Propagating Shadh (Fringe) Views in Da'wah

[Deleted L]

Propagating Shadh (Fringe) Views in Da'wah​

By Bassam Zawadi

Several Muslims opt for specific Islamic stances (I am mainly referring to theological stances or anything related to ethics) because they cannot ‘digest’ the mainstream stance on the specific matter. Some apologists present to them the ‘softer’ options (could be a minority opinion which is a best-case scenario, but unfortunately, fringe/shadh opinions are also being offered by some) if it could help them retain their Iman.

Using this approach is okay with multiple conditions and caveats attached; however, we must recognize that those who need to cling on to these more ‘lenient’ fringe opinions only do so because of a deficiency in them and not because they are intellectually entitled to and justified in their demands for these lenient rulings.

The deficiency could either be intellectual in the person’s approach to ethics (e.g., he fails to grasp that those ‘unpleasant’ stances could possibly/plausibly be legislated by Allah) or spiritual (e.g., his willingness to submit to God and subdue his personal moral inclinations is lacking). Regardless, the fact remains that it is a deficiency in the person who either needs to reorient his way of thinking or requires serious self-introspection regarding his spiritual state.

The one struggling with hudud has the problem. The one struggling with the idea of hell has the problem. The one struggling with gender roles has the problem. Not the other way around.

Why? It is because the person has baselessly already made up his mind about what Allah could or could not have legislated and ordained. With the majority of these “difficult issues,” a person who thinks correctly could see that there is no reason why Allah could not have possibly legislated these things.

Bear in mind that I am not saying that everyone who adopts a fringe opinion on a controversial issue is like that. It is possible that someone would have been happily willing to adopt the ‘uncomfortable’ mainstream stance if he was convinced of it; however, he adopted a fringe view due to a problem in how he researched the subject. That is fine, as mistakes do happen. Nevertheless, that is not always the case.

Hence, my point is that offering these fringe opinions is only a “temporary fix” at best. The foundational problem rooted in the person’s thought and spiritual state remains. An apologist cannot go on forever presenting this person with fringe opinions. He will eventually need to have to deal with the root of the problem. That is why we must teach people how to think properly about these issues, methodologically speaking.

As for those with spiritual issues, they only hide it through their outward intellectual objections. The cure to their problems is not rationally-based.

Du’at and apologists who like to present shadh views to cater to those weak in Iman seriously need to look several steps ahead.

Propagating Shadh (Fringe) Views in Da'wah

Several Muslims opt for specific Islamic stances (I am mainly referring to theological stances or anything related to ethics) because they cannot ‘digest’ the mainstream stance on the specific matter.

islamicdiscourse.substack.com

 

[Deleted L]

For example, if one is going to present a view disputing the saheeh ahadeeth on the age of Aisha (رضي الله عنها) when she got married, then he better make sure he is not opening the door to casting doubt on the credibility of other saheeh ahadeeth and initiate a trend whose trajectory will go to heretical places.

Similarly, if he is going to cite some fringe opinion in any Islamic discipline, he better make sure he presents it in a way where he is not just pretty much saying, “Oh hey! Look! A classical scholar who is giving us a way out! Great! Now I cannot be accused of being a modernist!” but is rather intelligently and wisely doing so in a manner where it is only okay in that very specific instant (and that is only when the situation is dire). Moreover, he needs to provide reasons for that (which is challenging to do; it is the reason why the view is fringe, to begin with).

If he does not, and he is just going to present shadh views laxly, then he has opened the door to having the deen altered and distorted. Remember now, who is being spoken to here? Whom is this being done for? The only reason the da’ee/apologist is presenting this fringe view, to begin with, is to assist those with weak Iman who are struggling intellectually, correct? Do we honestly think that such people will be responsible enough not to go the extra mile by making it a habit to “go fringe” whenever their desires please? The da’ee/apologist must think ahead.

A good apologist defends the deen. He truly defends it by assisting people to think the right way and have them come to know the limits of their intellect. He does not cater to the people’s weaknesses unless he has good reasons for thinking that the specific person in question will apostatize, and such things are determined on a case-by-case basis. He does not preach like this is the general rule and contributes to the proliferation and normalization of shadh views on a mass scale.

Another concerning development we are witnessing with some who support the propagation of shadh opinions for the purpose of apologetics is that it is okay to promote stances that do not with 100% certainty contradict the Qur’an and Sunnah.

This is a totally baseless and newly concocted rule. This rule creates a black or white scenario where either a stance is valid or major kufr. It is as if there is nothing in between where stances can be condemned (and harshly as well) while not reaching the status of heresy. This idea is alien to our scholarly tradition, where scholars also harshly and blanketly reject views they do not consider to be kufr.

Opinions can be rejected as blameworthy if they were reached through flawed methods of inquiry and exegesis; methods not rigorously tested and recognized by authorities in their respective disciplines (fiqh, tafsir, aqeedah, hadith, etc.) throughout the centuries.

This distorted method of apologetics is one whose ultimate aim is to please confused Muslims who are weak in their faith rather than providing robust intellectual defenses of the clear readings of scripture.

Such ‘apologists’ exhaust their energy and time engaging in gymnastic hermeneutics, trying to find any way to reach ad-hoc conclusions with the express aim of satisfying a morally and epistemically deficient standard of a confused individual. Of course, this method is blameworthy and should be censured harshly.

One could understand possibly engaging in such tactics a few times in private, isolated circumstances, but to make this approach habitual and standard for mass propagation is an evil innovation.

Do not the people engaging in this practice realize that this practice would eventually erode orthodoxy over time? Do they even care about orthodoxy?

Challenging these views and apologists and discouraging them from utilizing these tactics is essential. The last thing we need is representatives’ defending’ Islam cowering to the deficient standards of the weak in faith. Such apologists do not make us feel proud of our faith; on the contrary, it is an implicit admission on their part that they are incapable of defending Allah’s religion as He clearly communicated it.

Such apologists also need to wake up and realize that it is not their responsibility to save people from apostasy but to communicate Islam faithfully in the best way possible. Why are they so worried about the fate of others to the point that they are putting themselves at risk with Allah سبحانه وتعالى on the Day of Judgment by consciously engaging in exegetical gymnastics opposing the clear and apparent reading of His divine revelation accepted by centuries of scholarship, especially when no new evidence has been unearthed? They should worry about themselves, first and foremost.

Another problem with sharing shadh opinions for the purpose of apologetics on a mass level is that these shadh opinions end up getting introduced to people who have never heard of them and did not even need them to maintain their faith, to begin with, but on account of hearing them adopted them out of convenience because they feel that it is okay to do so.

Once again, sharing shadh opinions to selected people after certain conditions having been fulfilled in order to prevent them from apostatizing is one thing, while recklessly proliferating these shadh opinions meant to be buried in the books of fiqh and other disciplines and should only be relayed to laymen after having been filtered through the people of knowledge is another thing altogether. There is a severe lack of foresight amongst those engaging in this methodology.

Consider that person X holds the following shadh opinions:

Shadh opinion A: Also held by respected major scholar 1.

Shadh opinion B: Also held by respected major scholar 2.

Shadh opinion C: Also held by respected major scholar 3.

Shadh opinion D: Also held by respected major scholar 4.

Shadh opinion E: Also held by respected major scholar 5.

Shadh opinion F: Also held by respected major scholar 6.

Shadh opinion G: Also held by respected major scholar 7.

Shadh opinion H: Also held by respected major scholar 8.

Shadh opinion I: Also held by respected major scholar 9.

Shadh opinion J: Also held by respected major scholar 10.

Does person X have precedent for each of the shadh opinions he holds in isolation? Apparently so, but does he have precedent for adhering to all of them collectively? Not really. Person X appears to have a unique method that he follows that conveniently results in him adopting a host of several shadh opinions that no major scholar of repute is similar in holding.

So is person X a problematic figure? Most likely so, as what he lacks precedent in is his method of adopting opinions, though not the actual opinions themselves in isolation.

Recklessly propagating shadh views would eventually transform many people into person x, which is highly problematic.

Propagating Shadh (Fringe) Views in Da'wah

Several Muslims opt for specific Islamic stances (I am mainly referring to theological stances or anything related to ethics) because they cannot ‘digest’ the mainstream stance on the specific matter.

islamicdiscourse.substack.com