Islamica Community Forums - View Single Post - who do you follow?
View Single Post
  #17  
Old 08-20-2008, 01:38 AM
jinnzaman's Avatar
jinnzaman Offline
Senior Member
jinnzaman is thinking of what to say.
 

Joined: Jul 2003
Location: Ard
Age: 27
Posts: 4,971
jinnzaman has a reputation beyond reputejinnzaman has a reputation beyond reputejinnzaman has a reputation beyond reputejinnzaman has a reputation beyond reputejinnzaman has a reputation beyond reputejinnzaman has a reputation beyond reputejinnzaman has a reputation beyond reputejinnzaman has a reputation beyond reputejinnzaman has a reputation beyond reputejinnzaman has a reputation beyond reputejinnzaman has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to jinnzaman
Default Re: who do you follow?

The first time I followed a group of 'Ulema seriously were Deobandi 'Ulema and I was hardcore Hanafi and didn't really recognize the concept of ikhtilaaf until I met some mureeds of Shaykh Nuh and Habib 'Umar and then I got attracted to classical Ashari Sufism and was a Maliki for a while but I returned to the Hanafi madhab because I found it difficult to access Maliki 'Ulema on a regular basis. Whenever I have a question about anything I first go to a Deobandi 'Alim and then other traditionalist sources like Sunnipath. I rarely study aqeedah or fiqh from a Salafi perspective because I find that its not very consistent or as advanced as the classical sources. I also shy away from Ikhwani-esque 'Ulema and modernist-influenced fiqh because I feel its inherently (although accidentally) Eurocentric.

However, with that said, I study every perspective including Salafism, Islamism, Shi'ism, and the Western perspective.

In terms of Ilm ul Kalam, I think its useful in certain fields and not useful in others. Its useful in organizing the fields of knowledge and in most philosophy classes (especially those pertaining to logic and metaphysics), but its underdeveloped against scientific atheism. There are a lot of contemporary 'Ulema who have made ilm ul kalam relevant, such as Maulana Ashraf Thanvi's critique of modernism. Anyone who says 'ilm ul kalam' is irrelevant today should read this work and the commentaries on it and realize how proficient it still is today.

In terms of history, right now I'm studying Ibn Khaldun independently and hope to sit down with a local 'Alim and get some perspective on that.

My general view is that Islam doesn't need to be reformed and many of the arguments for reforming it are based on mistaken assumptions or weak inferences. To me Islam is perfect and the decline of the Ummah is due to the flaws of the Muslim community and the methodology for revival is to focus on its spiritual revival while also studying the material causes for its decline in order to maximize the potential for a full fledged revival.
Reply With Quote