Answer to a “Salafi” Brother (Updated)

Assalamu alaikum, yeah, I’m editing my comments. As I said before, perhaps it’s a good thing that the visual captcha kept me from posting my original thoughts on Imam Zaid Shakir’s blog, because they, as well as my original comments on my own blog, were, well, pretty incoherent. I should have put my post in draft form and then posted it once it was a bit more coherent, but anyway.

Basically, the gist of what I wanted to say was that I didn’t find Imam Zaid’s comments altogether earth-shattering. Firstly, he was attempting to answer a series of questions put to him by another person, so it wasn’t as though he just wrote a huge article bashing Ibn Tamiyah (may Allah have mercy on him and all of us). In fact, the post itself answered other questions dealing with tariqas, etc. So it wasn’t just an Ibn Tamiyah-bashing article.

Secondly, I do not know what is the big deal about saying that someone was a controversial figure while still at the same time having the utmost respect for that person. IMHO, if some Muslims can call others “deviant” if not outright “kafir”, and this is *after* the Sunni Unity Pledge, then surely, someone can say that a person is “controversial”, and no one said anything about them being a “disbeliever”, etc. In fact, at the beginning of the article, Imam Zaid said that Ibn Tamiyah was a pious man, etc., but that he had some controversial positions that were not accepted by many people and as a result he was imprisoned for that. If this can be backed up from a historical standpoint, what is wrong with saying that?

It’s as though to some, criticizing Ibn Taymiyah and his work is like criticizing the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) himself, or the Qur’an and Sunnah, and this is from many of the same people who will do the same, if not worse, to other Muslims! And IMHO, I find it to be a bit hypocritical! People can continue to post lists of so-called “deviant” Muslims and their websites and some will say “well you’re still going to have the haters so what’s the big deal”, yet let someone say that Ibn Taymiyah is “controversial” and they get accused of single-handedly going against the Sunni Unity Pledge! I wonder where everyone was when certain bloggers and sites and scholars were called “deviants”, etc. And a whole list of “who and who not” to read/look at/to avoid, etc., was published, right there on the Internet for anyone to see! OK, so perhaps the publisher of the site was not a signatory to the pledge, but said person’s opinion is respected and followed, I dare say, by many Muslims, both signatories to the pledge and not. So, again IMHO, you can’t tell one “side” to “just don’t mind the haters” while accusing the other “side” of undermining the Sunni Unity Pledge, merely for saying that someone is “controversial”, which, well, in the case of Ibn Taymiyah, is controversial, I mean, we’re sitting here discussing him aren’t we?!

If signing the Sunni Unity Pledge means that we sweep controversial issues and topics under the rug, solely for the sake of “unity”, then I’m not sure I’m comfortable with that! I think that discussing so-called “controversial” topics can be done in a respectful way, and Inshallah, Imam Zaid did that in his article!

Perhaps I should refresh my memory on who Ibn Taymiyah was, excatly, however, I probably won’t, as this “back and forth” stuff does make my head hurt! And I’m not sure if I’d find any “neutral” articles dealing with him, either he’s the “Shaikh al-Islam who can’t be criticized, and if he is then people are just spreading lies about him”, or he’s a “controversial Muslim who went against hte majoirty of Muslims” and all of that. Perhaps he was a little of both, just a very pious knowledgeable person who held some opinions that were not mainstream opinons. Anyway, I just wanted to repost my comments. Inshallah, this makes more sense.

New Islamic Directions
Answer to a “Salafi” Brother (Updated)