The traditional/modernist debate

[amatullah]

In the Name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

Comments

clearing it up.

[amatullah]

I read over what I just posted, and it seems from reading it one gets a sense that I'm inferring that faith and reason are diametrically opposed. This is not the case; reason and faith are on the same side! It is people who come to disbelief because they do not reason properly.

Additionally, the main argument the 'modernist' poses is that, what is most keeping the American born Muslim from faith is the community. They see customs, traditions, and dogma that seem totally irrational and think, "can this possibly be the truth?" Thus, my main concern, is the means to achieving reason. [Jeffery Lang, who gave the speech which I mentioned in the post advocates targeting the "nonessential" traditions that may put up barriers between the religion and those who's faith has been shaken. My question is: First, what are these "traditions" based upon? (surely, we cannot discard them if they are based on sunnah). And second, where do we draw the line for what is "nonessential" and what isn't?]

Re: clearing it up.

[yunus_wesley]

where do we draw the line for what is "nonessential" and what isn'tWhat I've found for learning traditional Islam is to have a teacher whom I trust. This is quite traditional; having a shaykh, shaykhah, murshid or imam you trust, respect, love, and in whom you find the light and fragrance of their Islam in their family, their work, their practices, their words and manners. From a guide like that, someone whose presence reminds you clearly you are in the presence of Allah ta`ala and following in the way of His Beloved and His slave Muhammad, peace be with him & the prayer of Allah; from someone like that, you can trust what they say about tradition

[na1ma]

sister, sayyid qutb was in fact a re-former, a modern thinker, a revivalist and in fact not on the right path