ash-Sharif Ḥatim bin ‘Ārif al-‘Awnī
ash-Sharif Ḥatim bin ‘Ārif al-‘Awnī is a faculty member at the College of Da’wa and Usūl-ud-Dīn at Umm al-Qura University in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. He has served two terms in the Consultative Assembly of Saudi Arabia and has written on a number of topics addressing contemporary Muslim responses to modernity and inter-Muslim sectarianism, most notably between Salafis and Traditionalists (Ash’arī/Matūrīdī).
The following is a translation of an article by ash-Sharīf Ḥātim bin ‘Ārif al-‘Awnī, originally published in Arabic on August 16, 2019 on his website. Given the modern phenomenon of rise to prominence and public authority based on fame through social media platforms without having gone through any training in the subject matter one wishes to speak on, al-‘Awnī offers three criteria to distinguish between genuine attempts at rejuvenating Islamic discourse to address the imperatives of a changing world while remaining true to Islamic principles, and those seeking to change the religion so that it fits neatly within the dominant intellectual and social norms of a world in which God is no longer.
Most people conflate between the real possessor of regenerative and restoring [religious] discourse (tajdīd) with the possessor of adolescent intellectualism who claims to call for such regenerative restoration [of Islam in the name of reform]. This is because each of them criticizes [scholarly] inertia, differs in some of their opinions mainstream fatwas, and is not beholden to every [scholarly] position in the Islamic tradition.
While this conflation does not befall actual specialists [in the Islamic tradition], for they can clearly discern between the scholar and the intellectual adolescent as the truthful can be discerned from the liar, many attempt to make the distinction between them are in the same way scholarly specialization is differentiated based on academic degrees; that so and so has specialized in Islamic law and therefore has the right to exert efforts in the regenerative and restoring religious discourse, but the other so and so is a doctor or an engineer and therefore has no right to do the same.
This differentiation is not correct, for how many a possessor of a degree or has a PhD in a specific area of the Islamic tradition, yet is similar to a commoner in that area of specialty, or is ossified or sectarian [in their thinking] in a way that makes them lack objectivity, or obtuse and dull-minded even if they have a PhD and is a graduate supervisor, or the dean of an Islamic studies college, or even more than that among religious-based appointments. [On the other hand], how many a physician or an engineer have learned the sacred sciences and became more proficient in them than those carrying those false testimonies [i.e. official degrees in Islamic studies].
Degrees and academic appointments are not what differentiate between intellectual adolescents and a real regenerative restorer, even though these can act as proxies that support the distinction. Rather, the real differences between them are:
1. The opinions of the intellectual adolescent destroy the Islamic sciences, either explicitly in their statements or by their implications, in contrast to the real regenerative restorer whose restoration is built on exalting Islamic sciences explicitly and by implication. For even if they both critique some positions in the tradition, there is a vast difference between the one destroying the tradition and one elevating its edifice, and the one belittling real scholars and imams of the religion in a way that diminishes the trust in their knowledge and those exalting them and bolstering their status … what a vast difference between these [two types of people]
Intellectual adolescents quite often veil this goal of their discourse, either consciously or unconsciously. They claim to exalt the Islamic sciences and its scholars, but the goal of their discourse and its inevitable consequence is bringing down these sciences and its imams, because they present them as ignoramuses who contradict rational intuitions and clear imperatives that none other than fools and ignoramuses would contravene. Hence, those influenced by them will lose trust in these sciences which these scholars are their imams, since they are [presented to be] of such dimwittedness and imbecility.
Of course, the ossified types enter through this door and almost spoil this difference, by turning some of those who exalt their schools into imams, when they are nothing more than students of knowledge and preachers. They make them into imams, but people find their opinions to be of total invalidity, with mistakes not of the kind scholars make, but of the kind ignoramuses make. Hence, people say: if those are the imams according to you, then those whom you call intellectual adolescents are more deserving of being called imams than them.
But the one given success is not one who does not make the differed upon imamah of one person the same as the agreed upon imamah of another’s, and does not make the claims of sectarian and ossified types about the imamah and knowledge of their latter and contemporary scholars equivalent to the imamah of those who set the sciences and completed their establishment. In reality, there is not similarity between the two, except in the way dirt looks like rubble, or brass looks like gold, or beads look like pearl and coral.
2. The intellectual adolescent rejects even unequivocal and clear rulings (al-qaṭ’iyāt) in the religion, while the regenerative restorer is the most adhering to them.
Of course when the ossified types enter into this area of difference, they almost spoil it for people (as they have in the above mentioned difference), because they turn presumptive rulings (aẓ-Ẓaniyāt) into unequivocal rulings, and vice versa. Hence, people become confused to the point where many foolish ones believe [Islamic rulings] are completely relative so that no ruling considered unequivocal for one group except that it may be presumptive for another.
But the one given success is able to distinguish between the unequivocal ruling that does not allow for doubt in its certainty, and the presumptive ruling that does not allow for doubt in its presumption, and the ruling that allows for difference regarding its certainty and presumption, as well as the approach to dealing with it as I have expounded about this in my book al-Muḥkamāt (The Unequivaocals)
3. The alleged regenerative restoration of the intellectual adolescent is not regenerative restoration in reality. Rather, it is a change, an innovation, and an alteration of the tradition and its sciences. As for the regenerative restorer, his work is built on removing the dust from the truth of the tradition, extracting it from the rubble of mistakes, and correcting of its path using its own tools.
I have often said to bring the meaning closer: whomsoever you see bringing an old painting that is withered, claiming to restore it using other than its original colours, and with a different paintbrush than the one used to paint it, know they want to change the painting, not restore it. As for the one you see using the same colours and the same paintbrush as the original artist used who brought it into being, then know they are truthful in their attempt to restore it, because they are using the same tools that painted it.
Like so for the tradition: whomsoever you see striving to restore it using its tools, this is the one who you cannot cast doubt into their attempts to restore from this direction. As for the one you see claiming a restoration using tools other than the tradition’s tools, know they are a distorter and a changer seeking to deform the Islamic sciences, not restore them nor complete their building.
So, whomsoever you see take their starting point in their restoration an attack against the sciences of the Sunnah, for example, and its sources which scholars have agreed upon their majestic status, know this person is a changer deceivingly dressing up as a restorer.
And whomsoever you see taking their starting point in their alleged restoration an attack against consensus (ijma’) or analogical reasoning (qiyas), know this is a restorer in intellectual adolescence in which he was preceded by Ḍirar ibn ‘Amro and Abū Muslim al-Aṣbahānī and others among the intellectual adolescents of our Islamic history, which no age is devoid of the likes of whom.
For whoever wants the Truth, it is incumbent upon them to distinguish between intellectual adolescents (and their existence is inevitable, especially in this age when fame is not built on foundations of knowledge), and the real regenerative restoring scholar.
