Riyad Nadwi – 12. Imam Ghazali on Ikhlas
AI: Summary ©
The transcript discusses the tension between sincerity and truth in society, highlighting the importance of protecting one's minds from fall victim to its mental traps and identifying and protecting one's minds from fall victim to its mental traps. The "teen points" of the Islamic concept of "tafritting" are discussed, including the importance of maintaining balance between two extremes and creating a common understanding of language and human communication. The post cultural stance of skepticism is emphasized, and the " pest ap credits" of academic research are discussed as a result of " pest ap credits." The " pest ap credits" of academic research is a result of " pest ap credits" created by " pest ap credits", and the " pest ap credits" of academic research is a form of unionism. The post emphasizeist agenda is discussed, including the goal of creating "fitna fitna" and "will" to create "fitna," and the importance of avoiding common sense language and the need to be
AI: Summary ©
And, Harvey, are you all set up in
the classroom?
From.
You're welcome to start. Okay. Oh, that's good.
Allah
says, oh, oh, you who believe,
fear Allah and be with those who are
truthful,
those who are true.
And do not mix truth with falsehood
or concealed truth while you know it.
Brothers and sisters.
Welcome to our 12th session.
In this series in which we are pondering
the class, sincerity, verbal habits, truth as we
did last week. In our last session,
we reflected on the importance of truth
and the need for it in a class.
And, also,
we looked at the tensions with
the concept of truth in the society in
which we live.
And we we identified
2 large areas in which this tension,
is
mounting. This tension is large.
And the first was
messaging in business,
which we discussed last week, and the second
was in postmodern
thought.
So today, I as I promised last week
that I will
talk about postmodernism,
and there are several reasons why we need
to speak about postmodernism.
First,
this is, of course, a
major
fit in. It's one of the major,
schemes of corruption.
It's
a major fitan of our time. This this
is a major fitan of our time.
And as I said last term in explanation
of the hadith of Jibril alaihis salaam,
that of the,
of the 4 subject, the 4th subject that
he spoke about when he asked Rasool Allah
sallallahu alaihi wa sallam was about fitan. Well,
what
which is and the the fitan, the the
corrupting scheme, the the things that will mark
the end of times.
And
this one is
one of the major fittings. It's a corrupting
scheme. Even though we might not realize it,
the influence of
postmodernist
thought is rampant and pervasive in our society
today.
So that's the first reason. The second reason
why we need to speak about postmodernism
is that it
has an undermining effect on the concept of
truth.
And this,
of course, directly relates to our immediate subject,
which we are studying right now in the
text,
where last week, we read emphasis
on,
that
sincerity
and truthfulness is the,
are the 2 mediums to towards for for
the servant, towards salvation.
And he he he poses the question. He
said,
that how can one seek
the truth the the sincere person seek
to be truthful if he knows not what
it means?
So
if your truth is on the mind,
if your concept of truth, your idea of
what truth is is on the mind, then
there's a problem that needs to be addressed.
And then the third reason is that, postmodern
post postmodernism
as a as a movement, postmodernist,
as a as a mission, as a as
a,
an idea
with
proponents and people who promote it.
It is often used as
a, employed as a as a tool
in attempts to undermine Muslim
attachment to their faith,
both in the interpersonal
sphere and also in the act in academic
discourses.
Many Muslims become victims of postmodernism
without realizing it. It's almost like a viral
infection. There are some,
profound psychological dimensions to the viral nature of
postmodernist
thinking, which we will explain.
Now what is postmodernism?
Postmodernism is a popular and pervasive
philosophical trend that promotes
rad a radical form of skepticism of almost
everything, including
language,
truth, reality,
objectivity,
human nature,
reason, reality,
and ethics, etcetera.
It fosters an incredulity towards all metanarratives,
and that means it it creates it it
it fosters a a suspicion
about any big,
story about about
any any anything, including
any large system of thought,
including religion, of course. And
all attempts to seek
objective truth
is seen as suspect
and,
schemes of power and * and exploitation.
And it has an an obsession with relativism
and nihilism, which I will explain.
And it's,
it seeks,
it revels in irony and irreverence.
Now we don't have time in such a
short,
class to go through the history of the
emergence of postmodernist philosophy
and wade through
the sludge of their musings,
and they're from the promoters of their the
the the the sludge of,
of their thoughts and thinkings. But what I
want to do today is to put it
into
easy to understand simple terms. I want to
and and to provide you with
tools to identify it and to protect your
minds
from falling foul to its mental traps.
And for that, you will need to keep
in mind or we need to discuss. Keep
in mind and discuss,
7 points, which I will explain each in
turn. The 7 points are,
number 1,
is the Islamic concept of and tafrit. We
must be familiar with the with the Islamic
concepts of and tafrit, which are the two
poles of extremism.
Number 2 is that
there is a common sense comprehension
in all language.
There is a common sense comprehension
in all language. That's number 2. Number 3
is that language
demolition derby is an attractive sport.
I'm gonna repeat this one because you might,
it it it might sound strange, but language
demo you know what a demolition derby is?
It's where they put cars to crash into
each other and see which one is left
at the end. So you have,
imagine that. You're using that metaphor for a
language demolition,
derby and is an attractive sport.
And this is where I will explain to
you the psychological
dimension.
And then
the number 3 is that oh, that was
number 3. Number 4 is that the only
end product of demolition
is debris,
I. E. Rubbish.
Number 5
is that there's a big difference between
critical thinking and skeptical attitude. In other words,
between critical thinking and critical attitude.
Number 6
is that
deconstructing Islam is a major post modernist agenda
and this is something that we must be
aware of.
And number 7 is that
remember
warning of the prophets of the warning of
the prophet
about this sort of activity.
Now we'll take each of these by in
turn. The first one is Islamic the Islamic
concept of ifrat and tafrit, the two poles
of extremism.
Now normally when we use the word extreme
in English,
we tend to project outwards from where we
are perceived to be located, you know, if,
we tend to see our position as the
polar opposite to the extreme position.
It is a one that one directional travel
outwards
towards that extreme position that we're perceiving.
In Arabic and in Islamic conception of extreme,
there are always 2 poles
of extreme along a continuum
with the neutral located in at the halfway
point between these two poles.
And these two poles are referred to as
and.
And,
you should familiarize yourself with these two terms.
Means
which is going into excess.
And
which is
which is, doing too little, making
and both of these are seen as extreme.
And the optimal
desirable
position is the
middle path.
And there are many exhortations and,
so some references to the to through which
this
is is determined.
And one example is that the the verse
of the Quran in regard to charity, giving
charity, Allah says,
that do not hold your hand to your
neck without
giving anything at all and do not stretch
your hand out completely and give everything away.
And then this verse, Allah is saying that
do not,
hold your hand to your neck as
not to give any charity. And then, do
not stretch it out in such a way
that you you,
give away everything you have and you become
insolvent, that staying in the middle path is
the is the straight path. It is to
maintain balance between
these two extremes.
And there are other verses that are
usually mentioned in in in this,
meaning which we
have made you the nation the the middle
nation. In other words, having a sense of
balance and to avoid going into excess in
both directions.
This is required,
in order to, avoid entering into extremism.
So
that's the first point. You keep that in
mind. Now the second point is that
all languages,
human languages,
share a common sense of comprehension.
Were it not to be so, then it
would be pointless to have a language.
One must have
a common sense of shared meaning between members
of a particular language community
in order to be able to communicate,
which is what I'm doing right now. I'm
sharing a series of common sense meaning of
words
with each of you listening to me.
You you're all hearing what I'm saying. You
you you can understand what I'm saying because
we have a common sense,
sphere of understanding of communication comprehension.
Now it is possible for someone to come
along and take my words and sentences and
subject them to
and tafrit, and this is the point you
need to understand.
I ignore the common sense meaning of what
I'm saying or indulge in extreme analysis
through deconstruction to conclude that everything I said
was wrong. That is possible. You can have
extreme on both ends.
Now take the example,
that some philosophers use, the they, the the
example of a table.
If I said that I saw a brown,
flat, rectangular table with 4 legs,
a literalist, a person who is just paying
attention to the words and and does not
make any effort to understand the common meaning
of what I'm saying, a literalist may hear
the words legs and immediately conclude that, oh,
I I saw
without making the effort of the common sense
meaning and conclude that, oh, he I probably
saw an animal because I mentioned legs,
which is.
On the other end of the spectrum, you
have a a person may come along and
say and argue that depending on which way
the light is focused and from which perspective
you are looking at the table,
parts of the table will be white,
will have black and variations of colors and
other colors, not brown.
And therefore, you are wrong in saying that
the table is brown.
And, also, from where we're looking at it
or from where he's looking at it,
it has 2 acute angles and 2 obtuse
angles, so it is not square.
And you also said that the table is
flat, but under a microscope, I can find
hills and valleys. Therefore,
your statement about the table is inaccurate
and wrong, and and it is based on
your own perspective, and it is baseless. It's
an observation and cannot be shared with others.
Now
similarly, if I say my name is Zaid
and the postmodernist comes along and says that
how can you say it's your name? But
lots of people are called Zaid and the
purpose of the name is to distinguish and
identify people from one another. And given that
there are many people with the same name,
your name is is not really a name,
and it is,
it's only your interpretation. It's only your your
your your belief.
Now in the in relation to truth, they
argue it's something similar,
that,
all definitions are incomplete.
So when you say something, it it's incomplete.
All all definitions
of truth
are incomplete. And even mathematics, they use Godel's,
incompleteness theorem. Now you're Oxford students. I don't
need to explain what Godel's incompleteness,
theorem is.
It's it's it's a mathematical theory,
that he in which he proves and using
that
excessive analysis, you can prove anything. You can
prove any definition to be one thing.
So and and because this is so, then
there's a problem with truth in general. Every
truth will
certainty will will need
more, and we couldn't produce 1. So therefore,
truth with small t doesn't exist. And as
for truth with a with a large t,
philosophers like Leotard and
others, they they say that,
in in
in olden time, in the ancient times, used
to have a
overarching structure
that
collected information and then formulated that super,
a synthesis
of knowledge to produce truth.
But because science now is now there's the
the,
there's a fragmentation of science, and,
there is a disconnection from philosophy,
and every
the emergence of different criteria for certainty,
Therefore, different standards of truth without overarching,
are produced. Every every even statistics, they have
a standard of of certainty.
And in various other paradigms of, of research,
And it's not necessarily that one paradigm,
the certainty that arrives. Yeah. Certainty and truth
if one,
area is
accepted by another, and there's no overarching overarching,
framework
to synthesize all of this into
super truth. And
because of this, you know, we have Nietzsche
saying facts are precisely what they are not,
only interpretations.
Now these are all examples of and tafrit,
and this is where you have to keep
this idea,
keep the the Islamic perspective of it. Not
making an effort to find a common sense
meaning
or going into excess,
in analysis,
to drill holes into the shared landscape of
com of comprehension.
And in so doing you render language useless
and that's the second point in in this
common sense comprehension
in
is it's important for us to have a
common sense comprehension
in communication.
Now the third point.
The third point is that language, as I
said, language demolition
derby is an attractive sport.
If someone is given the opportunity
to demolish the language of anything people say
or write
with coupled with a manic irreverence, you know,
the,
disrespect,
not having not not having the need to
show respect for anything,
with manic
irreverence, and then be allowed to
find an irony in it to laugh. This
is this is the,
the cycle the the the circle that they
where where where it functions is that you
you demolish
with irreverence, and then you find an irony
at which to laugh.
People some people will find this a an
attractive activity because it provides
the demolisher, the person who is indulging in
this thing, the deconstructionist,
with a sense of superiority.
And that is why you find that postmodernist
deriving euphoric pleasure from their
extreme questioning of language statements,
which is what makes it so attractive to
many people.
The use of,
if I to to use a metaphor, if
you allow
someone
to walk around with a sledgehammer and smash
things up for the fun of it, then
and be and then be able to laugh
at it, then lots of people will get
involved, and that's exactly what has happened in
the postmodern
arena today.
You will notice that young people,
asking questions
without any interest in the answer to their
questions,
in in in in the in the postmodernist
arena.
They they they celebrate their question
saying, I stump them with my question. Hey.
I'm Superman.
And the Superman complex is quite popular in
the postmodernist circle. They argue that after the
demise of God,
that the human being is the measure of
all things. So he must he has to
be Superman.
And
so in order not to fall into this
mental trap,
one has to remember that it's not only
an indulgence in
and
when you do this, when you adopt this
attitude,
it is also a pursuit of ingratiating the
lower self, the nafs.
It is a lowly activity that has consequences
for one's spiritual growth.
Now you might think you're indulging in an
enjoyable academic activity when you when in reality,
it is simply a desire driven endeavor. It
is a desire driven event endeavor.
Now throughout history, people with these tendencies have
found
language because language is imprecise. Human
our ability to produce to to,
produce
complete, perfect sentences
and to cover all the possibilities
is limited.
Because and because of this flexibility
and because of this this limitation,
it's language is an easy target. So language
features
heavily in their attack.
Now the example of the table I mentioned
earlier is, in fact,
an old example. And I I did this,
willfully because I I wanted to show you
that this is an old problem. It's not
a new problem.
And this one was mentioned it is mentioned
in Burton's
Burton Russell's,
1912 book, the book,
problems of philosophy.
And he in in mentioning this this example,
the example about the table,
he referred
to people of to people who were talking
about this in the 17th 18th century.
So deconstructionists
and hermeneutics
are a later iteration of the same problem,
albeit with their own peculiarities.
But the point here is that
to keep in mind that there is a
strong psychological element to this pursuit. In other
words,
a dopamine junkie quest. You you know, every
time you do you ask these questions and
demolish what people are saying, it it feeds
you with a bit of dopamine.
You
you you you get a kick out of
it,
and that makes it,
quite,
viral.
That that that increases its potential to be
to become viral.
Now the 4th
point that to keep in mind is that
the only product of demolition
is debris. When you have if you demolish
something, what you'll be left with? You'll be
left with
debris. Now when you when you're in the
habit of demolishing everything in sight,
and the only thing that you're left with
intact that you have, what is it? It's
your sledgehammer. If you have a hammer and
you're smashing the sledgehammer and you smash everything,
the only thing that that that is left
now intact that is sound is your sledgehammer.
And
what is your sledgehammer in this in this
scenario? Your sledgehammer is the question. You're you're
questioning. You're drilling down in the analysis and
questioning and questioning. And that is why you
find that postmodernists go out of their way
to stress their concern
only with questions. They say they say it
very clearly that we're not interested in answers.
We are interested in asking questions. Our our
job is questions. We're not interested in the
answers
because and they there's a reason for this
is because that if someone comes up with
an answer
using common sense language,
they will promptly proceed to demolishing the language
of the answer again. So you're in a
vicious circle there. So the sledgehammer,
the questions become their supreme badge of excellence.
The product
of their efforts, the product from the torrent
of demolition, therefore, is debris. It's rubbish. Nonsense.
Now
you might think I'm being
harsh or exaggerating,
but
the I want to illustrate this with what
an academic did in the 19 nineties. In
the 19 nineties, when the postmodernist
frenzy had taken over university campuses in America,
starting from Yale University and then spreading like
wildfire,
across most of the humanities departments, across
universities and schools in America and Canada and
and even in Britain,
a mathematician noticed this buildup of this nonsensical
rubbish
in academic discourse
where the situation had deteriorated
so bad that one could not even use
the word reality without quotation marks as if
to apologize about reality because they they question
reality.
And without adding quotation marks to that, and
truth also became a dirty word. All absolutes
were seen as a big no no, and
you absolutely
everything had to be, had to be explained
perspectival that you your
your
your view and your opinion is your will.
You what what that is true for you.
What is true for you is not necessarily
true for me. And mumbo jumbo was taking
over the world, so this mathematician decided to
do something,
about it. He did to highlight the absurdity
of the situation, and his name is Alan
Sokal. You might have heard about him. He
what he did was that he decided to
submit a
academic paper
in, written in postmodernist mumbo jumbo. He wrote
a whole load of nonsense,
but using this
this language,
this they have a language. They have a
language of their own, which which they use,
which is what they do what they do
is that they've adopted
the terminology,
unfamiliar terminology from mathematics and from physics, and
then apply those in
in in the humanities.
And with that, they impress people. They they
they sort of,
badger you on the head with these heavy
terminologies, and and people don't really understand what
they're saying, but but it sounds great.
So he did exactly that. He wrote a
nonsense article, a a nonsense paper, an academic
paper, and
and submitted it to a peer review academic
journal. The the the his article was titled
transgressing
the boundaries towards a
transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity. Remember the word
hermeneutics because we'll come back to that. Now
and it was peer reviewed and published.
This article,
it was peer reviewed and published. And and
after it was published, you review you revealed
it to the press that
the article was a hoax
filled with nothing but postmodernist
nonsensical
arguments and propositions.
And and and he explained that he had
done this to highlight the absurdity of this
postmodernist
approach, this this approach that these people were
were propagating.
The story, this was in 1996,
I think. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. 1997.
In 1997,
this this became a headline in the in
the New York Times. In May 9 no.
In 1996.
He published a book. He in in 1996,
the New York Times made it it became
headlines where when he did this. And on
the back of that, he wrote a book.
He published a book in 1997,
titled,
intellectual
impostors.
In in Britain, in Europe, it was published,
and the the title was intellectual impostors. And
in America, the title was fashionable nonsense,
in which he talks about
the intimidation through throwing around tactical terms adopted
for from mathematics and physics in,
in the humanities without any explanation or justification.
Here's what he said. I'll I'll read you
some example how he explained about the book,
what he said. Okay. Yeah. This is the
book. It's intellectual impostors.
It's called fashion fashionable nonsense in the American
version.
Yeah.
It
said the goal of this book is to
make
a limited but original contribution
to the critique of the admittedly nebulous zeitgeist
that we have
that we we that we have called postmodernism.
And he said our aim is our aim
is to draw attention to a relatively little
known aspect, namely the repeated abuse of concepts
and terminology
coming from mathematics and physics.
And here he explains he said that,
importing concepts from the natural sciences
sciences into the humanities,
and displaying a superficial
erudition by shamelessly throwing around technical terms in
a context where they are completely irrelevant.
And the goal, he said, the goal is
no doubt to impress and above all, to
intimidate the nonscientist
reader.
It goes on to say that manipulating phrases
and sentences are in fact meaningless. He said,
manipulating
phrases and sentences that are in fact meaningless,
some of these authors exhibit a veritable
intoxication with words
combined with superb indifference to their
meaning. They imagine perhaps that they could exploit
press the prestige of the natural sciences
in order to give them the to give
their own discourse a veneer of rigor.
Okay? So yeah.
Now so this is not just to, a
mother getting hot under the collar. It's a
well recognized problem.
It's the problem is that interesting, you know,
he the picture he put on there is
somebody with a turbine. So, but,
the
the point here is that this
the this postmodern approach is,
not by any means,
acceptable
across the spectrum. There are people who recognize
the problem, but it is
viral. It it it it it spreads like
fire.
Now the the 5th point is, that that
I want you to keep in mind here
is that there's a big difference between
critical thinking and skeptical attitude, which is what
the postmodern,
aims to create in people,
and which is, of course, another mental trap
that is often associated with this pursuit. The
approach,
is to idealize and promote skeptical attitude
under the guise of critical thinking. The skeptical
attitude across the board, everything is is seen
with a,
with a critical eye in in in a
it becomes a critical attitude, a skeptical attitude
instead of critical thinking,
but they label it critical thinking. Now critical
thinking is necessary
for creativity and for progress,
but there are several big differences between critical
thinking and critical attitude. And this is something
you have to keep in mind.
The questions in critical thinking are usually constructive
and aimed at finding solutions to problems.
Whereas the questions of someone with a critical
attitude
are dismissive. They are irreverent. They are seeking
irony
and aiming to demolish the subject and without
any clear goal of finding a solution or
reaching any desirable conclusion because any conclusion can
then be destroyed through through this process of
Ifrat and Tafrej.
So so you can smash it all over
again if you if so there there's no,
aim
at finding some solution.
And
where where the problem is that, if,
it's a form of escapism as well. It's
you're escaping
to what you are come what what you're
supposed to do. You're escaping responsibility.
You're escaping
being locked into anything anyone says and anything
anyone does. You're it's it's a form of
escapism.
Extreme questioning
of of this sort,
is a form of escapism.
And there's a an example of it in
the Quran where Allah,
relates the story of Musa alaihi salaam. Moses,
when he said to his people,
that Allah that Musa said to his people
that Allah has ordered you to slaughter a
cow.
Now what if you
there isn't a simpler sentence than this.
Straightforward slaughter a cow. You find a cow
when you kill a cow. You slaughter a
cow. But what was the response? The response
is that you drill into the question. The
first is the is the they they said,
that you take us on the ridicule. That
that's the first response of wanting to escape
the the what is being said. And then,
further he says
that, oh, I seek refuge in Allah from
becoming,
among the arrogant. But then they say they
go on further. They said they they say,
oh,
they they say,
that, call upon your lord to explain to
us, to make it care to us what
it is. In other words, what is a
cow? What is the cow?
And so he
he he obliges. He says,
and he says and then he he goes
on.
Musa said, Allah says it's a cow that
is neither that is neither old nor virgin,
but median between these 2, between.
And so do what you are commanded, but
then Allah brings them back to the command.
Like, look. Why are you getting involved in
all
why are you going into
and drilling in going into saying that this
is, you know, it's, do what you are
commanded. But then they come back again, they
said,
call
it Oh oh oh, yes. Ask your lord
to tell us what is the color of
the cow.
So then he obliges again. He says, okay.
Well,
it it is. He says,
They asked about what about the color. He
said it is a yellow color, bright in
color. So he's adding now to the to
their to to the specification
that it's a bright in color, and it's
pleasing to the observers, to those who see
it. So
but that even that is not sufficient.
And then they come back again and ask,
and they said, oh, I'll do call us
ask your lord.
What is it? Let let him explain to
us.
Make it clear. What is it? What is
the cow?
Because all cows look alike to us. And
indeed, if Allah wills, we will be we
will be guided.
So and they put the blame now on
Allah, and then he comes back again. He
says he says, look.
Because Allah
has no limitations of how much he can
he can go on, and they realize that
that okay. If you if you're asking questions,
then I will continue, and I will show
you. I'll make it more and more explicit
to you.
So he
says, Allah says that look, it is a
cow neither trained to plow the earth nor
to irrigate the field, one free from fault
with no spot upon it.
By then, they realized that
this is never going to end, and he's
gonna it's gonna become more and more difficult.
So then they said, okay.
But now, oh, you have you have come
with the truth. So they slaughtered they slaughtered
her. They slaughtered the cow, but he said,
that they slaughtered it, but they would they
they they they could hardly do it.
So this skeptical attitude is often manifested in
the expressing expressive
in in excessive questioning, escapism.
So the point here is that if you
find yourself
wanting to ask lots of questions just for
the fun of it or
or criticize,
in order to feel good about yourself,
then there's a high chance that you might
be suffering
from some postmodernist
infections.
And,
one of those infections is known as hermeneutics.
This is,
why we find the so called reformers using
this term hermeneutics instead of
and exegesis.
And that's because hermeneutics
is both an interpretive tradition, and it's also
a philosophical tradition.
And what this does is that it provides,
the
hermeneutic
the the hermeneutic, the person, the hermeneutician,
where with a flexibility to accommodate
all the wider postmodernist
ideas of this deconstruction
in his work.
Now number 6.
Number 6 is that deconstruction
is
a postmodernist
agenda.
Right? Because
deconstructing Islam is one of the big postmodernist
agenda. I don't think I meant did did
I shift that one? One second. Let me
see. Yes.
But this is a postmodernist
agenda.
Deconstructing
Islam is a big postmodernist
agenda.
If someone has an agenda of a,
and they also have a sledgehammer,
They can walk through a neighborhood and decide,
you know, and decide which buildings to demolish
and which to leave standing.
So
as one person puts it, they says that
in the 19
nineties,
postmodernists were teaching schools in teaching students in
in schools and universities that facts,
truths were were.
There were illusions.
And history consisted solely of competing narratives.
That one in
that
none of which that all of history
are are are only competing narrative, and none
is should be privileged over another.
Yet
exceptions were made
for certain histories. Okay. So
you can choose what to destroy and what
not to destroy. So,
they usually have an agenda, and this is
what is clear from what we can see
in the way they are conducting
this
philosophy is that, they made exceptions for the
Holocaust. And I'm gonna quote here because I
don't want you to think that this is
my opinion.
Wein, Francis Wein explains. He says fearful of
being associated with the Nazis,
some relativists, say, the postmodernists,
staged a tactical retreat by accepting that the
facts of the holocaust
closed off the possibility of using certain types
of emplotment
to describe it
while still reserving the right to treat almost
everything else as fictional narrative, end quote.
So postmodernists
can be selective with their agenda,
and they often are. This is what you
have to remember. They often are because deconstructing
Islam
is a big postmodernist
agenda.
The it it is important, therefore, for Muslims
to be aware of the fact that they
are there is a concerted
effort to ignite a postmodernist revolution in Islam,
which
they use
which they want to use as a catalyst
for demolition.
In fact, they have worked very hard to
ensure that they did. They they had worked
very hard to ensure that the Iranian revolution
in 1979
would be the first first postmodern revolution in
the world.
But things,
didn't go according to plan,
despite the lengthy preparations in France
and Foucault's
tireless efforts in Tehran. Yeah. Yes. Foucault, the
the guru,
the the postmodernist guru,
He he wrote 13 essays in support of
the of the Iranian revolution,
and
he he was the one. He's the one
who is argue who argued that truth claims,
are only systems of exclusion by which power
is maintained.
And the power the the this has designs
of he he he had,
large designs of spreading
the his deconstruction model all across the Muslim
world. So he went to Iran. They they
would they put high hopes in the Iranian
revolution, but things didn't look according to plan
it. But Foucault was was in the heart
of it, and and lots of other postmodernists
were were looking forward to the Iranian revolution
to become the first postmodern revolution.
And now
because postmodernists
often dabble in forms of liberation theology,
which is,
support for
underdogs, support for people who who are suffering,
support for for people who who have problems,
feminism, minorities, etcetera,
And they do this as a form of
PR exercise for their ideas.
So when Muslims see this, some Muslims get
attracted to it without realizing
that
this is a bait. This is a this
is a very,
attractive bait, but it comes with a with
a lion connected to some dangerous hooks.
Because once you subscribe to the idea of
hermeneutic disc
the deconstruction,
you you subscribe to accepting that hermeneutic this
deconstruction
is a tool to demolish the the narratives
of other people,
it is only a matter of time before
that wrecking ball swings back into your direction,
towards you, your religion, your belief, your narratives,
and your every word.
The same hermeneutic
deconstruction
that was at play in the supporting of
the Iranian revolution is the same that is
now calling on schools in, or Iranian Muslim
countries.
Schools that are in receipt of USAID, and
this is latest. This is a few weeks
ago,
in the 3rd world. Schools all around the
3rd world that are receiving USAID
are are being instructed now to avoid the
use of the words
mother and father.
Yes. That in they they have to use
parent and parent now,
of course, as if
those children studying in those schools were not
born of of a mother.
So postmodern
thought and attitudes have
significant consequences for people all around the world
in general and for people of faith in
particular and for us, especially in the in
the realm of attempts
to force a European style reformation into Islam.
And
we don't have time to talk about this
in detail.
Maybe I can talk about this another time.
Reformation, talk about that as another big fit
now.
Every few years, what you see is that
someone appears on the world stage promoted as
the new Muslim Martin Luther,
the new Muslim reformer,
or the new Muslim
thinker.
And when you look at their works, all
of these, without exception, all of them, I've
been watching them for 20 years. When you
look at their works, you find that all
of it is saturated with hermeneutic deconstruction
and postmodernist
mumbo jumbo.
And if you follow the trail of their
demolitions, the things that they're demolishing, they would
with this hermeneutic,
Ifrat and tafrit,
you will see that the structures that they
leave standing
is a is it maps perfectly
all or or overall the western sensibilities while
trampling common sense Muslim narratives, traditions, and voices.
There is
not enough time, as I said, to speak
about reformation, but perhaps next week.
The the point is that the postmodernist,
the post,
the post truth mindset
is thriving in our world today in in
the arts, in academia,
in the media, in politics.
And most of you, and we don't have
to go far in in the Trump era.
You might have heard might have heard, Kellyanne
Conway saying, talking about alternative facts and Rudy
Giuliani speaking about truth isn't truth. These pronouncements
are not by accident.
There are
things that are coming out
that has roots roots in this postmodern.
Even the current Biden administration that is now
promoting this
idea that the term mother should not be
used in
in Muslim countries. They they invited a 140
heads of schools in in Kosovo
and trained them about these ideas about this
idea that if you're going to receive USAID,
then this this is the training. The the
the the,
the application forms that you're going to get,
the application forms that you're that you're going
to produce, you have to avoid using terms
like mother and father. So language
is a
major target of the postmodernist,
march.
Our world today is in a ethical crisis
and it and postmodern philosophy is at the
heart of it. And it's our may it
is the
one of the major fitna major fitna of
our time.
As Muslims, we need to remember that once
you've moved away from common sense
and, and you've moved away from truth,
then there's no place to go beyond that
other than into falsehood and into ruin. And
this is clearly what Allah says in the
Quran.
For it is Allah, your lord, the truth.
Allah is known as Al Haqq, and this
is the beauty of Arabic. Is that it
ties it ties our belief in our God
with truth, with with his name, Al Haqq,
the truth. So he says,
that he is your Lord. He is Allah,
your Lord, the truth.
And
what can be
what can be beyond truth except error?
So
bear in mind that there is an concerted
effort to use this
and this,
extreme
analysis
and ignoring common sense language
to destroy language and through it have there
are other agendas.
And finally, the 7th,
point to bear in mind, which is to
to remember the the warning of Rasool Allah
And in this, we return to the concept
of fitna fitna scheme of corruption
in the in in the skeptical attitude of
drilling down with questions for the dopamine fix.
If you look at what Allah says about
language in the Quran,
and here the answer is to what,
they argue about
definitions that, you know, language is
incomplete and using girdles girdles incompleteness
theorem that
no matter what what definition you give, it
would always be incomplete.
Allah is saying very clearly here that in
language in the Quran when he spoke about
spoke about the Quran.
It
is he.
He he's saying it is he it is
he Allah who sent down to you o
Muhammad the book in it are verses
that are precise that are clear you you
you will understand it clear verses like slaughter
the cow that is one And these are
the foundations of the book. You the foundation
in that you can practice Islam. And there
are others that are unspecific,
you know, they have, they're allegorical.
And and for those in whose heart so
he said
that those as for those in whose hearts
there is deviation from the truth, what do
they do? They follow that which is unspecific.
They go after these on these,
unclear
allegorical and seeking discord
and seeking
interpretation suitable to themselves.
K? But
the
and it is only Allah who knows the
true interpretation.
And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge,
they say what do they say? They
say
that we believe in all of it, that
it is all from our Lord.
And no one will be reminded except those
who those of understanding.
Now the word that is used here, he
says,
this description
of the,
the clear for us that literally means that
the the
between these two types of language the clear
language and the unclear language. The unclear language
is known as
literally resemblance
you
know in word or in meaning
which is not readily meaning that a word
which does not readily is not readily the
meaning of which is not readily apparent. And
to delve into such things, into
in an excessive manner is in fact
a scheme of fitna. You can it can
be used for scheme of fitna, for scheme
of escape.
Was the same word that the Bani Israel
where the the people of Musa alaihi salam
used the same word when they were prevaricating
and invading the slaughter. What did they say?
They said
that, oh, you know, the cows look alike
to us. That there is some
that the language. They address they they address
that that that you said cow, but
we're going to drill into the meaning of
cow. There are lots of cows, so which
cow?
That's the ifrat and tafrit,
which was, of course, a form of tafrit
in in in extreme questioning as an escape
from following the command.
And it is fitna. It is scheme of
corruption.
In a Sahih Hadith, the
about the Bukhari, and others,
it says,
was
asked about this verse, about the verse that
that I just read, the the verse that
this is the hadith.
That he was asked about this verse with
it where Allah explains
about language.
That look, language in the Quran, some are
that the the foundation of the book is
clear. You can understand that. But then there
are other verses that are not, not clear,
but and and he said
and he said
that if you see these people
who go after Tashabu,
who are who delve in Teshavo,
either in in the unspecified the unspecified verse,
the people like they did here or like
ignoring clear verses and putting Teshavo, forging things
in them. He said if you ask they're
asking questions to create fitna,
then know that these are the people who
Allah has identified and has named here. So
keep away from them. Keep far away from
them. This is this is the command. This
is the, the advice of Rasool. So keep
keeping far away from them means keeping far
away from their ideas, keep not not accepting,
not using it, not internalizing it, and recognizing
it. You know, during the time of Omar
and Huaman and I said this is an
old problem. It's not a new problem. Yes.
Postmodernism
is an is is the latest iteration of
it, but there's no problem. Even in time
of Muhammad,
came one of the the people there, and
he he started ask asking lots of questions
lots of questions
in the same manner to create fitna, lots
of questions like the like the postmodernists do,
you know, oh, ah, I got him. I
asked this question, then I stumped everyone.
Yeah. I'm good. I'm I'm I'm not really
interested in the answer. So he came and
he he he started asking questions,
about verses in
in the the unclear verses. And Omar
realized what was going on here, and he
reprimanded him. He smacked him. And when he
smacked him, he said, and then he said,
do you understand? He said, yes. Yes. Yes.
I understand now. But then he exiled him
according to some reports, sent him away because
keep keeping distance as
you you should be warned about them. Get
get keep away from them. So he sent
to me. He exiled him from from Madina.
The warning is to avoid people who use
excessive questioning for fitna, and
that is
And do not mix truth with falsehood
or conceal it.
And conceal the truth while you know it.
So that is we've run out of time.
I'm I'm not gonna be able to read
anything more, but that's the message for today.
You remember these 7 points keep them in
your mind and then you will start to
see you will notice what's going
on.
May Allah
protect us from this fitna
that is the fitna of this world and
the pain of the next life Insha'Allah
and we have conveyed and listened to the
advice of your beloved Nabi Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam
o Allah grant us the tawfiq to be
steadfast
in the following
of the straight path, the middle path without
going into
without going into excess.
Thank
you. Yes. Do we have any questions?
No?
Okay.
Well,
yes, there's a lot there to digest. You
might need to listen to it again and,
take notes,
so so you can,
prepare yourself. What you need to remember is
that,
in both in in relation to
truth, in both objections,
we
we have an answer in the Quran. The
Quran is our overarching
framework. The Quran
is
the is the test that through which we
decide what is right and what is wrong,
and it pulls everything together.
And there is clear acceptance in the Quran
that, yes, there is that there are 2
types of language,
but we will not use the sledgehammer.
We'll not adopt this approach to destroy
our legacies, to destroy
our foundations because that's what's happening as we
can see today with the madness that is
going on with the attack on language and
the forcing of, all sorts of,
structures on language. May Allah
protect us all from this.