to be a cleric and as such, pass on knowledge on yourself, was the Igazah that i mentioned. In this manner, you are being taught by someone whose knowledge is traced back to the noble companions of our beloved Prophet (peace be upon him), and only by getting his “IGAZAH” (usually limited to a specified area, like hadith science) you are able to pass on what you are though, and as such, a cleric.
But of course, this creates problem. Knowledge _can_ be corrupted over such a long period. A student _can_ cheat his teacher into optaining this Igazah. And yes, even a genuine cleric can have obscure religious stances.
This is there the Igma’-system becomes relevant. From times to another, scholars and pseudo-scholars have arised with rulings in staunch opposition to etablished scholarship, blurring the image further as even in the etablished scholarship, differences exists. In such a case, the other scholars would research on the newly published ruling, look into the evidences used.. And then decide if the difference of opinion is valid, so that there is no harm in following either one of them, or if its based on such weak evidences that it becomes obscure.
So you follow the majority and the consensus of the scholars.
This might seem very weak, but its actually solid. You fill find the vast majority of traditionally educated scholars (all of them having igazah’s) agreeing on most issues, and in most cases recognizing other rulings as well. When i write a scholar for a verdict, he will often say things like: “The ruling with regards to this matter is so and so. But this other opinion was also held by major scholars and one cannot be condemned for relying upon it. The reason that i choose not to rely upon it so and so”.
Only in a very, very small number of cases (typically of low relevance for the layman muslim) is the difference greater than this.
We should stick to the majority of the scholars because that is the most safe. The Prophet (saw) said that the muslim ummah would never unite on misguidance.
Taking this into consideration, i think that the system is fine as it is. Making everyone his own cleric is NOT the solution, because that suggets that it is the system who is wrong and not the human implemation of it.
Ok i might have lost it, what were we talking about again…
I hope this makes any sense, dear friends. Now i have to teach my kid and his friends how real egyptians play football.
I still read your blog every now and then, Ahmad, just didn’t have anything to comment on lately. And yet again, you show me how similar our religious systems are, as well as how we treat them on the personal level. The main difference seems to be that the Jewish system encourages having everything written down, indexed and cross-indexed, and with about a thousand footnotes to previous works. There are central works detailing the day-to-day events, and so on, distilled from larger works, written debates and commentaries, which follow in such a line all the way back to the era of the Second Temple, when the religious scholars in Jerusalem and the large diaspora of Babylon first set down the oral laws and tradition to paper for fear of them being forgotten - but writing in a kind of… shorthand, enough for their time and era as reminders, and leaving room for study to those who came later.
In Judaism, this study in itself is both the ends and the means, as it gives the learner both the understanding of how to practically implement the faith, and changes his mind and spirit for the better.
I understand what you mean about following the line of legitimate knowledge rather than basing everything on personal experiences and reflection - but we shouldn’t merely follow blindly, or fear to raise valid concerns simply because there is an appearance of legitimacy and consensus.
Money and political manipulation can play a big role - as can popular opinion by the majority of the populace. Take Saudi money as an example, the schools and libraries that they have spread worldwide with the aid of those funds… Saudi-educated clerics can thus become a very large percentage of Muslim clerics in general, simply because Saudi Arabia has the money to finance them. Another factor in recent history is pressure and manipulation of major Muslim clerics by secular dictators for their political aspirations and to retain their local power. And if the views of the dictator are popular, will clerics actively speak against it?
RK…
I still say we are pretty close…I guess it is what you define as “accepting their authority”. I respect MANY religious people…will accept them a leaders in given areas…but what they have to say, to me, remains an OPINION and not some God-given revelation with binding authority.
“Money and political manipulation can play a big role - as can popular opinion by the majority of the populace. Take Saudi money as an example, the schools and libraries that they have spread worldwide with the aid of those funds… Saudi-educated clerics can thus become a very large percentage of Muslim clerics in general, simply because Saudi Arabia has the money to finance them. Another factor in recent history is pressure and manipulation of major Muslim clerics by secular dictators for their political aspirations and to retain their local power. And if the views of the dictator are popular, will clerics actively speak against it?”
- You are correct in many of these things, but you seem to focus very much on political authority among these clerics here, am i right?
The Saudi education of clerics, you are correct that this is a problem, but currently it is not as big as a problem as one might think. However, this is seen as a lesser problem regarding the ijmaa’-concept, because many of them are seen as deviant (the shia ayatollahs are for example not considered in terms of ijmaa), and are as such not considered in these terms. However, some of the more moderate ones, like Shaykh Salman Al-Oda, are sometimes considered.
But what remains important is that these clerics are not Ayatollah’s or popes - they are experts in religion and its sciences, They are not infallible.
“Money and political manipulation can play a big role - as can popular opinion by the majority of the populace. Take Saudi money as an example, the schools and libraries that they have spread worldwide with the aid of those funds… Saudi-educated clerics can thus become a very large percentage of Muslim clerics in general, simply because Saudi Arabia has the money to finance them. Another factor in recent history is pressure and manipulation of major Muslim clerics by secular dictators for their political aspirations and to retain their local power. And if the views of the dictator are popular, will clerics actively speak against it?”
- You are correct in many of these things, but you seem to focus very much on political authority among these clerics here, am i right?
The Saudi education of clerics, you are correct that this is a problem, but currently it is not as big as a problem as one might think. However, this is seen as a lesser problem regarding the ijmaa’-concept, because many of them are seen as deviant (the shia ayatollahs are for example not considered in terms of ijmaa), and are as such not considered in these terms. However, some of the more moderate ones, like Shaykh Salman Al-Oda, are sometimes considered.
But what remains important is that these clerics are not Ayatollah’s or popes - they are experts in religion and its sciences, They are not infallible.
Do judaism also work with a “majority” system?
- You are correct in many of these things, but you seem to focus very much on political authority among these clerics here, am i right?
Not just that, but also the spread of a more radical, violent, and xenophobic path in the religion.
The Saudi education of clerics, you are correct that this is a problem, but currently it is not as big as a problem as one might think.
I disagree. I follow events in Asia, particularly - I’m often interested in what goes on in the former Soviet Union. Many of the former Soviet republics were once thriving Muslim communities - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7d/Soviet_Union_Muslim_Population_1979.jpg
Pretty much the entire South-Eastern part of the old Soviet Union is Muslim, and like the rest of the Soviet-ruled lands the region suffered from systematic eradication of local culture, religion, and any identity that did not conform to Soviet ideals.
The youth of these ex-Soviet republics are now growing up, and they feel the void. They’re trying to rebuild their past identities, to reconnect to their past - and a major part of that past is Islam. But most of their clerics are gone - the vast majority, in fact. So in the past two decades, newcomers have begun arriving. Newcomers from the Birthplace of Islam. Newcomers who had an air of legitimacy to them that their own scant remaining clerics - who had lost their learning and were collecting bits and scraps to rebuild - lacked.
These clerics were Saudi-taught. Saudi money build Islamic schools, libraries, mosques… they thrive. Hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions now, have only ever heard “legitimate” Islam when it came from the mouth of a Saudi cleric.
And the results aren’t pretty, in terms of Islamist demands and violence. And they sure aren’t going to be prettier if the current reality continues.
However, this is seen as a lesser problem regarding the ijmaa’-concept, because many of them are seen as deviant
I’m sure that they, the Suadi clerics, see most other Muslim clerics in a similar light. And given time, they will either command greater respect through their power and followers of their path, or be treated as the Shi’a are - and then you will have a third major strain of Islam.
But what remains important is that these clerics are not Ayatollah’s or popes - they are experts in religion and its sciences, They are not infallible.
True.
Do judaism also work with a “majority” system?
Yes and no. The early rulings were often a matter of a majority consensus - though at times the minority path of a single jurist was taken to be the closest to the truth, and the majority thus changed their own ruling.
This changed somewhat later in history, as the communities were dispersed far and wide. Contact had become scarce and far between, so the single river had split into many parallel streams. Largely each community followed the rulings of its local Rabbis, those of the region or the country, and accepted them as the continuation of the Path. The Rabbis, in turn, communicated with others far and wide, sharing knowledge and rulings. The major strains in the Middle-Ages had become the Sephardic (named after the exiles forced out of Catholic Spain) who rejoined the communities in Muslim lands - where they remained. Sephardic Jews, by and large, share a unified codex of religious law, with differences stemming on community traditions rather than rulings.
The exception is Yemenite Jews, whose community had been cut off from other Sephardic communities on many occasions due to an often fanatical and insular Islamist royal family and edicts. Theirs are somewhat differing traditions and rulings from the major Sephardic community.
The second large community is Ashkenazi - the Jews or Europe, with the North and East being the large population centers. They converged in their own rulings under Christian rule, and they too have their differences per community in terms of tradition as well as ruling.
They all share the core teachings, though, and these are indeed a matter of majority consensus. But for many other matters, it is a matter of the specific leaders of a certain strain or community making a ruling and/or reaching a consensus rather than a more widely-reaching agreement. As long as the core remains, the later rulings may vary greatly - such as the amount of time one waits between eating meat and dairy products, or what one may be prohibited to eat on Passover, or how one handles certain prohibitions of labor on the Shabbos (Saturday)…
So, to sum it up, general consensus on “core” issues, and a more localized consensus on more secondary issues.
Oh at that point, yes it is indeed a big problem, i was only talking about the problem with regards to the Ijmaa-system, as deviants are normally not considered. Also one should know that what seperates the salafi reformists from the traditionalists are not who is more or less “islamist” or “radical” (although there is a pattern), as you can find salafists who are peaceful and traditionalists who are more violent in their approach (you have traditionalists insurgents in Iraq as well). What seperates them is their beliefs, such as the interpretation of the divine attributes of God (salafists tend to have a more litteral interpretation), their approach towards the 4 schools (salafists in general do not follow them at all) and so forth. Just to clear that common misconception.
Also thanks a lot for that introduction, it was very useful indeed. Also perhaps you can clear up something that i never really understood: I often hear that judaism underwent a reform like christianity which Islam lacks, what is this reform and when did it happen?
I thought Wahabbis do give at least a token consideration to the Hanbali school of Islam, if only as form of gaining legitimacy by attaching themselves to what they see as the most “fundamental” school.
Also, I do find a problem with purely literal interpretations, a set path of religious compulsion, and the way the Salafists view those who do not share their path, be they Muslim or not. Salafi teachings on non-Muslims tend to be quite focused on showing how evil they are.
But I do realize that literal interpretation in itself does not lead to violence. But when you apply such interpretations to considerations of superiority - the actions are also tend to be quite… literal.
Which is not to say that violent paths did not arise separately of Wahabbis. Qutb is one example. Others today may also hold the view that Islam is under attack as part of some modern Crusade, which would make their actions somewhat legitimate by traditional Islam, at least in their own minds.
As for “Jewish reform”, you were most likely told of Reform Judaism, a recent (last 150 years) movement which stripped Judaism of the traditions of religious law entirely, along with removing parts that weren’t “modern” enough, changing the worship style to look more like those of the Christian majority in which they lived, removing some of the basicmost Jewish beliefs, and instead instituting an entirely Lite Edition Judaism that suited a more secular and supposedly modern lifestyle, with a smattering of literal interpretations of the Torah - except, of course, those parts that were no longer Modern.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_movement_in_Judaism
Jewish reform…
I can’t think of anything like the Luther Reformation…which was a clear EVENT…as opposed to a series of processes that, I believe, began with the destruction by the Romans of the 2nd Temple and a transformation of Judaism from a Priest-lead
centralized religion to one run by a series of rabbis who, at least orginally, were not thought of as divinely appointed, but rather teachers and interpreters.
There were many splits and “reformations” over time. A big one, more recently, occurred between the traditionalists in Europe and a group that began to follow the charistmatic “baal shem tov” which became the Chasidic movement and those guys have been fighting ever since.
More recently…starting in the 19th century, Judaism began to evolve away from the Orthodox tradition and now is also represented by Reform, Conservation, Reconstructionist which are enormously liberal in their approach to Judaism. And they fight with each other and are not very respected by the Orthodox.
The basic reform concept, once again, is who gets to interpret and at what point was divinely inspired interpretation or “input” shut down. But that is a complex issue.
I think, albeit succintly, that tells a good part of the story.
Howie, the process that started with the destruction of the Second Temple wasn’t reformation - it was merely a gradual adapting to extreme realities, such as the fact that the center of the faith was destroyed, most of the nation had been spread around the globe, and the old order had become impossible to maintain.
The noteworthy “reformation” of the first millennium after the Second Temple’s destruction is the Karaite split, who preferred an entirely literal-minded approach to interpreting the Torah.
Eastern Europe’s Hassidim weren’t much of a reformation, either. Eastern European Jews, or Litvak Jews, had become more focused with the mechanic of studying the laws of the Torah and implementing them, rather than touching on “higher” issues. The history of the False Messiah Shabtai Tzvi, and the more recent Jacob Frank, and Judah Leib Prossnitz, to name two (I’m forgetting a more important figure of a similar vein though, so bear with me), made the Litvak Jews quite suspicious of anyone discussing Mysticism or any “higher” spiritual issues.
The Ba’al Shem Tov, as did his followers and the later Hassidim, were thought to be cultists like those who came before them, simply because of their mystical focus - this despite the fact that their teachings were scant different from the studies of earlier European Kabbalists, and pretty much exactly the same as those of the Sephardic Kabbalists (who didn’t have as many problems as their European counterparts with various cult founders, so the mystical traditions weren’t disdained and feared).
And that caused quite a lot of trouble, though the “war” is over, and reconciled. The Hassidim maintain the Halacha, and have their own religious legislative traditions and authorities - same as any other Jewish community. Their mystical studies are little different from those of the old Sephardic Kabbalah study halls, and by and large… they’re equivalent to the Sufis of Islam, if we were to make a parallel here.
It is during the 19th century that there was a major attempt by certain groups at reform - and they do indeed claim to have reformed the faith.
RK…
AH…you Orthodox guys are always splitting hairs…
OK..it was an unintended reformation…but led to stuff like the end of animal sacrifice. I call that reformation…but you are a smart dude…for a Russian.
I think i basically understand what you are trying to tell me here. One thing that i am not getting is the following: I always thought that the Haredim and the Orthodox Jews were the same ones, but from what you have written it seems like not.
Ahmad…
They are the same…
You could kind of divide the Chasidim and the mitnagdim into two camps of sorts.
You can typically spot them too…look closely and you will see black suits and beards…
Dead giveaway
Thanks Howie, i’m still new in the judaism thing. I have read the Old Testament (or much of it) but i have very little knowledge of jewish tradition or jewish religion in practice, so please forgive the questions.
So it can be said that the “Hasidim” are a group within the “Haredim” and they do not focus too much on mysticism and spiritualism but more on the legal rulings, and the Haredim is some kind of “returning to the real judaism”-movement?
Sound like the Salafists in Islam.
OK..it was an unintended reformation…but led to stuff like the end of animal sacrifice. I call that reformation…but you are a smart dude…for a Russian.
Um… I believe the fact that there wasn’t anywhere to make sacrifices *in* that ended animal sacrifices. And we added dozens of reminders and reminder-prayers so that we won’t forget about these sacrifices, and how they were conducted, for when we get a Temple again.
As I said, man, extreme necessity rather than reformation.
And I’m an engineer *and* a Jew. That means double the know-it-all!
So it can be said that the “Hasidim” are a group within the “Haredim” and they do not focus too much on mysticism and spiritualism but more on the legal rulings, and the Haredim is some kind of “returning to the real judaism”-movement?
Not… quite. Hasidim are the ones that have returned the mystical and spiritual traditions of us Euro-centric Jews to the fore. Litvaks are the ones who were more focused on the legal aspects of the religion.
Both aren’t returning anywhere. They lived in their small village/town communities, and in Eastern Europe that also meant shutting the mostly hostile world out. The after-effects of that still show.
Ahmad-
Thanks Howie, i’m still new in the judaism thing. I have read the Old Testament (or much of it) but i have very little knowledge of jewish tradition or jewish religion in practice, so please forgive the questions.
RK is much better than me at this…but our Torah/Tanach would more or less be the Quran and then y’all have surah and hadith and we have some kind of equivalent in Talumd and other commentaries and commentaries on the commentaries.
Like every relgion I know of, even traditionalists evolved, had their differences and splits and re-splits. We don’t really have “denominations” in a Christian sense…like Methodist, Quakers, Episcopelians, etc…I guess Reform and Conservative approach that…I guess Chasidism maybe flirts a bit with Sufism in terms of more emphasis on mystical approaches…
As a religion…at our core…I guess we believe we are the people God chose (God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob) to accept the Law and the people God directed to Israel (borders of which I don’t think are entirely clear).
There is a Judaism that was a priest/temple based Judaism…centralized…and then the last 2000 years of rabbinic Judaism…with all kinds of opinions on all the post Tanach revelation thing…ALL KINDS OF OPINIONS.
I have read our Bible quite a bit and now have challenged myself to read it in Spanish…so it has been a very slow and careful reading…I still find much of it pretty convaluted and very troublesome. Apparently many before me had the same problem…and up to this date we go back and forth and round and round…and I can see Islam is much the same.
I guess if we humans all saw things the same…then there would be no human drama…and maybe that would have been much preferrable to what we have had through history…overall…pretty sad.
Leave a Comment