OZZYCDA

No, I am still Muslim for those who read the title and potentially freaked out. What do I mean by "losing my religion?" Well it is a song by REM, covered by Lacuna Coil, and I have been listening to both versions lately. The lyrics make more sense to me, or maybe I am just projecting into the lyrics, either way, it works for me. I look at what is going on with me as an evolution of religious belief. This has been going on for awhile now, as you all no doubt have seen with my videos and blog posts that I have been doing for the past year or so. I have been speaking about looking at Islam from different points of view, acknowledging that "orthodoxy" is a subjective label that any group can claim for their own.

Recently I thought that if I followed the Al-Andalus way of looking at Islam(i.e. Ibn Rushd, Ibn Arabi and Ibn Hazm) that would work for me and I could keep going with a very strong Muslim identity. I was met with some hostility and from others some moments of fascination. I have to admit that this stance of mine was a very small minority. In fact I don't know if anyone nowadays in the Muslim community actually looks into the thinkers of Al-Andalus as a whole and accepts what they have written regarding Islamic theology. I know there are followers of the Zahiri school of fiqh, that might be it. As I said I thought I had found another strong foundation. That was before I watched Tom Holland's documentary "Islam the Untold Story".

I encourage everyone to watch this movie:
http://vimeo.com/49317210

Needless to say, this movie totally rocked my foundations. I had never been exposed to the criticism of the Islamic traditions, history and hadiths. I also never bothered to consider how do we know the events of the Islamic origin story actually happened, or rather how do we know the details actually took place? I started reading Patricia Crone and others who have analyzed the science of hadith and the history of early Islam. It would seem that to accept the hadiths as 100% authentic is not the strongest foundation. Nor is that what many Muslims have concluded. Many a scholar have debated different hadiths and collections since the concept of hadiths were established and written down 200 years after the death of the prophet. There is convincing evidence by many scholars that to be critical of the hadith is the best way to go.

Now many of you reading this are going to wonder how could I come to these conclusions? It would take me several blogposts to explain and cite all the books I have been reading. I basically read the works of many major Islamic Studies scholars and academics that might not necessarily be Muslim, but who don't hold some bigoted grudge against the religion of Islam. They have a honest assessment of the sources of Islam and they are looking at it with a critical eye. I think, as I have said in recent videos of mine, that this is a necessary step in the evolution of any believer. One most be critical of one's own faith to grow. I did the same thing with Christianity(explored it's history, scriptural interpretation, and comparative theology) when I was finished I left Christianity. It would be hypocritical of me to not be consistent with myself and view Islam in the same way.

I was met with some criticism when I began talking about the historical issues with a literal reading of the Quran in the light of objective history and archeology. I was told to "just believe" the literal reading of the stories found in the Quran and not to question their historicity. Nor to even attempt to offer a more symbolic/metaphorical reading of the text(such has been done by such great thinkers as Joseph Campbell, Carl Jung and others.) When I mentioned the apparent issue with a literal reading of Quranic verses and hadith in the context of science, I actually saw no strong counter-argument to what I was saying.

I still thought that I could maintain a strong Muslim foundation even with these views of a non-literal reading of the text of the Quran and hadith. Yet with the watching of Tom Holland's movie and reading several books that have been critical of Islamic tradition, I found myself questions everything. It brought up theological points that I have been struggling with, such as the concept of predestination and freewill and also the duality of heaven and hell. These have been topics that Muslims themselves have debated since the early  years, so again I have no issue considering alternatives to these theological topics. Some of the earliest school of thought were centered on these pivotal topics.

I haven't felt drawn to go to the Mosque very much and yet I have missed the sense of community I once felt there. I attended an Unitarian Universalist church which was a great experience. There was no mention of forced creed or dogma. Everyone was allowed to just be themselves and bring whatever beliefs they held to the table without judgement or issue. I will no doubt return to this place of worship as it seems like a neutral place. The Unitarian Univeralist  principles certainly appeal to me.

I just feel like I need to take a step back and read a lot of the material I have access to that has more of universal attitude to theology. So I will be reading more of the works of Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell. I will also be adding the theological and scientist Emanuel Swedenborg to this list. I have really been fascinated by his psycho-spiritual/universal look at the afterlife and theology. 

I will be reading the works of Jeffery Lang(a modern Muslim thinker) he looks at the critical views of Islam and the traditional view and tries to find a middle ground. Also Muhammad Asad's works as well as he appeals to me. Michael Muhammad Knight cannot be forgotten as his attitude towards Islam is still very much at the forefront of my mind. Perhaps Islam has to be so dynamic that it has room for many views and points of view. This has to include those who don't feel like being within the Orthodox Sunni point of view. If Islam is to be a world religion it has to have room for members of the world in all of its variation.

So I am not sure where I will be standing tomorrow. I feel like I am heading towards a more "Quran-only/Quranist" progressive/liberal view of Islam. Again Unitarian Univeralism also appeals to me, and one can be a Muslim and a member of UU at the same time. So I am still the sponge looking for answers, I haven't yet committed to anything solid yet. I am hoping these books I plan on reading in the near future will shed more light on my evolution, this spiritual journey of mine. Thanks for reading.

So I have been asked to comment and explain where I stand as of.....today...regarding my personal views on theology, Islam specifically. Where do I stand as a Muslim, considering all the personal changes I have experienced with regards to my views on religion that I have documented in my most recent videos on Youtube and posts on this blog.

I have had some people ask what is the deal with my statements about the afterlife. I suppose I should explain how I approach theology, understanding God and scripture, as well as prophethood. I did discuss this a couple posts back, but I will mention some details that are rather new. I have grounded my foundation primarily in the theological opinions of Ibn Rushd aka Averroes. If you want full details read his two major works which can be found online here:

http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ir/fasl.htm

http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ir/tt/index.html

Ibn Rushd did not make taqlid on any theological school of thought. He speaks of what he agree and disagrees with the Asharites, Mu'tazliah, other philosophers, Hanbalites and Zahirites when it comes to theology. He believed and taught that God has commanded us to observe the natural world around us, ask questions, and understand ourselves. Beyond science, philosophy is commanded upon believers as a tool to understand reality. Philosophy and theology do not contradict, but are rather "sister" paths to the same goal and understanding. In other words, they both seek to understand the same thing and compliment each other in specific contexts. More details of this can be seen with the text linked above. Ibn Rushd attempted to reconcile the conflicting views of the various schools of thought of theology. There are so many topics I could discuss in this post, but I will leave it up to the reader to read Ibn Rushd's text and perhaps I will comment and discuss topics in the future. For now, I will explain my views on the afterlife based on my current understanding and agreement with Ibn Rushd and others.

With reading scripture regarding the afterlife, there are three ways of understanding what the text is describing. Most people read the text literally and understand the symbols being used in the Quran, for example, as literally describing the places of the afterlife. The second view is that of the theologians, while believing the text is describing a literal place, they seek to understand the details of these literal places. The third perceptive is that of the philosophers, who seek to understand the text in a symbolic/metaphorical context if the verses fall into the category that they may be interpreted as such. This can be determined by Imam Ghazali's criterion. Also the Mu'tazaliah who stated that if a verse/hadith appear to contradict what we know rationally, scientifically, psychologically etc. it must be understood symbolically and not literally. Also verses might have different opinions regarding their true nature. According to Ibn Rushd, the verses detailing the afterlife fall into this category of difference of opinion. Hence, according to Ibn Rushd, a believer  must not deny the existence of the hereafter, but the exact nature of the hereafter is up for debate. Again, reading Ibn Rusdh's text on the subject will add to the reader's knowledge on this opinion.

I have learned that Ibn Rushd was able to reconcile philosophy(specifically Plato and Aristotle) with Islamic theology. He was critical of Imam Ghazali and while he did defend philosophy against Imam Ghazali's Asharite assault, he was also critical of the past Muslim philosophers(Farabi and Ibn Sina). However he refuted Imam Ghazali by showing two elements: one, the philosophers themselves held beliefs that did not originate with Plato and Aristotle and such Ghazali did not refute his primary opponents and second, Ibn Rushd refuted his assertions regarding specific topics the philosophers believed in.

I agree with Al-Kindi's views, which are agreed upon by Ibn Rushd, when he said:
"We ought not to be embarrassed of appreciating the truth and of obtaining it wherever it comes from, even if it comes from races distant and nations different from us. Nothing should be dearer to the seeker of truth than the truth itself, and there is no deterioration of the truth, nor belittling either of one who speaks it or  conveys it."

http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/kindi/index.html
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/al-kindi/

Also Farabi believed in the Perennial Philosophy which I have discussed in past posts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_philosophy#Islam


Islam

So I decided to respond to Farhan's video with some initial comments and thoughts, here as a blog post.

His video that I am responding to can be watched here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyquzjUYThI&feature=plcp

My video that I make reference to in this post can be watched here:
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqohFls1dEg&feature=watch_response_rev

He begins with discussing his views about Agnosticism and Gnosticism and how a person can be both at the same time. He also argues everyone is either an Agnostic Theist or an Agnostic Atheist. We simply cannot know metaphysical truths and as such are all Agnostic by nature. Only through subjective mystical experiences can be we have a taste of the Transcendent.

He goes on to mention Lao Tzu, since the Tao is beyond our understanding. Yet I would argue that while the Tao is beyond our understanding, Lao Tzu knew the Tao, believed it existed, was totally certain of this fact. If I say I don't know something am I an Agnostic? I would say there are things we believe/know and things we do not have a clear picture of. For example, my intuition tells me for a fact that there is a God and an afterlife. It is like the allegory of the boy who is raised on the island by himself and yet he comes to understand through his own personal experiences, outside of religion, that there is a God and to follow virtue. This is an allegory that was written by Islamic philosophers to show that one can come to understand and know God through their own personal experiences.

I take the approach of Ibn Rushd(Averroes) that we know and have solid evidence for belief in specific topics, such as God and the afterlife. However we can admit that people have different opinions about, say the afterlife, and as such shows that we don't know for certain the nature of the afterlife. However one can say that they believe and to some extent "know" that there is one, even if it beyond our understanding. It is like scratching the surface and yet we know the surface is there. Same with getting "the taste" that Farhan mentioned. We get the taste of limited knowledge and yet we are getting a taste of something that confirms something for us, confirms our belief and knowledge.

I can agree that spiritual experiences and mystics have a more direct, subjective experience than those who only follow science or philosophy to understand metaphysical truths. However there are those out there that might never have a mystical experience, only surface spiritual experiences, that still confirm for them the amazing reality of God. When Einstein talks about looking at his work and seeing the majesty of the cosmos, which confirmed for him the amazing qualities of "God" albeit in a Deistic context, that is still very important for someone like Einstein to understand. Therefore I say that with our understanding of personality types, there are those that mystical experiences aren't the easiest thing for them to grasp. It is not to say they will never grasp it, but those who are more intuitive, might have an easier job accomplishing this. Is the experience more important than concepts and mechanisms? I would say both are important. The objective and the subjective, the external and the spiritual, I would argue one needs both to be complete. So that is why I cannot say mysticism trumps philosophy.

When Farhan discusses the four Imams(Shafi, Malik, Hanbal and Hanifa) he says they were against Kalam. However I am confused by the way he talks about Kalam. It seems to me, so far, that when discussing Kalam he discusses the Mu'tazaliah. However, what about the Ashari? Are they not a school of Kalam? I believe they are. If they are, than there have been a number of Sunni Ashari Muslim who follow the Orthodox schools of fiqh that were founded by the four Imams. Since that is a fact, than one can say that if one follows the schools of fiqh, regardless of what the founders may have said about Kalam, there have been plenty of scholars that have accepted Kalam. Plus, there have been Mu'tazaliah scholars who followed the schools of fiqh as well. Hence we see the variety when it comes to those who understood Kalam.

Some people have commented on my video, arguing about the background of Ibn Sina. It is a fact that historians debate about Ibn Sina's background. Was he a Shia, Ismaili, Orthodox Sunni Muslim? Some people argue about this. However, it is a fact that he was a philosopher. As a result, most Sunni Muslims of the Ashari, Hanbali or Salafi persuasion would not agree with him. This is why Imam Ghazali attempted to refute him. This is why Ibn Rushd had to clarify that the view of Ibn Sina did not actually represent Plato and Aristotle and hence both Ibn Sina were mistaken as well as Imam Ghazali's refutations.

I agree that labels are simply labels. However I would argue that they are important for who we are. They are a part of our identity, that is, religious or philosophical labels. They are verbal representations of our belief foundations. As such, one can admit the Perennial Philosophy and universal truths, but also call themselves by a certain label. This is why I take exception to Farhan saying we are all Agnostic. I don't agree with that label applying to everyone. I agree with Carl Jung when he said, once you know I thing you know it, you don't even need to be limited by belief. He said, when asked if he believed in God, he said he didn't need to believe, he knew God. Hence the statement: "If you know yourself you know God." Yes we are trying, as finite beings to understand metaphysical truths and concepts. Hence why, with our limited understanding we can scratch the surface and come to some sort of knowledge, faith and understanding. That is why I say it is a balance between knowing and not-knowing(at least maybe not knowing all the details.)

Also I agree we use symbols to understand concepts. That is why I take the approach of Carl Jung, Ibn Rushd and Muhammad Asad when looking at scripture.

I want to clarify something that Farhan said at the end of his video. He seem to imply that I was open to the idea of all being one, all being divine, that even Jesus might have been divine or God. Now he has said that I should watch four videos he linked with his video. I indeed will do that and make a video discussing those. One of these has to do with Jesus being God. I have to say, that as of right now, not having watched the video, I was NOT saying in my video that I could consider oneness of all things, all being divine, Jesus being God. I said, that such statements(i.e. of all being one and all being God, all being divine) is such profound statements, I cannot bring myself to believe or agree with them. Therefore at this point I DO NOT believe Jesus is or was God.

I do promise to watch the videos Farhan suggested in due course and make a video on my thoughts regarding them. I hope this serves as a decent response and I hope to make more videos discussing topics with Farhan in the near future. Thanks for reading!

Well I attempted to make a Youtube video regarding this topic, but some times the internet works against you, the video would not upload successfully. So I am doing this as a blog post. I guess this is better considering that I can focus on the topic at hand.

This is a response to the user Anons who commented on my post "Personal Update". I want to thank the user for his comments. As I stated I don't want to try convincing or arguing with anyone, however I do wish to discuss these topics in a mild but constructive manner. I will repost the comments made by Anons and then respond accordingly.

I wanted to add a few things to my previous post, just to clarify some things mentioned as I am sure I confused a lot of people. After giving a long explanation of my journey to my current point of view I explained what my personal thoughts about religion and God are as of today. I want to be clear that I still do not mind referring to myself as a Muslim. I just can relate to Farhan Qureshi when he stated that most Muslims(Sunni Orthodox) would not consider HIM a Muslim. I am sure the same thing could be applied to me. No doubt some will view me as leaving the religion(I do think I have left Orthodox Sunni Islam) or at least that of joining a misguided sect or a heretic.

So, many people have been wondering what my reaction has been to reading the Islamic Philosophers and Imam Ghazali's "The Incoherence of the Philosophers". It has certainly been a journey, one that started roughly this time last year. It began in my comparative religion class where my theological foundation was rocked by what I learned about ancient Sumerian and Egyptian religion. That information lead me on a quest to research the historicity and theology behind the Exodus story, which I have well documented on my Youtube channel and on here: I posted my final paper on the subject here on this blog.